Liberal news blog claims a scalp, the Zuck stops here

President Joe Biden has vowed to nominate only a black woman to fill the soon-to-be-vacated Supreme Court seat held by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. In response to the president’s promise, Shapiro, a libertarian, tweeted, “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid [progressive and very] smart. Even has the identity politics benefit of being first [Asian American].”

Srinivasan, who was born in India, serves as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

“But alas doesn’t fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy, so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?” Shapiro added. “Because Biden said he’s only [considering] black women for SCOTUS, his nominee will always have an asterisk attached. Fitting that the Court takes up affirmative action next term.”

Shapiro obviously didn’t mean black women are “lesser.” He clearly meant we might end up with a Supreme Court nominee less qualified than Srinivasan because the president’s stated criteria are so narrow.

Enter Slate staff writer Mark Joseph Stern, who seized upon Shapiro’s tweets as an opportunity to wage a smear campaign against the libertarian attorney.

“I hate to draw attention to this troll because attention is what he craves,” Stern tweeted. “But now that [Georgetown Law] has hired him, I feel an obligation to condemn his overt and nauseating racism, which has been a matter of public record for some time. I am deeply ashamed of my alma mater.”

He added, “If [Georgetown Law] was willing to ignore Ilya’s pattern of racist trolling before, it cannot credibly pretend to suddenly care now. The school knows exactly what it signed up for.”

The rage mob was not far behind. Shapiro was soon inundated with accusations of hateful speech and racist behavior.

Shapiro deleted the tweets. He issued a full-throated apology for his “poor choice of words.”

He wrote in part, “A person’s dignity and worth simply do not, and should not, depend on race, gender, or any other immutable characteristic. While it’s important that a wide variety of perspectives and backgrounds be respected in the judiciary, so blatantly using identity politics in choosing Supreme Court justices is discrediting to a vital institution.”

Not good enough, said Stern and the rage mob.

Shapiro would have “accused any black woman nominee” of having “a ‘lesser’ intellect,” Stern asserted, adding that Shapiro obviously believes the nomination of any woman of color is “inherently suspect. … He doesn’t see how this belief is colored by his own racism.”

The blogger said Shapiro “will accuse [any woman of color nominee of] of being unqualified. … [He] has made this painfully clear.”

Interestingly enough, aside from the two since-deleted tweets that started all of this, Stern’s only evidence of Shapiro’s “pattern of racist trolling” is a 2009 CNN opinion article in which the now-suspended Georgetown Law instructor critiqued then-President Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Stern highlighted the part where Shapiro wrote, “While Judge Sotomayor exemplifies the American Dream, she would not have even been on the shortlist if she were not Hispanic.”

What Stern didn’t highlight are the parts where Shapiro said, “Again, this does not mean that Sotomayor is unqualified to be a judge,” and “It also does not detract from the history she would make as the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee.” Shapiro’s point, as he made in the 2009 article, is this: “A Supreme Court nomination is not a lifetime achievement award, and should not be treated as an opportunity to practice affirmative action.”

One may think nuance simply is not Stern’s strong suit. One may think the Shapiro brouhaha results from one idiot blogger’s tenuous grasp of the English language. Don’t kid yourself. This was targeted, intentional character assassination. Stern knew exactly what he was doing. This much is clear from the fact he complained to Georgetown Law publicly on social media. The fact Stern also declined a request that he take his concerns privately to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor tells us a great deal about the Slate writer’s intentions. Stern wanted this to play out in public. He wanted to see Shapiro punished.

Last week, Stern got his wish: Georgetown Law suspended Shapiro. Treanor also announced the school would investigate whether its incoming lecturer had violated the school’s policies on “professional conduct, nondiscrimination, and anti-harassment.”

The only question now is: Does Stern display Shapiro’s scalp on a mantle or a stylish end table?

The Zuck stops here

CNN President Jeff Zucker announced his surprise resignation last week, citing his failure to disclose an affair with a subordinate as the reason for his abrupt exit.

If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. There’s undoubtedly more to the story. For starters, the infamously vindictive Cuomo family is involved.

