Fox News’ Absurd Defense of Trump Obstruction

Fox News’ Absurd Defense of Trump Obstruction April 22, 2019

The three dumb mice from Fox and Friends welcomed Fox correspondent Ed Henry on the show to discuss the Mueller report’s findings. When discussing the obstruction of justice evidence presented in the report, the four of them argued that since Trump’s aides refused to carry out his orders to obstruct several times. there was no obstruction.

ED HENRY (FOX NEWS NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT): Well on that incident that Brian was talking about with Don McGahn, who was White House counsel at the time, it basically talked about the president calling him up, and the report says that weekend the president called McGahn and directed him to have the special counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest. McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday night massacre and instead prepared to resign himself. Now McGahn ultimately did not quit and the president did not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the special counsel removed. Important points there because in the end, embarrassing details for the president about how it all played out. But he didn’t act on it. McGahn didn’t act on it. So there was no removal of Robert Mueller. So no obstruction there.

Right. See, he threatened to have a witness killed if he didn’t lie for him under oath, but he never actually killed him so it’s all copacetic. Fox News logic.

"To call it "stupidity" is to give it a free pass. I'd like to see ..."

State Dept. IG Report Says Trump ..."
"No. Wait for it.The total Chinese hoax of global warming will render Greenland much more ..."

Trump Asks Aides to Look Into ..."
"The history: Shah Jehan (emperor who built the original Taj Mahal for his dying wife), ..."

Trump Asks Aides to Look Into ..."
"Sold!!I, for one, would welcome our Danish overlords.As long as they bring some nice pastries!"

Trump Asks Aides to Look Into ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment