Monday, April 11, 2016

TV: FOX NEWS SUNDAY, corrupt and shameless

The Sunday Chat and Chews are an embarrassment.

We were just noting that a few weeks back in "TV: Chris Wallace versus Chuck Todd in the Battle To Bore The Viewer."

Imagine our surprise when FOX NEWS SUNDAY finally mattered today?


US President Barack Obama appeared on the program for the first time since becoming president in January 2009.

It was all lies and embarrassments.

For both guest Barack Obama and host Chris Wallace.

For example, Barack's been publicly fretting about the Supreme Court and 4-4 ties.  And lying that it's never happened before and try to whip up a frenzy.

A clip was played of drama queen Barack declaring, "As a consequence, we have a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court and potentially at least two Supreme Court terms in which this vacancy will remain.  That is unprecedented."

He's such a drama queen.

And Chris Wallace failed to call him on that.

Senate Republicans are saying that they will not vote on Barack's nominee -- generic and right-wing tilting Merrick Garland -- due to the fact that Barack's term is due to end shortly.

You can agree with that or not.

But only a drama queen liar would take this stance and try to create a frenzy.

And even splits?

It has happened before.

Just last month, Mark Fahey (CNBC) was attempting to provide reality:

Being reduced to eight Supreme Court justices after the death of Antonin Scalia doesn't necessarily mean the court is doomed to months of unproductive gridlock.
In fact, an evenly split court really isn't anything new. As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out last week, the court has had an even number of justices in the past. Nearly 1 in 5 decisions passed down since 1946 were decided by an even number of votes, according to a analysis.
Evenly split courts, which are usually caused by a recused justice or a temporary empty seat, are common, making about 19 percent of all decisions. Yet only 5 percent of those decisions have been ties, suggesting that most courts manage to secure a majority one way or another.  

If there is a tie, there is a verdict.

The verdict is that the lower court's ruling stands.

That's what happens in a Supreme Court tie.

This is not a national emergency or anything to lose sleep over.

The people of America may speak and force the Republicans to vote on Garland.

Or they may feel who the hell cares?

Regardless, this is not a moment to panic.

But there's the president of the United States lying and trying to create a frenzy for his own personal gain.

It's cheap and it's tawdry.

And Chris Wallace refused to call him on it.

Which was all the more astounding since Barack, in discussing terrorism, defended what Wallace termed his appearance of being "diffident."

Barack insisted he was attempting to keep things in perspective and not overblow things:

Well, I think part of it is that, in the wake of terrorist attacks, it has been my view consistently that the job of the terrorists, in their minds, is to induce panic, induce fear, get societies to change who they are.  
And what I’ve tried to communicate is, "You can’t change us.  You can kill some of us, but we will hunt you down, and we will get you.  And in the meantime, just as we did in Boston, after the marathon bombing, we’re going to go to a ballgame.  And do all the other things that make our life worthwhile.  And you have nothing to offer."  

That’s the message of resilience that we don’t panic, that we don’t fear.  We will hunt you down and we will get you.  

We don't panic.

Except when we tell you too.

Except when we're trying to whine about a Senate vote and we want to lie and alarm you in order to get our way.

Wallace never probed that obvious hypocrisy.

Barack went on to whine about the media, as he always does:

OBAMA:  Well, the perception is going to be changing over time, as people see results, as they get more confident.  
But, and this is the big but, nobody’s going to be 100 percent satisfied -- in a democracy like ours -- with every outcome.  And I think the danger, both among Republicans, and among Democrats, who increasingly just listen to each other.  Or they just listen to people who already agree with them.  Republicans, they have their own TV station.  They’re own radio --

WALLACE:  Go ahead.  You can say FOX News.

OBAMA:  They’ve got their own publications, their own blogs.  Democrats, same thing.  

Increasingly what happens is, we don’t hear each other.  And so what happens then is, when Republicans promise to repeal Obamacare, and it doesn’t get repealed, they’re outraged.  Well, it must be because Republicans were corrupt or unresponsive, or big money got involved.  

We don't hear each other?

Possibly because Barack's spent two terms attacking the press.  He's spent two terms going around the press.  He's used whores who would betray journalism long term goals for short sighted needs of a politician.  These whores include, but are not limited to, Daren Briscoe, Jay Carney, Linda Douglass, Kate Albright-Hanna, Shailagh Murray and Eric Dash.

They've helped an administration circumvent the press.

That should not be forgotten.

