It’s déjà-vu all over again. It has been only four days since a Wall Street Journal reporter castigated the president for supporting the death penalty for the Manhattan bike path terrorist but not for the Las Vegas shooter.
What is wrong with this picture? Well, for one thing, Stephen Paddock, the Mandalay Bay Hotel mass murderer, is already dead, by his own hand, while Sayfullo Saipov, who mowed down bicyclists and pedestrians in lower Manhattan, is not. Saipov was shot in the abdomen by an alert New York City cop, but he is expected to make a full recovery.
But those troublesome facts were ignored entirely Eli Stokols, the Journal’s token liberal, who insisted that Donald Trump’s calling for the death penalty for Saipov and not for Paddock was a direct result of the former’s being Muslim, the latter white.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
Watch and learn:
VIDEO: Reporter actually criticizes Trump for not demanding death penalty for ALREADY DEAD Las Vegas mass killer pic.twitter.com/E9oTu1puzT
— Rich Noyes (@RichNoyes) November 2, 2017
It’s not as though I was the only writer to call attention to Stokols’s capacity for missing the obvious. There had to be, without exaggeration, 500 tweets that made the same point.
Yet here we are, four days later, in the aftermath of another mass shooting, and another “journalist” is sputtering with the same indignation over Trump’s unwillingness to call for the death penalty for Devin Kelley, the Texas church mass murderer, who, like Stephen Paddock, is no longer among the living. Exhibit B, once again, is Sayfullo Saipov.
This time, the world-class genius playing the race card is GQ’s Keith Olbermann:
You pig, @realDonaldTrump. If the shooter were a person of color and/or a Muslim you’d be heading home calling for the death penalty pic.twitter.com/x2vaHTNwAc
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) November 6, 2017
I know, I know. You can’t make this stuff up, but with liberals around for comic relief, there’s no need to.
