Poor Harris Faulkner did not get the Trump-love she was hoping for during a discussion she obviously thought should explain away Donald Trump’s misleading work on a letter about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russia.
Now that the Trump administration has an explanation for his involvement in writing Trump Jr.’s misleading statement about his Russia meeting, Fox suddenly wants to discuss the matter.
Faulkner conveniently ignored how The Washington Post noted that Trump opened himself up to possible charges of a cover up with such behavior. Instead, she opened the discussion by focusing solely on the Trump Administration's defense:
FAULKNER: The While House has stepped in to defend President Trump after a report claimed he personally dictated his son Donald Trump Jr.’s initial statement about the meeting he had with a Russia attorney during the 2016 campaign.
A clip of White House adviser Kellyanne Conway was played:
CONWAY: The president did not dictate the statement. He weighed in as a father would do if his son is being attacked… They all said nothing came of the meeting.
Faulker also played a clip of Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ ridiculous defense of Trump:
SANDERS: Everybody wants to make try to make this some story about misleading. The only thing I see misleading is the years worth of stories that have been fueling a false narrative about this Russia collusion and based on a phony scandal based on anonymous sources… If you want to talk about somebody who’s actually been tough on Russia, look at President Trump. He wants more fracking, more coal, more energy, a stronger military, a stronger defense. Those things aren’t good for Russia. I think the distinctions are very clear. You guys just want to create a narrative that just doesn’t exist.
Faulkner gave it her seal of approval: “Drop the mic. 45 seconds that ran in its totality,” she cheered.
But not everybody was ready to forgive and forget like Faulkner was. Guest Guy Benson was pretty darned critical:
BENSON: Here’s the problem and we’ve seen this with this story over and over again… When you have Sarah Huckabee Sanders out there saying this is a false narrative from the media, it does not help your cause when you have perpetuated a false narrative about what happened at this meeting, in the lead up to it and subsequently after it.
Benson also questioned why Trump was giving input on a meeting he supposedly knew nothing about.
Cohost Sandra Smith snarked, “Oh Lord, I’m confused.”
But cohost Kennedy agreed with Benson, saying this is the kind of problem that occurs when family gets involved in one’s political life.
But loyal Trump defender Faulkner pushed back: “Doesn’t the President have a right to defend his son and to speak out?”
The lone liberal on the show, Jessica Tarlov, responded: “He has a right to defend him. It’s different to defend your child and lie for him or to complicate the situation so drastically.”
Kennedy piled on: “If my dad had no idea what I did in a business meeting I wouldn’t sit there and let him write my defense.”
Benson added that the problem is the changing story on the Russia incident.
“Oh, Lord,” Smith snarked again.
But Faulkner got the last word, defending her buddy, Trump.
FAULKNER: Before we move on. I have yet to see a Democrat, anybody, any of the investigators and we haven’t heard from Robert Mueller yet, that there is any evidence of any collusion. Period. Let’s move on!
Actually, Faulkner is contradicted by her own colleague, Charles Krauthammer. On July 12, he said about Trump Jr.’s meeting, “This is the first empirical evidence” of collusion.
Watch Faulkner’s pique below, from the August 2, 2017 Outnumbered.
No. “the war that saves Trump” will be waged against a smaller place or one in turmoil. Venezuela is my pick, also because a “safe” government there would protect all the oil moghuls in the USA.
just ask her white husband!
On a serious note, I refer Bemused to Lindsey Graham’s recent interview where he said Der Furor told him he was prepared to go to war with North Korea. More scary is Graham was okay with that because all the death and destruction occurs over there.
History has demonstrated over and over again (ad nauseam, I’d wager) that an incompetent, authoritanian leader who feels beleaguered will inevitably be tempted by the country-unifying potential of a war. Reagan picked on the tiny island of Grenade (brings to mind that old film “The mouse that roared”)
My crystal ball suggests that President Trump may decide to pick on Venezuela, where the economic interests of American oil moghuls are at stake. North Korea would fight to the death and Iran is protected by a multi-national nuclear deal. I see little chance of the partners in that deal accepting to wage war for an American POTUS who is increasingly perceived as inadequate.