Zucker, who was pressured to resign, claims his affair with CNN Chief Marketing Officer Allison Gollust came to the surface last year following an internal investigation of disgraced former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo. Cuomo was fired last December for using his position at CNN to dig up dirt on the women who accused his brother, disgraced former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, of sexual misconduct.

The termination created a bitter and deeply personal rift between Chris Cuomo and Zucker. Bitter enough that when Cuomo’s attorneys went toe-to-toe with CNN last year over a disputed $18 million severance pay-out Zucker refused to approve, the former anchor’s legal team reportedly leveraged the Gollust affair.

“Two sources with knowledge of the situation not authorized to speak publicly said that Cuomo’s legal team, which continues to negotiate his exit from the network, raised issues about the relationship between Zucker and Gollust,” Politico reported. “Cuomo’s legal team asserted that Zucker was hypocritical to suggest Cuomo had a personal conflict of interest when the relationship with Gollust represented a potential conflict as well.”

If you can believe it, the Cuomo connection goes much deeper than just a disgruntled former employee.

Zucker and Gollust first met at NBC, where they were soon “joined at the hip” (phrasing!), according to former NBC anchor and Today host Katie Couric. At 30 Rock, the – ahem – relationship got to the point where Zucker was constantly pitching Gollust for jobs for which she was neither qualified nor needed. Zucker then flamed out at NBC and went to CNN. When Zucker took the top spot at CNN in 2013, Gollust was one of his first hires. Funnily enough, he didn’t poach her from NBC. She had just finished a stint serving as Andrew Cuomo’s spokeswoman.

At CNN, Zucker and Gollust personally spearheaded a series of glowing, heroic interviews Chris Cuomo gave his then-governor brother in 2020 during the height of the coronavirus pandemic in New York. In other words, Zucker and Gollust personally oversaw a clear and serious breach of journalism ethics. Worse, Zucker and Gollust also reportedly coached Andrew Cuomo on his stupid COVID-19 press conferences. They went so far as to advise him on how to respond directly to then-President Donald Trump in a way that would make for “more compelling TV,” according to the New York Post. The former governor won an Emmy for the pressers (it was rescinded after he resigned in disgrace).

Put simply, if Zucker and Gollust were any closer to the Cuomos, they’d be behind them.

The incestuousness of it all — the network’s now-contentious relationship with Chris Cuomo, the soured relationship between Zucker and Chris Cuomo, Gollust’s connections to Andrew Cuomo, Zucker and Gollust’s unethical promotion of the Cuomo family brand, the Cuomo family’s infamous vindictive streak, etc. — leaves one with the impression that Zucker’s untimely exit is the result of something seedier, and far more damaging, than a failure to follow corporate policy regarding workplace romances. One is left with the impression that the Cuomos, who are infamous for collecting dirt on enemy and ally alike, know something the public doesn’t.

Good money says there are still some particularly nasty skeletons in Zucker’s closest, skeletons of which the infamously vindictive Cuomos are well aware. It’s the likeliest explanation for the timing and nature of the former CNN president’s downfall.

It seems unlikely the top brass pressured Zucker to resign over the network’s ratings woes. CNN’s ratings have been terrible for quite some time. It seems equally unlikely they fired him because his leadership failures, including evidence he passed up qualified candidates in favor of his mistress, the messy situation with the Cuomos, and allowing ethical breaches to happen on his watch, simply became too much to ignore.

These reasons don’t explain why Zucker cited his affair as the sole reason for his exit. They also don’t explain the timing of the resignation. If management had merely tired of CNN’s poor ratings or Zucker’s disastrous leadership, wouldn’t it have waited until after the planned WarnerMedia-Discovery merger? Wouldn’t it have waited until after the launch of the network’s paid subscription service, CNN+? Why allow this scandal to occur now when there’s so much unfinished business at stake?

Perhaps, then, it’s the other theory: Management found something much worse than a previously undisclosed workplace affair — something bad enough to make Zucker’s immediate resignation a priority.