Texas upholds abortion laws

'The operational definition'

Expect fireworks. On Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci is scheduled to testify under oath before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to account for his performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fauci, former director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared before the select subcommittee earlier this year for a closed-door, 14-hour transcribed interview conducted over two days. Needless to say, congressional investigators have a lot of ground to cover Monday, ranging from Fauci’s advice on mask mandates to his oversight of coronavirus research grants and response to the Chinese origins of the global pandemic. Meanwhile, subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, has requested that Fauci, who retired at the end of 2022 after 38 years heading NIAID, turn over personal email accounts and cell phone records. The reason: Dr. David Morens, Fauci’s senior adviser for over two decades, revealed to the subcommittee under oath May 22 that he transmitted official records to Fauci through his own personal email to avoid congressional inquiries or public oversight under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. As revealed that same day in a subcommittee staff memo, Morens stated in a postscript to an email to colleagues April 21, 2021: “I forgot to say there is no worry about FOIAs. I can either send stuff to Tony [Fauci] on his private email, or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.”  In another email to colleagues May 13, 2021, Morens referred to “our secret back channel” for sensitive communications, copying Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, the controversial organization that received federal grant money for work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.   Secret Back Channel Exposed. For sound reasons,Daszak’s relationship with Fauci and other leaders at the National Institutes of Health is a focus of congressional investigators. In Morens’ May 22 testimony to the House subcommittee, he revealed how he directly assisted Daszak in securing more taxpayer funding for his enterprise. In April 2020, in the early stages of the global pandemic, the National Institutes of Health suspended a grant to New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which had subcontracted scientific work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for studying bat coronaviruses. In the wake of that grant suspension, his personal emails reveal, Morens worked behind the scenes to help Daszak quell NIH’s criticism of his compliance with reporting requirements and get EcoHealth’s federal grant reinstated. Commenting on these extraordinary efforts, Wenstrup observed: In your Gmail on March 29, 2021, you responded to Dr. Daszak with edits to a letter that he sent to the NIH. On Oct. 25, 2021, you responded to Dr. Daszak that you would edit an EcoHealth press release regarding the grant termination. On April 28, 2020, you responded to Dr. Daszak with edits to an Eco Health press release regarding the grant termination. On Oct. 25, 2021, you [also] provided Dr. Daszak with advice regarding preparing a timeline regarding EcoHealth’s late five-year report submission. On Dec. 7, 2021, you wrote to EcoHealth’s chair of [the board of] directors to ‘put in a word’ for Dr. Daszak. Federal grants to Eco Health Alliance were marked by controversy throughout the pandemic. In April of 2020, NIH suspended grant funding. In August of 2020, NIH restored it. In 2021, Eco Health once again came under agency scrutiny because of late reporting on its work in Wuhan, China.   Throughout this period, Morens worked hard to assist Eco Health. In the process, he went to extraordinary lengths to evade the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and avoid public accountability. During the recent House hearing,  Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., read off a litany of his emails. For example, on November 18, 2021, Morens wrote: With the help of our IT folks, I went over the whole computer and phone situation. I went over the whole computer and phone situation. They loaded some anti-hacking software on my phone and discussed the situation with me.  Basically, my Gmail is now safe from FOIA and hacking on all my devices, including government computer and phone and my private computer and ipad. Thus, it should be safe to communicate safely with you, Peter, and others, as long as we use my private Gmail. The subcommittee staff’s report catalogues numerous other examples of these efforts to hide official records and other information related to COVID-19. They include: On June 16, 2020, in an email to EcoHealth’s Daszak, Morens writes: “The FOIAs are dreadful and paranoia-inducing. In the old days we had to do them ourselves, by hand. I mean finding and printing out thousands of emails coming in and going out. Now then sometimes FOIA text messages too. …. We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them, we’d delete them. In my 22 years at NIAD [the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] I have never seen a FOIA that turned up useful information.” On June 28, 2021, in an email referring to an unwanted congressional inquiry, Moren relates how he deleted “Peter Daszak’s emails and others relating to origin [of COVID-19]” and writes to Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor at Baylor College of Medicine: “Mine was erased long ago (I verified that today) and I feel pretty sure Tony’s was too. The best way to avoid FOIA hassles is to delete all emails when you learn a subject is getting sensitive. In any case, there is nothing here except opportunities to hassle, harass, and huff and puff.”    On Oct. 5, 2021, in an email to EcoHealth’s Daszak, Morens writes: “Peter I just got news that a FOIA picked up an email I sent to you saying that Tony commented he was braindead, jokingly, of course. However, [Sen.] Ron Johnson is all over it and now after me. Tony will be pissed, rightly so. I deleted that email but now learn that every email I ever got since 1998 is captured and will be turned over, whether or not I instantly deleted it. Gmail, phone, text, I need to rely on those exclusively.” Inside Help. Remarkably, even the National Institutes of Health’s FOIA officer, Marg Moore, apparently helped Morens learn “tricks” to hide official records from the public. Embedded in the subcommittee staff report is this gem from a Morens email dated Feb. 24, 2021: “I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after I am foia’d but before the search starts, so I think we are all safe. Plus, I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.” During testimony before the subcommittee lasting nearly two hours, Morens stated that there were many things he was unsure of or could not remember. These include  speaking to Fauci about conversing with Daszak over Gmail and his personal phone calls or other conversations with Fauci about deleting emails. Although no one ever has been indicted for having a bad memory, the assessment of Morens’ performance at the hearing was nonpartisan. Rep. Kweisi Mfume, D-Md., remarked: “Sir, I think you’re going to be haunted by your testimony today.” Congressional oversight hearings not only provide vital public information, but lay the groundwork for remedial action. Following Daszak’s sworn testimony May 1 and the recommendations in the subcommittee’s report, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services barred Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance from participating in federal grant programs for at least three years and possibly longer because they failed to report in a timely fashion to NIH officials on EcoHealth’s risky coronavirus research in China.   In this case, it’s clear that Congress should revisit the Freedom of Information Act. Mark Tapscott, a senior official at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during the Reagan administration, has argued that violations of the nation’s sunshine law should carry serious criminal penalties. Congress also should consider transferring then responsibility of responding to public inquiries under FOIA to the inspector general’s offices of individual federal agencies, which already conduct internal oversight of agency operations. The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is far from finished. A crucial and unanswered question: Why? Why have federal officials gone to such extraordinary lengths to delay, dissemble, or hide vital information from Congress and the public on matters related to the origins of COVID-19 and their response to the resulting global pandemic? On Monday, when Fauci himself is scheduled to testify in public, perhaps he can answer that question. But don’t bet on it.   The post What Are NIH Officials Hiding?: Fauci to Testify on America’s Response to COVID-19 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Manhattan jury found former President Donald Trump guilty Thursday on 34 counts related to falsifying business records supposedly to cover up “hush money” payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. Now, Trump could face prison time. Judge Juan Merchan will issue Trump’s sentence on July 11. So, what happens between now and the sentencing? And if Trump is given a prison sentence, can he still run for president and even be sworn into office? Hans von Spakovsky, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” top news edition to explain. Listen to the podcast or read the lightly edited transcript below: Virginia Allen: The jury for former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan found Trump guilty on Thursday on all 34 counts. Trump is now a convicted felon. So, how did we get here and what happens next? Here with us to explain is Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky. Hans, thanks for being with us. Hans von Spakovsky: Sure, thanks for having me. Boy, how did we get here? You know, I mean, I hate to say this and make the comparison, but what was happening in New York reminded me kind of the Soviet show trials that were put on in Moscow in the 1930s. If you look at the prosecutors, if you looked at the very biased judge who was constantly allowing the prosecution to do just about anything they want, including bringing in all kinds of irrelevant evidence, even down to the bizarre jury instructions he gave that violate several hundred years of our most basic legal principle, have to have a completely unanimous jury on all of the aspects of the charges brought, this was a bogus case from the very start, should never have been brought. Just one other thing. Think about this. This trial took six weeks and the jury took less than two days to consider all of the evidence in this case. That indicates to me that they had decided a long time ago that regardless of the evidence they were going to convict Donald Trump, which, given the politics of this jury, the politics of Manhattan, is really no surprise. Allen: Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly used the word “conflicted” as he has referred to the judge, Judge Juan Merchan, in this case. Why is the judge conflicted? Von