On Friday, Megyn Kelly reported the “breaking news” that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson seemed uninjured on a video recorded just a few hours after he shot and killed the unarmed Michael Brown. Rather than dwell on the possible implications of that, she hosted a guest who made racial insinuations against Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama.
You may recall that Fox previously reported that Wilson had suffered a fractured eye socket, supposedly as the result of an attack by Brown.
So who was Kelly’s guest to discuss this breaking news? Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director under Holder and now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. In late September, Hosko wrote an editorial for FoxNews.com accusing the Obama administration of deliberately trying to sway public opinion in Ferguson and being “unconcerned about Officer Darren Wilson’s legal fate." Hosko also accused the Obama administration of “obviously turning its back on the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our communities” and treating police fatalities as “acceptable losses.”
You might wonder, as I did when I read his column, whether Hosko considers the death of unarmed civilians as “acceptable losses.” But Kelly never asked.
Kelly not only opened the door for Hosko, she all but pushed him through it to attack the Obama administration in her opening to their discussion: “The Attorney General of the United States is speaking out to the people of Ferguson and speaking once again about the police officers in Ferguson. And you are suggesting that Eric Holder is doing more harm than good when it comes to law enforcement. How so?”
Kelly’s tone and manner announced that Hosko was a credible guest.
Hosko said he thought he was speaking on behalf of himself and his “friends and colleagues who are in law enforcement” when he accused Obama and Holder of “telegraph(ing) to law enforcement that this administration is not with you.”
Hosko took issue with Holder making comments about being stopped by the police and feeling racially profiled many years ago. To Hosko, Holder was signaling to “a lot of people” (and we know what color they are) “that biased policing is alive and well in the United States. …The president made similar comments.”
To Kelly’s credit, she questioned why that would be inappropriate. She noted that they may have been “trying to show empathy for people who have had those experiences, to say, ‘Look, we get it, so you can trust us, we’re on top of it. You don’t need to be rioting in the streets.’”
But it is typical for Fox to “sandwich” one piece of “balance” between two slices of their Republican agenda. Not surprisingly, that was all the challenging of Hosko to come from Kelly.
Hosko complained that Holder’s remarks, in conjunction with DOJ's decision to review the behavior of the Ferguson police, suggested that the “police generally … are on the streets with a biased, prejudiced purpose.”
Kelly murmured “Mmmhmm,” thus signaling her understanding, if not outright agreement.
Hosko continued, "That’s terribly unfair. I think it makes the law enforcement job, which is very difficult, even more difficult because this becomes the first answer for a lot of people."
“And the tensions are already beginning to rise,” Kelly added. She began to fear monger that residents in the area have been advised to “prepare to perhaps be indoors, be stuck in their houses for several days in the wake of the grand jury’s ruling, to get water, to get food, to bone up on supplies, because this is what they see happening in Ferguson after this grand jury comes back and the implication is, if it comes back with no indictment.”
She didn’t mention how a police chief in charge of Ferguson’s law enforcement’s response to the grand jury decision, called that an “over reaction” just one night before on The Kelly File. As I have previously posted, Kelly has repeatedly used the Ferguson protests to race bait against Attorney General Eric Holder.
Watch Kelly and Hosko below, from the November 14 The Kelly File
I’m sure they’re salivating in anticipation.
They spun the hell out of it… Hell, Gateway Pundit flat lied about it after putting the context, and third party explanations… But at least they were honest enough to clarify. Even if it was just to test their reader’s tunnel vision. American thinker must know context is a waste of space on their domain.
And I just got to ask… Do you think Kelly and Brown are Democrats? Because you comments (not just on this thread) sure sound like “R for D” strategy.
What does that mean?
And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?