Megyn Kelly was so busy with her happy talk about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s Supreme Court lawsuit against President Obama’s immigration policies, she “forgot” to tell the viewers that Paxton is facing a couple of felony charges.
Although Kelly insists she’s a journalist and a “straight news anchor,” not an opinion host, it’s hard to imagine how Kelly could have been more biased in her interview with Paxton, short of standing up and waving an anti-Obama sign.
Right in her introduction, Kelly suggested where she stood or, more importantly, where her viewers should stand:
KELLY: It may be one of the biggest challenges yet to President Obama’s legacy. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the president’s executive actions on immigration, an order that would allow an estimated four million people or more who are here in the U.S. illegally to stay, and obtain legal status. With more than half the states of the nation arguing that the commander-in-chief is trampling on the Constitution here, this is turning out to be about much more than just immigration policy. Joining us now, in a primetime exclusive, Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton. Good to see you, Sir. Thank you for being here.
Her chummy first question to Paxton was, “So how do you like your chances on Monday?”
Her next question suggested Paxton had the angels on his side:
KELLY: You’ve won repeatedly on this issue. You challenged the executive order saying he was out of bounds constitutionally. You’ve won, you’ve won, and you’ve won again. Now, you go up to the Supreme Court, that’s one man down because of the death of Justice Scalia.
After ascertaining that if Texas loses its Supreme Court case, “It just means you’ll have to have a trial,” and “it doesn’t mean everyone can stay,” Kelly all but prodded Paxton to attack the Obama administration by asking, “Why do you think he overstepped his bounds? ‘Cause the administration says, ‘Prosecutorial discretion, we get to decide how to allocate resources, and we don’t have the resources to go deport these four million people.'” Notice how she camouflaged her prompt by “balancing” it with a “he said” quote from the Obama administration.
Kelly also said pointedly about Obama’s legislation, “I know I said I was [not] a king… I was wrong those 26 times I said that.” Then she asked Paxton whether the court would “look at” what Paxton said were Obama’s words, “I just changed the law."
Kelly did offer a brief explanation of the Obama administration’s legal strategy:
KELLY: He says look, there’s a 2012 case, Arizona versus the United States, this is the administration. They say this is from the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the court, "Discretion and the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime." They say all they need to do is get Justice Kennedy to come over to the side of the liberals, and use this sentence, and win.
But her next question to Paxton was, “Are you predicting victory?”
But here’s what “straight news anchor” Kelly didn’t tell the “we report, you decide” network’s viewers, from the April 11, Austin-American Statesman:
Dramatically increasing the legal jeopardy faced by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, federal regulators on Monday accused the high-profile Republican of defrauding investors in a McKinney tech company while he was a member of the Texas House.
The accusations, contained in a federal lawsuit by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, were based on the same acts that last year led to state criminal charges against Paxton — revealing more details about the private business deals than had been previously known.
By the way, those state criminal charges were felonies, according to The Statesman.
Just two days before, Kelly veered away from a discussion about the 2016 presidential race with Al Sharpton in order to attack him over his past comments about the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, which was completely unrelated. What do you think the likelihood would have been that she would have ignored Paxton’s legal woes had he been a Democrat challenging a Republican?
Watch it below and decide for yourself, from the April 15 The Kelly File.