It should certainly not be forgiven by their original profession.

They're whores now.

Nothing more, nothing less.

They should not be allowed to do journalism.

They're whores.

From a 2013 Committee to Protect Journalism report written by Leonard Downie Jr. and Sara Rafsky:

In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An “Insider Threat Program” being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues.
Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press—compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations. Still more criminal investigations into leaks are under way. Reporters’ phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being “an aider, abettor and/or conspirator” of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail.
Compounding the concerns of journalists and the government officials they contact, news stories based on classified documents obtained from Snowden have revealed extensive surveillance of Americans’ telephone and e-mail traffic by the National Security Agency. Numerous Washington-based journalists told me that officials are reluctant to discuss even unclassified information with them because they fear that leak investigations and government surveillance make it more difficult for reporters to protect them as sources. “I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails,” said veteran national security journalist R. Jeffrey Smith of the Center for Public Integrity, an influential nonprofit government accountability news organization in Washington. “It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for the government to monitor those contacts,” he said. 
 “I think we have a real problem,” said New York Times national security reporter Scott Shane. “Most people are deterred by those leaks prosecutions. They’re scared to death. There’s a gray zone between classified and unclassified information, and most sources were in that gray zone. Sources are now afraid to enter that gray zone. It’s having a deterrent effect. If we consider aggressive press coverage of government activities being at the core of American democracy, this tips the balance heavily in favor of the government.”

That's what the journalists who joined the Obama administration to whore can claim credit for.

They should be ashamed.

They should be mortified.

No Lee Atwater death bed confession will ever make that right.

Wallace didn't touch on that either.

And then came the moment that everyone will talk about.

This exchange.

WALLACE:  Last October, you said that Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server did not jeopardize national secrets.  


OBAMA:  I can tell that you this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered.  


WALLACE:  Since then, we’ve learned that over 2,000 of her e-mails contained classified material, 22 of the e-mails had top-secret information.  Can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize America’s secrets?

OBAMA:  I’ve got to be careful because, as you know, there have been investigations, there are hearings, Congress is looking at this.  And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this.  
Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State.  She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.
And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are -- there’s classified, and then there’s classified.  There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source.


WALLACE:  But last October, you were prepared to say, "She hasn’t jeopardized."  

OBAMA:  Yes.  Well --

WALLACE:  And the question is, can you still say that?

OBAMA:  I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security.  Now what I’ve also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.
But I also think it is important to keep this in perspective.  This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state, and did an outstanding job.  And no one has suggested that in some ways, as a consequence of how she’s handled e-mails, that that detracted from her excellent ability to carry out her duties.

WALLACE:  Mr. President, when you say what you’ve just said, when Josh Earnest said, as he did -- your spokesman -- in January, the information from the Justice Department is she’s not a target, some people I think are worried whether or not -- the decision whether or not, how to handle the case, will be made on political grounds, not legal grounds.  
Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say, "Hillary Clinton will be treated -- as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected."

OBAMA:  I can guarantee that.  And I can guarantee that, not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated.  
I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations.  I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.  We have a strict line, and always have maintained it, previous president.

WALLACE:  So, just to button this up --

OBAMA:  I guarantee it.

WALLACE:  You --

OBAMA:  I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.

WALLACE:  And she will be --

OBAMA:  Full stop.  Period.

WALLACE:  And she will be treated no different --

OBAMA:  Guaranteed.  Full stop.  Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department, because nobody is above the law.

WALLACE:  Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?

OBAMA:  How many times do I have to say it, Chris?  Guaranteed.

An ongoing FBI investigation.

Here's the thing, it's like taking the Fifth Amendment.

If you take the Fifth when appearing before Congress, that's it.

You take the Fifth.

You can't selectively choose what you will or will not discuss.

You take the Fifth, then you don't answer questions.

By the same token, if you say you can't talk about an ongoing investigation?

You can't talk about it.

And Constitutional scholar Barack knows that.

But he continues to say what he wants, to shape a potential jury pool, to put fear into FBI investigators and then, when he's done with the topic, it's all "I can't talk about an ongoing investigation."

He's so corrupt and so shameless.

And, of course, Chris Wallace didn't go there either.

It's all a song and dance, all a shuck and jive.

These talk shows pretend to be public affairs programs but they're not serving the public.

They're not serving democracy.

They're serving egos and that's about it.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY finally mattered today . . . but only because it demonstrated how corrupt and useless these programs are.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }