This is some odd attempt to say Michelle is, in a minor way, aiding someone whose allegations against ACORN, although tacitly legit in the eyes of ACORN’s own lawyer, are possibly trumped up a little, but there’s no way to know.
At least that’s what it seems from the blogger’s own words.
Crazy!
No, it’s Malkin’s attempt to prop up a source by willfully excluding pertinent information about her. Whether Moncrief is telling the truth or not is beside the point and none of us know if she is. Malkin is required by journalistic ethics to state each and everytime that Moncrief falsely applied for a Project Vote credit card, used it illegally and was fired for cause by Project Vote, and only after all that happened did she become a whistle blower. If she does that, Moncrief becomes a lot less credible. That’s the substance of the problem.
Furthermore, her and another blogger act as attack dogs for Moncrief’s enemies. They quote each other in support of Moncrief and in attacking Moncrief’s enemies. What isn’t mentioned in the piece is that Malkin suddenly began writing about Moncrief, in glowing terms, two months before her book came out and Moncrief is the central source for Chapter 8 of the book. Of course, she never mentioned that in any of her writings prior to the book.