Timothy Birdnow

I rarely watch the Sunday news shows. They just get my blood pressure up and I rarely get any information I don't already have, so why bother? I can always read about any memorable quotes after the  fact.

But today I decided to watch Fox News Sunday, and am glad that I did. First up was James "the Perjurer" Comey. Comey was the man who, after investigating Hillary Clinton and finding multiple violations of her security clearance, wound up saying there was "no intent" to break the law and so would not refer her for prosecution. He decided to stick with a winning strategy this morning, and kept insisting the Inspector General's report found no bad intent, despite "mistakes" to the tune of 17  "significant errors or omissions" by three different FBI teams. Really?

Comey glossed this over by repeatedly saying "the IG said there was no bias in opening the report".

But that's not what Horowitz said; he said he could find no evidence, which is a world of difference, especially for an investigator without subpoena power. Basically Horowitz had to take people at their word. So, without documentation at the very beginning of this he could not state unequivocally that there was bias. Comey knows this.

I am mindful of the Mueller Report; Robert Mueller stated darkly that he couldn't unequivocally clear Trump of collusion. Of course not; you cannot prove a negative. But Mueller included that to make his Democratic friends happy. Horowitz - a Democrat - wasn't going to put his own neck on the chopping block by putting out this report and making conclusions. He presented the evidence and left the weasel words in there. After all, he doesn't want them Borking him.

Comey was asked why he was unaware of what was going on and he replied "the director doesn't follow every low level investigation".  When Chris Wallace pressed him, pointing out that this was a major presidential candidate and then president elect, Comey referred to this as "4 levels below".  ??? You are talking about accusations of foreign influence over the President Elect and that is Four levels below the Director?

Naturally, Wallace never asked Comey about his repeated dishonesty, and indeed perjury. Nothing was mentioned of his profiteering off his firing. Nothing was mentioned about partisan antics during and after said firing. Wallace did press him, but hardly as much as he deserved.

The second guest was former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who pretty much ran a filibuster and used nothing but talking points. She came across quite poorly in my view. She didn't answer many of Wallace's questions (which were in fact biased but a good spokesman should be able to handle that.)  One thing stood out about her interview; Wallace attacked Trump for criticizing Fox for hosting the liar Comey and Adam Schiff and he climbed on his high horse, talking about the "free and fair press". Bondi should have pointed out that both men are proven liars and that if Fox wanted to traffic in lies and fake news  it should join the rest of the mainstream media. She failed to hit back, and I fear she is going to do a lousy job defending the President.

Last up was the Boy Wonder Adam Schiff.

The little cockroach argued that they eschewed separate charges of bribery and extortion because those were a part of "abuse of power". No they are not, and a good journalist would have called him on that. If Schiff had evidence of bribery and extortion he would have filed those as separate charges. Abuse of power is a nebulous thing, a kind of elastic charge, a catch-all. It's something you would use when you don't have the facts on your side. Wallace should have been on Schiff like white on rice here. Of course, Wallace has made it clear he is on the side of the mainstream media, so it should not surprise.

A big part of Schiff's case was that Trump ignored subpoenas and disregarded Congress.

Does he REALLY want to go there?

It's not even true; Trump supplied 20,000 pages of documents to Congress. But he refused his personal taxes, which they want. But that is neither here nor there.

Where was Schiff's  concern when Barack Obama ignored subpoenas and disregarded Congress?

He seems to forget that Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, was cited with Contempt of Congress for ignoring Congressional subpoenas over Benghazi - a place where Americans died. And a lot of Mexicans dies in Fast and Furious. There were other instances  where Obama just ignored Congress, including e-mail gate. here, here, and here to refresh your memory.

Mr. Schiff was not at all disturbed by these violations then.

Here is Mr. Schiff's statement at the time of Mr. Holder's Contempt charge:

"I like most Americans would like to know about the facts of Fast and Furious, about the problem of guns crossing our border, the horrendous violence south of our border, but what we do today will shed no light on that. What we do today will not improve the situation in terms of gun violence that's claimed the lives of tens of thousands of -- tens of thousands of Mexican citizens and claimed the lives of Americans. What we are doing today is simply a partisan abuse of the contempt power.

"Thirteen percent of the American people think highly of Congress, and to date those thirteen percent are wondering why. What we do will cause no injury to the department, but it will cause great injury to this house. The justice department, after providing 8,000 documents and extensive testimony, is now being required to turn over privileged materials.

"And like all Administration before it, it has reluctantly used the executive privilege to respectfully refuse to provide materials it cannot provide. And so now here we are bringing a contempt motion against the Attorney General which our committee chairman acknowledges was not aware of Fast and Furious. They don't expect any documents to show you about Fast and Furious and yet we are going to hold this Cabinet in contempt?

"That is an outrageous abuse of the contempt power. What will happen when this Congress actually needs to use the contempt power for legitimate purpose? Will anyone still recognize it? U urge the Speaker to withdraw this motion as indeed Speaker Gingrich withdrew the motion in his stay and let the parties work this out. We both know, Democrats and Republicans, how this will end. It will end months from now. Let's end this partisan exercise now.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1312 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Schiff? Sounds as if you were watching an Animal Planet show about cockroaches.

We turned to Fox News at some point and found that Mark Levin had Sean Hannity on for his whole show. I must say Sean looked tired, and older. He's working hard! Levin is a wonderful interviewer, never interrupts, stays calm. Of course, he and Hannity are on the same side of the issues.

They both need our prayers.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at December 16, 2019 02:00 PM (CcPEk)

2 I'm not surprised Hannity looked fatigued. He's under constant, intense pressure from the Left. They are always auditing his taxes, for instance. They are always pressuring sponsors to cut him loose. He's got the Democrats in the House all over him.  It's amazing Fox hasn't sacked him yet, like they have done to so many other conservatives.

Yes, he does indeed need our prayers.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at December 17, 2019 07:14 AM (dz6x/)

3 BTW, you mentioned that you watched Chris Wallace. In our house, my wife is Keeper of the Remote. When she switches to Fox News, if she hears Wallace's self-centered clickety-clack, she immediately switches over to our copious collection of recorded programs. My wife is usually tired come eventime and cannot abide that wormy a$$hole, no matter who he is interviewing. Later on, we can usually find some quality on Fox News: Steven Hilton, Mark Levin, and so forth.

Life is too short. . .

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at December 17, 2019 11:48 PM (ot1RL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment