Maher has been under attack by the left for his “chummy” conversation with Milo on the February 17th episode of “Real Time.” Now, Maher is claiming in the New York Times that he meant to “expose” Milo the whole time:
We had Milo on, despite the fact that many people said, “Oh, how dare you give a platform to this man.” What I think people saw was an emotionally needy Ann Coulter wannabe, trying to make a buck off of the left’s propensity for outrage. And by the end of the weekend, by dinnertime Monday, he’s dropped as a speaker at CPAC. Then he’s dropped by Breitbart, and his book deal falls through. As I say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. You’re welcome.
Maher has plenty of reason to worry about the left’s reaction to his show. Maher’s show has already been boycotted by one journalist, Jeremy Scahill, who said that hosting Milo was “many bridges too far” for him. Maher has much to lose by alienating his own base by catering too much to conservative guests, which may have motivated these remarks.
But Maher’s claims may also be too many bridges- the remarks that have gotten Milo such negative attention were actually attributed to reporting work originally done by The Reagan Batallion, a conservative anti-Trump news source that released a video of Milo appearing to defend pedophilia. The group also seems to refute Maher’s claims, linking to a video where Maher defends a similar situation to what Milo described:
The clip links to the story of Mary Kay Latourneau, a schoolteacher charged with the statutory rape of a 12-year old boy. Maher is at odds with the rest of his panel, asking “How can a woman rape a man?”
So while Maher may think of himself as a great defender of leftist values for his “exposure” of Milo, he may find himself being the one exposed.