The Culture of Corruption Between Michelle Malkin, Michael Gaynor, and Anita Moncrief

Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine we are about four years ago. The leak that Bush was using warrantless wiretaps had just occurred recently. Now, imagine that a spy begins to leak information but to only two sources for the most part. One source is Markos Malitsos of the Daily Kos. The other is a relatively unknown left wing blogger. Imagine that initially the unknown blogger leaked their name recklessly. Then, despite this initial breach of trust, both Kos and this unknown begin to not only write about the story but begin to write endlessly about this leaker and present them in a glowing manner. They do this only at about the time when this source, who was initially a conservative, suddenly becomes a liberal. Meanwhile, the unknown blogger will often quote Kos when making their case about how great the leaker is. At the same time, while Kos uses this leaker as a source, he also allows him to be a blogger on his own site. Not only do Kos and the other blogger write endlessly about how great this leaker is, they also often attack the leakers enemies, real and perceived. Eventually, it gets so bad that Kos begins to quote the unkown blogger when attacking the leakers' enemies. Worse than all of that, while they always write glowingly about the source, they usually don't disclose a piece of information about them that paints them in a bad light.

Now, how do you think Conservatives would respond if all of this was revealed? Is there any doubt how they'd react? I say this because if change the story, flip the bloggers to a famous conservative blogger and an unknown and their source, then you have the corrupt relationship of Michelle Malkin, Anita Moncrief and Michael Gaynor. Now, if conservatives would be livid if the roles were all taken up by liberals, I wonder how they'll respond to conservatives pulling this stunt.

Until October 22, 2008, Anita Moncrief was an anonymous source for the New York Times. That day, however, Michael Gaynor outed Anita Moncrief. It appears that the two had been having email contacts and Gaynor leaked an email exchange in which she identifies herself. At the time, Moncrief was finishing up being a source of information to Stephanie Strom of the New York Times. Moncrief worked for Project Vote in D.C. She had apparently discovered information about email lists shared between the Obama administration and ACORN. I say apparently because it's unclear just how much evidence there is besides Moncrief's statements.

In any case, at the time Moncrief was herself livid that Gaynor leaked her name. In fact, one person familiar with things she said at the time said that if Gaynor knew everything she said about him at the time he'd never work with her. When Gaynor leaked Moncrief's name, he actually leaked an email exchange in which Moncrief identified herself. Interestingly enough, later in that same email Moncrief says that she emailed Malkin but that Malkin scared her. In fact, that appears to be the sum total of the communication at the time.

The three of them didn't start to communicate in earnest until late April. That's when Michael Gaynor began writing endlessly and glowingly about Moncrief. Then, starting May 18th, Malkin began writing a series of articles about Moncrief. In all, Malkin has written 24 articles since May 18th in which Moncrief is mentioned. She wrote one prior to that. In all the articles that both publish, the use the monikor whistle blower to describe Moncrief. Yet, they almost never mention this. Before Moncrief was a whistle blower, she falsely got a company Project Vote credit card and used it for personal expenses that accounted for more than $1000. Then, she was fired with cause and only after that did she blow the whistle. Keep in mind each initially made contact in December, but it wasn't till late April that the three of them began to interact regularly. What happened in the meantime? It appears that Anita Moncrief went through a metamorphosis from a liberal to a conservative.

Beyond this, Gaynor and to a lesser degree Malkin act as attack dogs for all of Moncrief's enemies real and perceived. For instance, Moncrief eventually developed a rivalry with the group ACORN 8. They're another group of ACORN whistle blowers. The rivalry occurred right after ACORN 8 refused to share documents they had related to ACORN. Moncrief was especially outraged that they never shared something called the Kingsley Report. That's a report from a lawyer that ACORN itself hired that sounded the alarm bells that ACORN's complicated structure was leading to conflicts, illegality and rampant criminal behavior. After ACORN 8 refused to share this and other documents, Michael Gaynor began to mercilessly attack ACORN 8 and members of the group individually. Gaynor would also often scold Fox News for no longer putting Moncrief on their air. Moncrief had appeared initially on Fox News but once they were made aware of her theft, they stopped putting her on.