Spakovsky: Look, there are very strict ethics rules that apply to judges, and one of those rules is that you cannot be on a case in which you or a family member has a personal financial interest. Well, his daughter is a Democratic political consultant. In fact, she’s represented Democratic consultants, apparently even the Biden campaign. And some of her clients have been making money, raising money on this trial. Not only that, but Juan Merchan, it came out just recently, he was issued a letter of caution by the New York judicial ethics commission. Why? Because he violated the strict prohibition on judges making political contributions. He was making political contributions to Democratic candidates, apparently including a PAC supporting Joe Biden. He should have never been on the case from the very beginning, should have recused himself. The fact that he didn’t, I think, is a major point in any appeal that’s filed. Allen: Hans, we’re all wondering what happens next. We’ve learned that the sentencing is supposed to be on July 11. What happens between now and July 11? Von Spakovsky: Well, it’s maybe hard for people to believe, but the Probation Department in New York is supposed to do an investigation of the defendant, interviewing the defendant, looking at creating a bio of his background, and then making a sentencing recommendation to the judge. So, that’s going to happen before that hearing date, which, as you know, is just a couple days before the Republican Party convention. Allen: So, a recommendation is made to the judge regarding the sentence and then, ultimately, the judge is the one that hands down that sentence? Von Spakovsky: Yeah, the judge can entirely—apparently, in New York, the judge can entirely discount what the recommendation is and do anything he wants to and it could be everything from a fine, a suspended sentence to many, many years in jail. Allen: What do you think is the most likely sentence that we’re going to see handed down from the judge? Von Spakovsky: I Think that the political bias of this judge has shown that he is going to do whatever he thinks he can get away with and I think that means he’s going to try to restrict the president to staying in New York and perhaps will even give him prison time. Allen: OK. And the maximum amount of prison time is four years he could receive? Von Spakovsky: Well, it was 34 felonies. So, no. It’s many, many, many years in jail. If he sentences him to years in jail on each count, he could be in jail for the rest of his life, which is just totally and completely absurd and such an outrageous miscarriage of justice in this case. Allen: Well, since that felony conviction around 5 p.m. on Thursday to mid-afternoon Friday, the Trump campaign announced that it had raised $34.8 million, a great deal of that in small donations from new donors. What do you think that tells us about the American people’s view of this case? Von Spakovsky: I think it once again confirms to me something I’ve always thought, which is the American people are a lot smarter than the liberal media and Democratic leadership and other people like that think they are. Look, a majority of Americans, even folks who don’t support Trump, I think, have recognized, and the polling shows, that this is really a political persecution. I’ve even heard some liberal commentators on some of the channels saying, “Look, we all know this case would not have been brought if the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump.” And to give you a perspective on this, remember, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined by the Federal Election Commission for not listing as a campaign-related expense their payment and hiring of and creation of the Steele dossier, right? The dossier that created the whole Russia-Trump hoax. They paid a civil penalty. It was like, I think, $113,000 total between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the [Democratic National Committee]. And here we have a state, a local prosecutor trying to put him in jail for what he claims is a similar issue even though he’s actually wrong about that. Allen: So, let’s say the judge does sentence former President Donald Trump to prison time, could Trump still be on the ballot for the November election? And could he even be elected president while sitting in a prison cell? Von Spakovsky: That is absolutely, yes, that is the correct answer. It would be improper for any state to take him off the ballot. And the reason is the Constitution sets out three requirements to be president. You have to have been a resident of the country, I think for 14 years; you have to be a certain age; you have to be a natural born citizen—and that’s it. No state can put in any other qualification to be president. And that means that the conviction could stay, he could be in prison. Not only could he get elected, he could get sworn in as president, and the only way he could be removed is if Congress impeaches him. Allen: So, let’s say he is elected, he wins in November, sitting in a prison cell. What happens? Von Spakovsky: Well, you would think that under those circumstances, the governor of New York would do the right thing, even though the governor is a Democrat and would issue a pardon so that the president can go serve. Like I said, this case should never have been brought to begin with. The prosecution failed to produce evidence that an actual crime had been committed, no matter what this jury says. And that, to me, would be the proper response of the governor of New York. The post Yes, Trump Could Be Elected President From Prison appeared first on The Daily Signal.

