Rep. Eric Swalwell shredded Martha MacCallum’s efforts to make the Russia investigation about Democratic wrongdoing. Sadly, however, she refused to recognize the facts.
The discussion began with MacCallum reporting the “breaking news” of Russian threats to retaliate against the U.S. if it doesn’t return the spy compounds shut down by the Obama administration in retaliation for that country’s meddling in our 2016 presidential election.
But MacCallum didn’t dwell on such unpleasantness long. She quickly pivoted to enthusiastically announce that more officials from the Obama administration have been called to testify to the House Intelligence Committee about unmasking.
Swalwell (D-CA), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told MacCallum that the unmasking issue is a “false alarm.” He said our focus should be on making sure that Russia’s attack on our election never happens again and “understanding who worked with Russia during that last attack.” He further noted, “There’s been no evidence put forward that any wrongdoing was done by any Obama administration official.”
Then Swalwell delivered what should have been the coup de grâce, several times. From the Fox News transcript, with my emphases:
SWALWELL: The White House actually, they hold all the evidence, they could show the world if there was wrongdoing. They haven’t done that.
[…]
Our committee doesn’t have access to those materials, they’re actually held by the White House. So, why doesn’t the White House show any evidence it has of wrongdoing?
[…]
What I’m saying, Martha, just to be clear, the White House has the power of declassification. If there’s a piece of evidence that they have, that somebody did something wrong, they don’t need Congress to tell the world that happened. They actually can tell the world that that happened. And they haven’t done that, I think we can conclude there is no wrongdoing, this is just an effort distract from—
MacCallum never challenged the substance of Swalwell’s comments. But, she knew her mission was to deliver pro-Trump talking points no matter what. So she attacked Swalwell personally instead.
MACCALLUM: I see. We had this conversation before, Congressman. I don’t understand your lack of curiosity on this, and I completely understand your interest in all of the other parts of this investigation, which we cover here on a nightly basis in terms of whether or not the Russians meddled on the investigation, or whether or not there was any collusion. That is a, you know, a story that is well trodden, and we continue to do that every night. But in terms of the other side of this that the Obama administration wanted to unmask the names of Trump administration officials, I don’t understand—what questions do you have for these people when they get before your committee? Because we now know they’re going to appear before you; what questions will you have for them?
I’m a big fan of Swalwell and what he said is right on the money. But I wish he had called out MacCallum’s disingenuous tactic of trying to discredit him as a partisan hack, while she was operating as one - while seemingly “just asking” questions. I believe that when Democratic guests just answer questions, instead of reframing the discussion, they help legitimize Fox’s propagandistic tactics.
However, Swalwell’s answers were right on point and sharp.
SWALWELL: And Martha my question is: what has changed since you and I last talked about this? There’s been no evidence of wrongdoing. You know, intelligence officials in their job, if it’s relevant to understanding a risk to the National Security of our country will have to look at who a U.S. person is, but there’s no evidence that anyone did anything wrong. So, I think the best thing we can do is tell the American people as Republicans and Democrats, how we’re going to secure the ballot box the next election. That would be a better use of our time.
MACCALLUM: All right. So, you’re not going to ask them any questions when they sit before you in your committee?
SWALWELL: Well, of course, I want to understand what the administration’s response was as Russia was attacking us, what we can learn from that so that it doesn’t happen again. But until I see evidence that somebody did something wrong, I’m not –
MACCALLUM: But you’re a (INAUDIBLE), that’s what you’re supposed to be doing. You’re supposed to be asking questions to find out if there’s any evidence, to find out what you’ve got in those documents, and to be probing and ask the questions that need to be asked on all sides of this question.
SWALWELL: Yes. And again, Martha, investigations are launched when there is some degree of evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, that is literally just going on a wild goose chase and that’s what they’re trying to do because the evidence about U.S. persons working with Russia has become so overwhelming. I think it’s unfortunate –
MACCALLUM: So far the only potential felony that anyone is aware of is if it were done for political reasons—the unmasking of individuals. So far, that is the only felony that anyone has, discussing in this entire case on either side at this point.
SWALWELL: Well, Martha, actually, it’s a felony to either hack data of U.S. persons, to work with people who hacked data of U.S. persons, to conspire to hack data of U.S. persons, or to not comply with the federal election laws. I mean, there are a number of crimes that have to be looked at. That’s the job of Bob Mueller; our job is to tell him—
MACCALLUM: And that’s what’s going on. Yes, and that’s what’s under way.
SWALWELL: Yes, and our committee—I really believe, Martha, like the September 11th Commission, they saw that there was a vulnerability that was exposed being attacked from the sky. Republicans and Democrats came together; we’re the safer today because they did that. And I think if we want to go into the next election and not have these vulnerabilities exposed, we should come together around securing the ballot box.
MACCALLUM: I completely agree with you. I think most Americans too, but the 9/11 Commission did not negate one area of the investigation in order to do that work. And I think most people expect that you, guys, will do the same on both sides of the aisle.
But here’s the thing: while MacCallum was calling for balance, she was deliberately tipping the scale: first by baselessly pretending there was a “both sides” as she ignored how Swalwell had just proved otherwise; then by denigrating Swalwell for not giving enough credence to her side (while she pretended not to have one) and then using up all the time in the discussion so that she never got around to discussing the other side.
Democrats should stop letting Fox hosts get away with this.
Watch MacCallum’s slippery behavior below, from the July 18, 2017 The Story with Martha MacCallum.
But jeez, Eric Swalwell? Groan. He’s got some kind of incredibly aggressive PR person getting him booked EVERYWHERE. He seldom has all that much to say, but boy, does he say it over and over and over again on every program on cable. I’m sick of seeing him.
Business Insider reported last Friday the Susan Rice unmasking narrative is propaganda created by Devin Numes. Before Trumpets scream “fake news” realize the allegation comes from Republican Senator Burr, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.