Good news for the Ed Schultz fans among Daily Caller readers.
And there should be scores.
Alas, despite the behemoth broadcaster’s best efforts to bar Daily Caller readers, they remain eligible for the jury hearing a breach of partnership lawsuit against him next Monday.
Last month, Schultz’s lawyers proposed asking prospective jurors during the “voir dire” selection process if they have you read any articles about Schultz by this Evan Gahr character that were published in The Daily Caller. They also wanted to know if jurors ever heard of Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly or conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh talk about Schultz.
But in her May 5 “final pretrial order” on logistics, Judge Beryl Howell did not include the proposed Daily Caller inquisition among her list of screening questions for jurors. Howell, who is conducting the voir dire herself, did say she would ask jurors if they are viewers or listeners of Hannity, O’Reilly and Limbaugh.
The other 21 questions are boiler plate.
For example, “Do you have any moral, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that might affect your ability to render a judgment in this case based solely upon the evidence presented during trial.” And “have you, any close family member or close friend ever worked in the entertainment or television industry?”
Of course, one question she clearly does not need to ask jurors is, “Do you read Newsbusters.com?”
The Media Research Center’s rapid response website, Newsbusters.com, refused for months to cover all the scandalous material culled from lawsuit files, such as Schultz trashing Chris Matthews and Oprah Winfrey.
And sucking up to Fox News president Roger Ailes.
In a strange coincidence, the day after current and former MRC board members were asked about the Newsbusters blackout, editor Tim Graham penned a short item on Schultz’s broadsides against Matthews and Winfrey.
Alas, Graham was beaten to the punch by WaPo‘s “The Reliable Source” which published essentially the same item some 17 hours earlier.
Curiously, Breitbart News continues to ignore the lawsuit. What are they waiting for? A big news hook? Or somebody to pay for coverage?
But what else would you expect? The Schultz lawsuit created the biggest bizarro universe since Seinfeld.
- The Media Research Center gets scooped on liberal hypocrisy by The Washington Post.
- Schultz’s lawyers asked the judge to seal a deposition transcript more than two years after they filed it.
- MSNBC analyst Jonathan Alter says he is not scheduled to testify for Ed Schultz, even after being emailed the official witness list twice. And Queen’s lawyers proceed to file a motion to prohibit Alter from testifying, which he is not doing anyway.
- Al Sharpton gets camera shy when asked about Schultz.
- George Washington University Law School’s associate dean for trial advocacy refuses to comment on trial procedures or be helpful in any way whatsoever.
And the fun is only beginning.
With just five days before trial, Schultz, already plagued by low-ratings, could soon go down quicker than a certain pleasantly plump female intern did in the Clinton White House.