George Conway Questions Why CNN Pays GOP Contributor "to Say Those Lies"

The Texas Supreme Court unanimously decided on Friday to reject a legal challenge that aimed to make abortion more widely available in the state. Presently, Texas law doesn’t allow a woman to abort her child based solely on the child having an abnormal fetal diagnosis. A group of 20 pro-abort women claimed in March 2023 that the Texas law was too narrow and sued the state. The case, Zurawski v. Texas, argued that the state’s abortion ban prohibited the 20 women from getting medical care for their “complicated pregnancies,” as reports indicate.  Back in August of 2023, a “Travis County judge issued a temporary injunction that allowed Texans with complicated pregnancies to get an abortion if their doctor made a ‘good faith judgment’ that it was necessary.” Friday’s ruling got rid of that injunction in order to protect life, all life, regardless of the ability or function of an unborn baby.  “Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the court wrote in the order signed by Justice Jane Bland. “The law permits a physician to intervene to address a woman’s life-threatening physical condition before death or serious physical impairment are imminent.” But these women weren’t advocating for that. They were advocating for the “right” to kill their babies in utero in the case the child wasn’t “perfect” according to their standards.  The decision included the following: ‘Reasonable medical judgment,’ we held, ‘does not mean that every doctor would reach the same conclusion.’ Rather, in an enforcement action under the Human Life Protection Act, the burden is the State’s to prove that no reasonable physician would have concluded that the mother had a life-threatening physical condition that placed her at risk of death or of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion was performed. The case was facilitated by a woman named Amanda Zurawski who was denied an abortion as her 18-week-old daughter, Willow, had a beating heart in utero. Zurawski, who was marked as a hero at President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, did not receive an abortion from doctors in the state and ended up going into sepsis. But, as the Texas Supreme Court ruling indicated, “Ms. Zurawski’s agonizing wait to be ill “enough” for induction, her development of sepsis, and her permanent physical injury are not the results the law commands.” Texas law allows abortions when a mother’s life is in imminent danger or puts her fertility at potential risk. It doesn’t allow babies to be killed willy-nilly when they have devastating fetal diagnosis like Trisomy 13, Down syndrome, cleft lip or dwarfism, all of which are not fatal and some individuals have lived long, rather healthy lives with one or more of these complications. In response to the verdict, pro-life groups and individuals celebrated. The Texas Values X account called it a “victory!” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America agreed. Here’s her statement in full: The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that Texas law is clear in protecting the life of unborn children and their mothers. Under the state’s pro-life protections, and all pro-life laws, doctors can provide pregnant women who experience an emergency with the proper care. We know doctors by-and-large understand they can rely on their reasonable medical judgment based on data showing abortions under the state’s ‘life of the mother’ exception have continued post-Dobbs; and we are grateful the Texas Medical Board is taking steps to educate doctors and the public. What happened to Amanda Zurawski was completely wrong. No woman should suffer and almost lose her life when the law is clear that doctors can—and should—intervene to prevent further harm. Doctors and hospitals that refuse to provide women with lifesaving treatment are not abiding by their Hippocratic oath and they should be held accountable. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are putting lives in danger by spreading misinformation on pregnant women’s ability to receive emergency care. The abortion lobby has created confusion on this fact to give the Democrats cover for their extremely unpopular all-trimester abortion agenda. Despite this very clear decision from the Texas Supreme Court, Biden and Harris will continue to capitalize on tragedy and spread lies at the expense of women’s lives. Dannenfelser is right. So many women are being misled about these laws that truly just aim to save lives. Kudos to the Texas Supreme Court for realizing that and deciding in favor of life!

Stephanie Ruhle, host of The 11th Hour, joined an MSNBC panel on Thursday night to gloat and bloviate about former President Donald Trump’s 34 felony convictions. During the discussion, she contributed a novel theory, declaring with certainty that Trump’s continued supporters signaled a scary reality: “ultimate power” in the hands of the GOP. Ruhle described her experience of various conversations with GOP donors, immediately following the verdict, “who in the last month have sort of coalesced around Donald Trump and said, you know, like, ‘I may have been with Nikki Haley, I may have liked Ron DeSantis, but no, Trump’s my guy.’”  She recounted how “not one single person that I called seemed to be fazed,” and for some reason seemed bewildered that “no one I spoke to said he was innocent” but instead “went after Alvin Bragg.”     Ruhle then posited that such support substantiated a growing hunger for power, fueled by a complete disregard for the threat to democracy that a second Trump presidency would allegedly entail.  Furthermore, she falsely reasoned that these donors were solely interested in an opportunity to indebt a prospective president, currently “weak and humiliated”: So these smart successful business people don’t see…this group doesn't seem to care because they know now more than ever, Trump is especially weak and humiliated. So if they side with him now and stand with him publicly now, he is going to owe them. And what’s really scary when we’re talking about ultimate power, now there’s a whole universe of people who are saying ‘I’m gonna stand with this guy because he’s weak and when and if he wins, he will owe me a favor.’ This is a group of people who want to have ultimate power and this is a man who wants to be president again so we don't have a normal judicial system, who wants ultimate power. Perhaps Ruhle feared that GOP donors would exercise this vast influence by expecting Trump to enact Republican legislation dismantling the Biden Administration’s policies. She closed with an urgent message to “think about where we are,” evidently gripped by the terror of a menacing second Trump presidency. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC The 11th Hour 5/31/2024 11:11:16 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: To me, today was all about power. As soon as we got the verdict, I was on the phone with all sorts of GOP donors, especially those who in the last month have sort of coalesced around Donald Trump and said, you know, like, “I may have been with Nikki Haley, I may have liked Ron DeSantis, but no, Trump’s my guy.” And down the line, not one single person that I called seemed to be fazed.  But what was so interesting, no one I spoke to said he was innocent. They went after Alvin Bragg, they went after… And what's scary about that is why would all of these people, right?  One of the ways you become a big GOP donor is because you have a lot of money, you’re successful at something. So these smart successful business people don’t see…this group doesn't seem to care because they know now more than ever, Trump is especially weak and humiliated. So, if they side with him now and stand with him publicly now, he’s going to owe them.  And what’s really scary when we’re talking about ultimate power, now there’s a whole universe of people who are saying, “I’m gonna stand with this guy because he’s weak and when and if he wins, he will owe me a favor.” This is a group of people who want to have ultimate power and this is a man who wants to be president again so we don't have a normal judicial system, who wants ultimate power.  And you have to think about this moment we’re in. 12 Americans, 12 jurors sat there for five weeks, hours and hours and hours, and made a decision. The justice system worked. And the fact there still are people out there, significant people saying “I'm okay with it,” that’s really a moment to think about where we are. (...)

The Washington Commanders, formerly Washington Redskins, may have squashed a few rumors in regard to the team returning to its old moniker.The team was called the Redskins for 87 years until 2020 when the organization deemed itself offensive. It was changed to the temporary name of the Washington Football Team until 2022 when the Commanders became the official nickname.Outkick reported that Marjorie Harris, wife of Commanders owner Josh Harris, was out and about taking part in a Day of Service in Washington, D.C., when she was asked about a possible return to the old name. "As you would imagine, everybody has an opinion about the name," Harris told reporters. "Some good, some bad, some in the middle. And I think that, we have a lot of work to do, and so that name issue is going to be on the side for now until we can get things going."Harris remarked that she was content with the team and happy about new quarterback, rookie, and second-overall draft pick Jayden Daniels.'I had a whole day out in the community, and I kept referring to the team as the Commanders.'Controversy has been surrounding the Washington team's name since at least 2016. At perhaps the height of, or at least the upswing of the woke era in politics, progressive voices declared the Redskins name as racist. This, despite the Washington Post conducting a poll of Native Americans that found nine out of 10 didn't find the name offensive.The opinions of those whom the name was purported to be hurtful toward seemingly didn't matter, as the team would eventually change the name anyway. Despite reports of trademark denials and pressure from a Native American group, the Commanders name has persisted."Quite frankly, I had a whole day out in the community, and I kept referring to the team as the Commanders," Harris continued. "And you know what? Sounds pretty good to me. So, for now, it's the Commanders," she added.Commanders coach Dan Quinn sparked rumors in the second week of May 2024 by sporting some allegedly bootleg Commanders merchandise. His shirt showcased the Commanders "W" logo with a Native American feather hanging off of it, reminiscent of the old Redskins' logo.He would later call wearing it a lapse in judgment, while the Commanders provided "no organizational comment" on the matter.This sparked another poll by the Washington Post, which revealed more fans disliked the name Commanders than liked it.Commanders fans specifically liked or loved the name at a rate of 32%, while 57% of the team's fans said they dislike or hate the name.Only 31% of respondents in the D.C. area liked or loved the name, while 49% disliked or hated it. Another 31% of overall sports fans liked or loved versus 53% who disliked or hated it.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Media Matters has solely existed to be a watchdog against the right for years, often seeking to ruin the lives of conservatives via cancel culture. Now, the media company is having massive layoffs after Elon Musk brought it to court in November — and Lauren Chen is not above celebrating. “They are a leftist watchdog organization that basically just exists to smear right-wing figures. And to be clear, the problem here is not that Media Matters advances, like, leftist talking points kind of, like, the Young Turks. No, Media Matters is really in a totally separate category,” Chen says. “It seems like all they do is sit around consuming right-wing content, looking for sound bites or unflattering quotes to take out of context in the hopes of canceling right-wing figures,” she continues, adding, “and I therefore hate them.”Last year, Media Matters messed up when it attempted to smear the wrong person and ended up getting sued by Musk. Media Matters was accused of manufacturing a report to show advertisers’ posts alongside neo-Nazi and white nationalist posts in order to “drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X corp.” “They were essentially trying to play the algorithm to get really unflattering screenshots for X, even though for the average user this is not at all what would appear if you were using the platform,” Chen explains. The media company has just now been forced to fire at least a dozen staffers. “We’re confronting a legal assault on multiple fronts, and given how rapidly the media landscape is shifting, we need to be extremely intentional about how we allocate resources in order to stay effective,” the president of Media Matters, Angelo Carusone, said in a statement. “For right-wing content creators like myself, that means there’s going to be fewer people out there looking to basically quote mine you in the hopes of destroying your career,” Chen says happily. Want more from Lauren Chen?To enjoy more of Lauren’s pro-liberty, pro-logic, and pro-market commentary on social and political issues, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Stephen A. Smith once implored Kyrie Irving to retire from the NBA over his refusal to take the jab. Now, with Irving on the doorstep of the NBA finals, Smith is apologizing. In his attempt to make amends, Smith mentioned Kenny Smith’s conversation with him about Kyrie and went on to say that Kenny’s brother helped train the ESPN host in basketball and was one of the reasons he was able to secure a full ride to Winston-Salem State. “My boy Kenny Smith and I go back decades. His brother Vincent Smith used to train me,” Smith said on his podcast. “I got a scholarship, basketball scholarship, because of Vincent Smith.” Jason Whitlock isn’t letting it slide and believes that was an important piece of information that should’ve been included in his memoir, what Whitlock calls a work of historical fiction. “First time I’ve heard it, and you guys know how much time I’ve spent researching Stephen A. Smith, reading his memoir, tracking and monitoring what he has said and contradicted,” Whitlock says. “I’ve been tracking all of it, but I had never heard Stephen A. Smith assert that Kenny Smith’s brother is responsible or played a role in him getting a full-ride basketball scholarship.” Whitlock then went and refreshed his memory, going back to the two times Kenny Smith was referenced in Smith’s memoir. “Along the way, there’s an inordinate number of friendships I’ve been blessed to have with colleagues at ESPN, as well as people who don’t work at ESPN: Snoop Dogg; Jamie Fox; Charlie Mac; Michael Ealy; Charles Barkley; Shaq; Kenny Smith,” Smith wrote in memoir. That was the first reference. “I just didn’t have the money (or the talent) for those travel and AAU programs, like the Gauchos or Riverside. They were reserved for the young phenoms I knew about, from Rod Strickland, Dwayne ‘Pearl’ Washington, Mark Jackson, and Kenny Smith, then on to Kenny Anderson and Lloyd ‘Sweet Pea,’” Smith wrote in his second reference. Not one mention of Kenny Smith’s brother helping Smith get a scholarship. “That’s not the story Stephen A. Smith told in his book. He talked about a guy, either Howard or Harold Kit, taking him out on the playground in February in New York City and then driving him down to Winston-Salem State on a Sunday to try out in front of the big house games in the middle of their basketball season. That’s the story he told in his book,” Whitlock says. Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.