An entire Fox News panel, plus host Howard Kurtz, ignored Donald Trump’s shocking refusal to deny working for Russia even as they discussed the New York Times report on the FBI’s suspicions that he had.
As I previously posted, Trump delivered a nearly two-minute rant that never used the word “no,” when he was asked by Fox host Jeanine Pirro last night, “Are you now, or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” With good reason, Trump’s failure to deny working for Russia has gotten a lot of attention.
But on Fox’s Media Buzz show, it was like Trump’s answer never happened. Quoting the Times report, Kurtz said, “Law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.” Kurtz added without noting that it was his own interjection, “But nothing was found.”
FACT CHECK: We don’t know what was found. The Times report states that the Mueller investigation took over that inquiry and that “It is unclear whether Mr. Mueller is still pursuing the counterintelligence matter.”
Conservative guest Emily Jashinsky immediately claimed that the report should be a bigger indictment of the FBI than Trump. Her “proof” was that the ninth paragraph notes:
No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.
But the lack of public evidence is by no means the same as a lack of any evidence, as Kurtz and his panelists surely know. But Kurtz also emphasized that that information was in the ninth paragraph, as if it were proof that the Times had buried exculpatory information.
Sadly, the lone liberal guest, contributor Richard Fowler, failed to plainly state the truth and thus helped enable the fiction. Kurtz called on him by quoting part of Trump’s rambling response to Pirro - “I think it’s the most insulting article I’ve ever had written and if you read the article, you’d see that they found absolutely nothing” – and treating it as an actual denial. Kurtz also cited the “no public evidence” quote from the Times.
Fowler said nothing about Trump's failure to deny working for Russia despite a softball question about it on Fox. Nor did Fowler forcefully point out that “no public evidence” is a far cry from “no evidence” at all. Ignoring the whitewash operation going on in front of him, he offered a milquetoast reply: “A couple of things in this. I think it all comes down to what’s in the Mueller investigation.” He began to say that a counterintelligence investigation is “very different from a criminal investigation” but was interrupted by Kurtz demanding that he “grade it as a news story.”
Once again, Fowler whiffed. As former US Attorney Barbara McQuade explained on MSNBC, the FBI almost surely had more information than we know about. She said about the Times' article, “I think it confirms that there is more to this case than is publicly disclosed.” Such a sensitive counterintelligence investigation would almost certainly have been approved by the “highest levels of the Justice Department,” not just the FBI, she said, meaning that it would not have been opened without solid evidence.
But Fowler said, “I don’t think any of these – like when you think of all the news stories that were regarding Russia, I don’t think any of them are of any importance because the Mueller team has not leaked anything, number one. And number two, if it’s not based on a court filing from the Mueller report or from the Mueller team, then I give it a little bit less credibility.”
Not surprisingly, none of the others found anything to disagree with there. So Kurtz moved on to talk about a Washington Post report that Trump “has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”
As Fowler kept quiet, it was conservative Beverly Hallberg who argued that Trump “doesn’t help himself out” by not recording notes of his interactions with Putin. Her reasoning, however, was that not doing so gives ammunition to all the people who “want to damage him based on some supposed collusion and connection with Russia.” Nobody pointed out that this is just the latest in a growing body of disturbing behavior by Trump regarding Russia.
The Post article said that Trump allies have said “his desire for secrecy” over his Putin conversations “may also be driven by embarrassing leaks that occurred early in his presidency.” And lo and behold, Kurtz echoed that very point – as if this were a one-off and not part of a troublesome picture regarding Trump and Putin. “Worried about leaks!” Kurtz exclaimed. “The story in itself is an example of that … Maybe he just doesn’t trust the people around him.”
Or maybe it’s just what it looks like: Trump is trying to hide something.
Watch four people, including a liberal guest, ignore the Russian elephant in the room below, from the January 13, 2019 Media Buzz.