I don’t know how any conservative can stand to work for an organization like the WaPo and listen to their slanted coverage. But Hewitt couldn’t take it any more, a bit like Howard Beale in Network.

Here’s the video. Capehart’s incredibly off-putting attempt to convey the pretense not only that nothing much had occurred but that he didn’t have to answer Hewitt’s accusations is unintentionally revealing of how deeply biased and truly obnoxious he is. Ruth Marcus, another long-time shill for the left, was – to her temporary credit – at least more flummoxed by the whole thing. I’m not sure if she was also subject to a simultaneous technical problem, but the timing of it makes me think it was not an accident:

Hewitt actually quit the paper rather than just walking out of the interview:

“I have in fact quit the Post but I was only writing a column for them every six weeks or so,” Hewitt later told Fox News Digital.

I wonder what Bezos will say, or whether he’ll address it at all.

“Journalism” ceased to be journalism long ago, which is one of the main reasons we face the possibility that the execrable duo of Harris/Walz could well be elected next Tuesday.

[ADDENDUM: Found at Ace’s, this sarcastic comment:

Not knowing details of election fraud and just insisting that there was none at all is the way to go.

Well, okay, there was some, but it didn’t affect any outcomes.

How do I know it didn’t affect any outcomes? Because that’s impossible. People commit fraud in elections in order to have no effect on the outcome. It’s really more of a hobby.

Yes, that’s the way it’s spun by 98% of the press and every Democrat. As I’ve said so many times, once the voting rules are relaxed it becomes impossible to prove fraud and to prove it affected the outcome, except in a very few extremely local elections with only maybe a hundred votes or less cast, total, and minuscule vote differences between candidates. Other than that, it would be nearly impossible to prove and in any event courts are reluctant to hear the evidence in a timely fashion and to apply a remedy.

And what would a court-ordered remedy be, anyway? It can’t be to automatically award the win to the other candidate. It could be a do-over, but in a federal election that’s not going to happen. A fine wouldn’t matter, because the fraudsters often would consider it well-worth it to pay the price if the election is for national office. Criminal convictions? Maybe, but the proof would have to be ironclad and as I’ve already said, it’s very hard to prove.

No, it must be an ounce of prevention, because there really is no cure. Trust in elections is earned, not automatic. The stakes are way too high, the temptation too great, and the opportunities too available.