Over the years, I’ve seen and heard many… many completely ridiculous things that have been said, posted, or covered on Fox News. When you’re really nothing more than a conservative entertainment network masquerading as a “news” network, that’s bound to happen.
That being said, I just saw what is, easily, one of the dumbest segments/articles I’ve ever seen on Fox News by commentator Howard Kurtz.
Right away, from the headline alone, I knew what I was about to read was going to be absolutely absurd:
Does it matter? No evidence of Trump ‘collusion’ with Russia as media shift focus
And, yes, what followed was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.
I’ll run down the parts that stuck out to me the most:
I’ve long cautioned that, though we don’t know for sure, there may be no there there when it comes to these murky allegations about Donald Trump having “colluded” with Russia. That doesn’t mean that, say, Michael Flynn, who just invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying on the Hill, doesn’t have problems related to past payments from the Russians.
But Trump himself? Not so far.
As York puts it: “The problem, for the confederation of Democrats, pundits, Obama holdovers, and NeverTrumpers who hoped to see that result, has been that so far, after a lot of investigating, no evidence has emerged that collusion actually occurred.”
Yeah, because it’s all tied in with a highly-classified federal investigation. I always laugh at this argument Trump and his supporters like to toss out there that because no one involved has come out and said “we have concrete evidence he colluded with Russia,” that somehow matters. Even if investigators have found evidence which they believe links Trump’s campaign to collusion, U.S. intelligence investigations like this are extremely thorough — and that’s under more traditional circumstances. Clearly, since we’re talking about potential treason being committed by the current “president” with the Russian government, that means these investigations are going to have to reach unprecedented levels of detail and double-checking everything before reaching any sort of final conclusion.
So when Trump and his defenders say “no evidence has emerged that collusion actually occurred” — they don’t have any idea. That’s what they want people to believe, sure, but they have no way of knowing because nobody linked to the investigations has publicly stated that there’s no evidence of collusion.
Then there was this gem:
If you stop and think about it, the flood of leaks to the press over the last 10 days have mainly involved allegations and suggestions of the president trying to derail the investigation. That’s pretty much been the narrative since he fired Jim Comey.
Nothing like right after pushing the idea that there’s no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, Kurtz then admits that the main focus of the most recent leaks revolves around allegations that Trump was trying to obstruct justice and derail the investigation.
Question, Mr. Kurtz: Why would Trump actively try to obstruct justice or derail these investigations if he had nothing to hide?
He then goes on to admit that obstruction of justice is a crime for which people have been prosecuted, but that’s different than being found guilty of colluding with Russia. Which is true, though that doesn’t answer the question I just asked.
Kurtz saved the dumbest part of this Trump propaganda piece for last:
The latest Washington Post scoop is in the coverup vein. The story says the president “asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.” Trump spoke to Dan Coats, director of national intelligence, and Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, according to the piece, and they refused to comply.
“Pushing back” may not look good, but also wouldn’t necessarily be illegal.
Critics say Trump would not be applying such pressure if he had nothing to hide—but that is an assumption, and not based on evidence.
At a House hearing yesterday, former CIA director John Brennan said he was concerned about “contacts and interactions” between the Trump associates and Russia and questioned whether they cooperated wittingly or unwittingly, but he would not elaborate in open session.
So, he’s willing to admit Trump has possibly been trying to put pressure on U.S. intelligence officials to “push back” against James Comey’s March testimony where he admitted his campaign was under investigation, and while that might not “look good,” that also doesn’t mean what he did was illegal.
Okay, fair enough. However, when he also allegedly tried to get the head of the FBI — the same one he recently fired — to put an end to those investigations, that’s obstruction of justice, which is very illegal. What Kurtz did in this article was essentially toss out technicalities, while trying to downplay allegations, without addressing the elephant in the room: Why would Trump be trying to obstruct justice or put pressure on U.S. intelligence officials to push back against the FBI’s investigation if he had nothing to hide?
What he’s doing is basing his argument on “we don’t have evidence yet,” while more or less implying that Trump’s behavior — and possible illegal attempt to obstruct justice — don’t raise a whole lot of red flags.
Look at the flippant way he dismissed Trump’s very suspicious behavior. As if a person showing just about every sign of someone desperately trying to conceal or cover-up something is insignificant. Yes, thinking Trump’s possibly guilty based on his behavior is largely an assumption. However, it’s preposterous for Kurtz to imply that human behavior isn’t a form of circumstantial evidence.
Then I like how he acts as if former CIA director John Brennan’s refusal to divulge highly-classified information publicly somehow helps Trump. The fact that the former director of the CIA confirmed that he was concerned about “contacts and interactions” between Trump’s campaign and Russia during last year’s election is a massive deal. Especially when you consider these investigations have been going on for nearly a year now, with no sign of them ending any time soon. Meaning there’s a significant amount of information they’re looking into that isn’t apparently easily dismissed as a whole lot of nothing.
In many ways, this article was the perfect representation of how pathetic Fox News is. While not as over-the-top as the ridiculousness we often see from the likes of clowns like Sean Hannity, this was basically a pro-Trump propaganda piece taking the stance that, while his behavior has been less than ideal concerning all of this, because there’s no concrete evidence of collusion (at least none that we know of at this point), the media is making this into a much bigger deal than it is just to bash Trump. That’s rather hilarious coming from a network that did everything it could to convince people that Benghazi was the biggest scandal in our nation’s history.
As David Gregory recently said, if you swapped Clinton’s name in for Trump’s in each and every one of these scandals, the narrative by Republicans and conservative news outlets like Fox News would be a whole heck of a lot different.
Watch the comments below:
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Sanders Crashes and Burns When Asked Simple Question About Diversity of Trump Administration (Video) - December 14, 2017
- I’d Like to Address Mike Huckabee’s Laughable Insistence that Women Should Admire His Daughter (Video) - December 14, 2017
- Like the Spineless Coward That He is, Paul Ryan Appears Ready to Run Away and Hide From Trump - December 14, 2017