Worse yet, both Malkin and Gaynor make it seem as though the only one that matters in the ACORN story is Moncrief. Gaynor literally could write up to four glowing pieces about Moncrief in a week. He will credit her with breaking most of the story. Malkin does the same thing. Often times, when we find out new information about ACORN Malkin and Gaynor will claim that Moncrief had already put this evidence out. As an employee of one branch of ACORN, in reality, Moncrief wasn't necessarily in a position to know that much. Eventually, she talked to a lot of people and learned a lot more. Ironically enough, most of what she knows about ACORN comes from regularly communicating with ACORN 8 members like Karen Inman and Marcel Reid until the split. So, the same people that she now has Gaynor attack relentlessly originally told Moncrief most of what she knows about ACORN. Both Inman and Reid, like all of ACORN 8, are either current (as Reid technically still is in D.C.) or former board members of ACORN. Obviously, a board member would be in a much better position to know what's going on. Even if you didn't believe that, Reid and Inman lead an internal investigation of ACORN following the revelation of Dale Rathke's embezzlemend and his brother Dale's cover up.

So, the role that Moncrief actually plays in the overall story is much smaller than what both Gaynor and Malkin give her credit for. Of course, it doesn't end there. First, Gaynor will often quote Malkin in providing evidence for his case that Moncrief is this awesome figure. Think about that. Both are constantly writing glowing reviews of Moncrief and then Gaynor will quote Malkin in her own glowing review in building his case for his own glowing review. The corruption reached its zenith about two weeks ago when Malkin quoted Gaynor back when Gaynor was attacking Michael McCray, another member of ACORN 8. Not only that, but Malkin never said who Gaynor is. He was identified at all. Instead, she simply said Michael Gaynor said this...The audience wasn't even given a clue who Gaynor is.

It doesn't end there. The relationship between them all is even more cozy. Anita Moncrief has a column on Malkin's sister site Hot Air. Often her columns are brought to the front page for maximum readership.

This isn't the first time I've pointed all this out. In fact, I made my case for this about a week ago. In fact, that wasn't the first time I made reference to this. Intially, I responded to the column in which Malkin quoted Gaynor. I actually knew about all this back in May but I didn't see a story. It wasn't until Malkin quoted gaynor to attack a third party that the corruption became obvious. In response to that story, Michael Gaynor attacked me. After my second piece, Gaynor didn't attack me. Both ignored the corruption I laid out and lay out again.

What they did do was telling however. Gaynor has since written four pieces in which he glows about Moncrief. In one, he compares her to Anita Dunn, presumably because both are named Anita because there's really no other reason.

Ms. Dunn is a Far Left Democrat and a key Obama Administration apologist.

Ms. MonCrief is an ex-radical feared by both the Obama Adminstration and ACORN since Ms.

MonCrief publicly became a whistleblower and a voluntary witness in a case against ACORN last October and even more since she became an ex-radical this year.

Why are the Obama Administration and ACORN (and others) afraid of Ms. MonCrief.

Briefly, Ms. MonCrief tells the truth and is aware of the corrupt relationship between ACORN and the Obama presidential campaign and President Obama's history with ACORN (about which he lied to win the Presidency).

Meanwhile, Malkin has remained relatively quiet herself and instead, Moncrief has written two pieces for her sister site, Hot Air. (that's the so called Green Room where specially selected guest bloggers have their work shown. For instance, I am not good enough to be in their Green Room) In one piece, Moncrief describes her transformation from a liberal to a conservative. Both were brought to the front page for maximum exposure.

The Democrats seemed to be the answer: social programs, better schools, and politicians who cared. I do think that if I had never seen the other side of community organizing that I would still be blindly following along that same path. Being a conservative gives me hope, and peace. While it has not been easy, I decided to start with what made me love America as a child – its history and Constitution- and go from there. Friends who are still radicals rail at me for loving a country that enslaved us, and I tell them I don’t. I love a country that had the guts to stand up time and time again and right a wrong. A country that is not afraid to pick itself up and start again.

In the other piece, Moncrief talks about her long struggle toward becoming a "reluctant whistle blower". Believe me, her journey is very long. I know this because the piece is a monster. It would take you a good ten minutes to finish all of it.

I had never heard of Gaynor but his writing on ACORN back in late September and early October of 2008 led me to believe that he, like Michelle, understood what was going on. Gaynor emailed back, Michelle did not. He became my backup plan after I agreed to identify myself to him so that he could check me out. In addition to being a confidential source of Stephanie, I became a confidential source of Gaynor.

Later in October of 2008 Stephanie told me that it would be better if she could identify me for this ACORN/Obama story. I preferred to be a confidential source, but reluctantly agreed to come forward. As of September 2008, I was no longer working for my union affiliated organization and a part of me felt that I had let my family down. I talked to my fiance, who was having a rough year because of me, and he agreed to support me no matter what. That was very important to me because I was never one of those people who lived the perfect life and being under a microscope would be hard for everyone. I was tired of living in fear, fear of the person I used to be, fear of other people, fear of ACORN and fear of what I was supposed to do.

Interestingly enough, what's missing from this piece is any mention of her fraudulenty obtaining the Project Vote credit card and using it for personal expenses. As a result, here's a sampling of the comments.

Anita – I recognize and am in awe of your courage and true grit. Thank you so much for speaking out and up. I love reading your writing here. God bless you.

Anita:

Thank you for your courage, and integrity. I can only hope that you inspire others to expose any corruption, wherever it may be.

Be safe, and may God watch over you and your family.

Now, let me tell you what I think. I think that Anita Moncrief is a narcisist. Think about it. Have you ever seen someone that more exemplifies the cliche "but that's enough about me, let's talk about me." Michael Gaynor writes about her endlessly in a glowing fashion. Michelle Malkin does much the same. That's not enough. When Moncrief herself writes, it's also all about her. Beyond that, Moncrief is clearly withholding pertinent information and Malkin knows it. Moncrief just wrote about her so called journey to being a whistle blower and didn't mention that she stole and got fired. Instead, she made it seem as though she quit because she was advised to as she prepared to blow the whistle. That's just not true. Malkin and Moncrief both know it and they don't care.

It doesn't end there. First, Gaynor promotes this article on his site.

Right after ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief's "How This Reluctant Whistleblower Decided to Tell All" was promoted from the Green Room to a Hot Air feature.

Malkin follows suit on her own main site, michellemalkin.com. On that site, she hold someting called an open thread. Here, any commenter can comment on anything they feel like saying. In her intro to the thread, Malkin quotes Moncrief from the same article.

ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief: “The more I spoke about Obama and the Democrats part in the ACORN scandal, the more I drifted away from the ACORN 8. I never thought that their mission was bad, but ACORN’s subversive nature is rooted in pay for play politics and if one is to clean house, it has to be across the board. I was proud when Marcel appeared on Glenn Beck but often dismayed at the picture she painted of ACORN. Yes, the members are great people, but they do not need an ACORN to help them. Local based initiatives run by people in their own communities seem to do more to really help the poor. As more ACORN corruption was exposed, it became evident that reform was really not an option, it was a band aid on the Titanic. By breaking free of someone else’s agenda and doing the right thing, I was able to take this story to another level by doing research and exposing even more corruption.”

If you like irony, you'll love this next part. Just a few days earlier, Malkin wrote a piece called "Protesting media culture of corruption". Did she start with herself first? Of course, everyone should see the biggest irony of all by now. Malkin has made a killing on the book, Culture of Corruption. The same person that condemns President Obama for a culture of corruption is embroiled in her own. Nothing she accuses Obama of doing is any worse than the complete and total culture of corrupton she's engaging in herself.

In fact, there's one last interesting piece of irony. When Moncrief does talk about the theft, she often says that she was a single mother and was just trying to provide for her child. Now, unfortunately, I've done much worse than that so I am in no position to judge. Frankly, it's not my style anyway. What are the chances that Malkin would normally except such an excuse? This is the person that mocks everyone that received a bailout or any government assistance. Yet, Malkin appears to have no problem with this explanation. Could it be because in his case it's convenient given the information that Moncrief purports to have on Obama's link to ACORN.

Now, none of this should be all right and acceptable. At the minimum, all three need to knock it off immediately. Their relationship is clearly unhealthy and none are any longer trying to tell a story. They are all promoting an agenda, or the same thing that conservatives attack liberal media for doing. Only in their agenda, they are all promoting Anita Moncrief and attacking her enemies. That's not journalism but public relations and propaganda. Furthermore, it's totally corrupt, and anyone that accepts it accepts media corruption. Furthermore, they would be total hypocrites if there's a similarly corrupt story in the liberal media and they were outraged.

No one should get a pass for corruption. If Malkin, Gaynor and Moncrief are allowed to go forward without scrutiny of what exactly they are and have been doing then clearly to most people, corruption isn't that important.