NewsHounds
We watch Fox so you don't have to!
  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Forum
  • Blogroll
  • Donate
  • Shop
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
Home →

Fox Pundits Ridiculously Suggest Trump Jr.'s Russian Meeting Proves He Didn't Collude

Posted by Richard 8pc on July 13, 2017 · Flag

Spilbor_071217.png

While many on Fox News have been downplaying Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian agent, one Fox guest took it a step further and suggested it proved his innocence. 

The discussion began with a rather damning clip of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asking Christopher Wray, during his FBI Director confirmation hearing, whether Trump Jr. should have taken the meeting with a lawyer who supposedly had “very high level and sensitive information” about Hillary Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this. If I got a call from somebody saying the Russian government wants to help Lindsey Graham get re-elected, they’ve got dirt on Lindsey Graham’s opponent, should I take that meeting?

WRAY: I would think you would want to consult with some good legal advisers before you did that.

Rather than consider the implications of the likely future head of the FBI suggesting that Trump Jr. did something wrong, Faulkner brought on attorney Jonna Spilbor to help exonerate him.

Faulkner’s first question hinted that she was looking to blame Trump Jr.’s legal counsel. She asked Spilbor for “the type of advice, legally, he should be getting and what he is getting.”

Spilbor said Trump Jr. should “stand down” and stop talking about the meeting because he’ll probably have to testify later. What he says now, she noted, could open him up to impeachment later.

At the “i” word, Faulkner jumped in to make sure her viewers understood Spilbor was talking about Junior’s testimony being impeached, i.e. discredited, not his father getting removed from office.

Spilbor went on to excuse Trump Jr. from relying on counsel because he probably didn’t see anything wrong with his meeting and, in validation, she opined that it was not illegal.

Faulkner yelled, “If the meeting was not illegal, why are we still talking about this?”

“Great question,” Spilbor agreed. She said at most there was “possibly a violation of the campaign finance laws” which she thought did not apply because “words are not a thing of value.” Since Trump Jr. “didn’t get any dirt,” she declared, “I think he got duped into the meeting.”

“Does this go away?” Faulkner asked hopefully.

“Yes,” Spilbor said, but probably not soon.

Faulkner played a clip of law professor Jonathan Turley claiming that “the most logical explanation” for the “real purpose of the meeting” was “a bait and switch.” We also saw Turley argue, “The fact that they had this meeting is not evidence of treason.”

Spilbor now delivered her half-baked conclusion: “I think the meeting is evidence nobody was in Putin’s pocket… If you’re in Putin’s pocket and you get a random email from a random dude that says I want you to meet with somebody who’s got dirt on Hillary but you’re in Putin’s pocket, you’re not taking that meeting.”

In fact, the letter came from no "random dude" but an acquaintance of Trump Jr.'s who promised information from his father's oligarch business pal who also happened to have extensive connections in the Russian government.

More importantly, the issue is not whether or not Trump Jr. is “in Putin’s pocket” but whether or not he tried to collude with a foreign government that was interfering in our election. As Fox’s own Charles Krauthammer said, Trump Jr.’s “attempted collusion is still collusion.” And the bigger picture is even worse. As David Corn wrote today, the real scandal is now how Team Trump knew about but helped conceal Putin’s attack on America.

Of course, Faulkner didn’t consider any of that. She yelled in approval, “Amen! I said this from the beginning: I said, if you really are aligned with someone so powerful, and you’re gonna recognize that because your dad has been powerful for many years in the business world, so you know power when you see it, why would you be on the short end of the stick trying to take a meeting?”

Watch Faulkner do her best to acquit the Trump family below, from the July 12, 2017 America’s News HQ.


Do you like this post?
Tweet

Showing 5 reactions



    Review the site rules
John McKee commented 2017-07-14 05:29:31 -0400 · Flag
My thinking is close to yours, Eyes On. The broad brush plan – you get me elected, I’ll get rid of those pesky sanctions – had been thrashed out a year or so earlier through the efforts of such notable traitors as Manafort, Page and Kushner. ‘Compromat’ notwithstanding, Putin wanted some assurance that he was getting an administration worth paying for. Trump had to prove his bona fides, had to show he would deliver.

Now what would be a good short term task to set him? Hey – what about this Republican Convention in a few weeks? If he changes the party platform to one guaranteeing the US would not intervene in Ukraine, giving us a free hand, that would do it!

On advice from Kushner and Manafort to direct the formal approach to Junior (thus implicating an embarrassingly ignorant family player) Putin dispatches trusted minion to put the demand to Junior in person. Easy peasy, most satisfying result.
doors17 commented 2017-07-13 19:43:47 -0400 · Flag
Perhaps some of you will remember former Congressman Bob Doran. He was a far-right Republican from Orange County, California near Disneyland when it was a staunch Republican stronghold for many years up to the late 80’s, but is no longer. His nickname was B-1 Bob for his love of military defense contractors.

Before he became a member of Congress he was on local Los Angeles radio and TV to represent the right’s point of view. He had a weekly TV show in the LA area during the Nixon years. Of course, during Watergate he defended Nixon. Finally, the week before Nixon resigned in August 1974, Doran at the end of his program said, I give up defending this guy. I just can’t do it anymore. As a then 17-year-old that’s when I knew that Nixon was done.

I wonder if we’ll ever hear the same from anyone at Fox say the same about Trump? Sean, Fox & Friends, definitely not. Shepard Smith, who I consider the only real non-bias reporter doesn’t count, but I’m talking about those who consider themselves journalist but with a right wing agenda. If they do, then will know Trump is done.
scooter commented 2017-07-13 19:10:38 -0400 · Flag
Traitors! Every last F*CKING one of them! FOX is rife with treason!

What part of “Russia is not our friend” don’t you people get?
Eyes On Fox commented 2017-07-13 19:06:38 -0400 · Flag
Morons!

Background: Trump has just sewn up the delegates needed for the nomination. He’s just become a player. He’s not in Putin’s pocket yet but we do know Russians have been discussing the previous year exploiting Trump though Russian business contacts and agents.

Enter Natalia Veselnitskaya. First contact. Congratulations, Don Jr., you corrupt piece of a
s—t, you passed Putin’s test with flying colors!
john howard commented 2017-07-13 17:42:09 -0400 · Flag
Who are these people?








or sign in with Facebook or email.
Follow @NewsHounds on Twitter
Subscribe with RSS


We’ve updated our Privacy Policy
Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or email.
Created with NationBuilder