Bill O’Reilly Enlists His Resident “Body Language Expert” To “Prove” Eric Holder Lied To Congress
Reported by Ellen - October 13, 2011 -
Apparently lacking any real news with which to further the Eric Holder witch hunt last night (10/12/11), Bill O’Reilly seized on his regular “body language expert” Tonya Reiman to analyze Holder’s gestures during his Congressional testimony for evidence that he lied. Why wait for real evidence when you can cook it up? Which is not to say that Reiman did so but she’s hardly a legitimate authority on the complicated questions of the Fast and Furious investigation and/or the DOJ’s oversight (or lack thereof) of the program or even as to whether Holder told the truth when he said he had only heard of the program a few weeks before testifying. Plus, Reiman has a knack for telling O’Reilly what he wants to hear. So it was no shock that she concluded Holder was holding back information in his testimony. She never pointed out that holding back information has nothing to do with whether or not he was truthful. O’Reilly, of course, took that as validation of his suspicions – and Reiman let him think so. This, Ladies and Gentlemen is the kind of McCarthyism that passes for news analysis in 2011 America.
Like my former colleagues, Deborah and Julie, I find that Reiman always makes a point to amuse or flatter O’Reilly “without saying anything too damaging to the subjects or her regular gig.” Check out Julie’s excellent analysis of a previous body language segment in which Reiman dubiously concluded from the position of their hands that Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, have “a good relationship.”
In this case, Reiman didn’t need to be a regular Fox watcher to know what answers her host wanted. Even as O’Reilly was introducing the segment, a large graphic of Holder’s face appeared over large letters reading, “QUESTIONABLE TESTIMONY?”
O’Reilly played a clip of Congressman Darrell Issa questioning Holder and his responses. Funny how O’Reilly didn’t ask for any interpretation of Issa’s body language. Just because Issa has a long arrest record, was suspected by his business colleague as having engaged in arson, and is known for his hyper-partisanship – why on earth would anyone think there might be more than met the eye in his questioning? After all, that’s such old news, the “we report, you decide” network never seems to mention it.
Reiman didn’t bring it up, either.
But just in case Reiman didn’t get the hint yet, O’Reilly said, “Now, I’m not putting you on the spot politically here, because subsequently memos came out that cast doubt on whether the Attorney General’s being truthful.” Then, after more or less pronouncing Holder a liar, O’Reilly asked Reiman if she could verify tell if Holder had been “trying to deceive.”
“Yes and no,” Reiman said. “There is a very fine line between anxiety and deception,” she explained. But she did her best to make it come out O'Reilly's way anyway. She went on to argue that Holder’s “words” went “opposite his unconscious head shaking. So here I think he’s holding something back… He’s holding back information that he doesn’t want to give out.”
Gee, a lawyer who’s the head of the Department of Justice, who oversees sensitive investigations and material and who knows he’s facing a partisan witch hunt, not spilling his guts in a Congressional hearing run by Issa? What person in such a spot wouldn’t hold something back while testifying? Ask any trial lawyer if they tell their witnesses to tell all or just answer the question and with care. So just what is the significance of “holding something back?” Reiman didn’t say Holder was being deceitful but it was a good way of implying it.
Reiman went on to opine she was 70% certain that Holder asking Issa to repeat a question was a delaying tactic – as if that proved something nefarious, as well.
O’Reilly smiled slyly and said, “That’s interesting.” Then, having convicted Holder in the court of Fox News innuendo, they moved on to O'Reilly's last appearance on The Daily Show - and Reiman declared he had “played the audience,” “endeared” himself to them and used his “dominance cues.”
