The lie and smear cover-up campaign by the Clinton-centric institutional left group Media Matters for America on the Begnhazi scandal is no accident.

In Part One, I laid out the ties between David Brock’s Media Matters for America and Hillary Clinton.

I promised that in Part Two, I’d start to deal with the substantive aspects of MMfA’s attacks and I will do.

But there’s an elephant in the room. Or rather a former elephant, now turned donkey named David Brock.

David Brock himself has been central to the recent attack on 60 Minutes for their segment on Benghzai featuring Dylan Davies, the former head of securty for the Benghazi consulate, who co-authored a book called The Embassy House under the name Sgt. Morgan Jones.

Davies / Jones was the focus of the 60 Minutes segment, where he told the same story he tells in the book; his harrowing trip to the embassy on the night of the September 11th attack by Islamists.

The Washington Post ran a piece saying that the Davies / Jones conlicts with a report that he gave to his superiors at Blue Mountain Security the next day. Media Matters for America took that initial story and launched an attack campaign based on it, including a petition / letter writing campaign to CBS.

Brock’s letter calls for the story to be “immediately retracted and an independent investigative committee needs to probe all aspects of how the story was reported.”

Then the Daily Beast followed up on the Wahsington Post story and talked to Davies:

The four-page indicent report, obtained by The Daily Beast, has not been previously published. A State Department official confirmed it matches the version sent to the U.S. government by Davies’s then-employer Blue Mountain Group, the private security company based in Britain, on Sept. 14, 2012, and subsequently provided to Congressional committees investigating the Benghazi attacks.

In an interview Saturday with The Daily Beast, Davies said he did not write the incident report, nor had he ever seen it.

“I am just a little man against some big people here,” Davies said. “They can do things, make up things, anything they want, I wouldn’t stand a chance.” Davies said he did not know who leaked the report to the Post but said he suspected it was the State Department, an allegation that could not be independently corroborated. “It would not be difficult to do,” Davies said. “I knew I was going to come in for a lot of flack and you know mud slinging, so yeah I’d say it was them, but I can’t be sure.”

The Daily Beast story turned in a new meme for Media Matters for America: “Benghazi Whistleblower is an admitted liar.”

The central argument promoted by David Brock and Media Matters is that since Davies is ‘an admitted liar’, nobody should believe anything he says.

The ‘admitted liar’ meme was immediately picked up on by left blogosphere. Here’s Bob Cesca at The Daily Banter:

Given that Davies admits he lied to his employer, and given that he allegedly asked Fox News for money in exchange for his story, I’m inclined to believe that he is, in fact, a fraud.

Given David Brock’s acknowledged history and reputation, this is an interesting line of attack.

That’s because David Brock is an admitted liar.

I could accuse David Brock of being a liar simply based on example after example from his Media Matters career.

That would be fair but dismissed as partisan. However, Mr. Brock has long reputation as a liar and has, in fact, admiteed to it himself on a number of occasions.

In his book Blinded By The Right, Brock said:

To protect myself and my tribe from the truth and the consequences from our own smears, cover-ups and falsehoods, I consciously and actively chose an un-ethical path.

Brock told NPR’s Nina Totenberg:

Let me just discuss the lying issue for a moment. As you said there I consciously lied once.

Author Who Trashed Anita Hill Now Confesses to Lies said Howard Kurtz in the Los Angeles Times in July, 2001.

New York Times critic Frank Rich said of Brock:

By his own account, Brock has lied so often that a reader can’t take on faith some of the juicier newsbreaks from the impeachment era in his book.

Slate summed it up succicnty in 2002:David Brock, Liar

As The East Bay Express said in 2002:

David Brock is a liar. It’s one of the few things people of all political persuasions can agree he has told the truth about.

Except in the house of horrors that is David Brock’s reputation, he thatmight not be true. He appears to have even liabilitiesed about lying.

He says he lied about Anita Hill but it seems possible that is another lie told by Brock to buy him credibility and a lucrative career with the left. As the East Bay Express article says:

Paoletta said he “did not confirm to David Brock that Justice Thomas ever rented videos from the Graffiti video store. In fact, to this day, I do not personally know whether he in fact rented videos from that store. . . . Why in the world would I say anything to hurt him?”

….

Aativist Barbara Ledeen yesterday challenged one part of the Brock excerpt in which he maintains that the two of them wrote a radio script attacking “Strange Justice” and faxed it to Rush Limbaugh, who is said to have used it on his radio show. “I completely deny that,” Ledeen said. “I have never done anything with David Brock except attend a few parties.” Limbaugh said he had no recollection of receiving such a script.

Then the East Bay Express goes into long detail about Brock lying in his book about his ‘conversion moment’ at Cal Berkley.

I’ll stop now, though. You get the idea.

David Brock Is A Liar. So what?

Daivd is an admitted liar.

By the logic Media Matters for America is using, that’s it. Write off everything he says.

Except, that’s not correct. It’s a logical fallacy.

Just because an admitted liar says something doesn’t mean it’s not true. If David Brock says 1+1=2, he’s correct. It’s not logically valid to dismiss statement B just because the speaker lied about statement A at some point.

So back to the case of Davies and Benghazi for a moment: it’s not a valid argument to dismiss everything he says because he lied to his boss. I’ll dicuss this more specifically in Part Two.

So , how should one treat the statements of an admitted liar?

Here’s what David Brock himself said in an interview with NPR:

… it’s perfectly understandable that many people may not know whether to believe me now. But there are ways of finding out whether I’m telling the truth or not. Good, credible journalists can look into what I’m saying, examine it and get to the bottom of this and they can find the truth.

Of course, that’s what Brock said about himself. Also a logical fallacy called Special Pleading.

He’s right univerally, however. Don’t take anyone at their word but don’t dismiss anyone out of hand. Verify facts.

So, David Brock is a liar but it doesn’t matter when it comes to evaluating any individual statement by him.

Brock is, however, a complete hypocrite.

And a dishonest hypocrite, applying one set of standards to his current allies and another to his current enemies.

And that does matter.