Chris Wallace Accuses Top Republican of ‘Very Badly’ Mischaracterizing Impeachment Testimony
Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace repeatedly confronted House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) on Sunday over the top Republican’s characterization of last week’s impeachment testimony, accusing congressman of “very badly” misrepresenting the witnesses’ positions.
Wallace pressed the Trump-boosting Louisiana lawmaker on the upcoming testimony of U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sonldand, asking Scalise if it was possible Sondland could “blow a hole in the president’s defense” if he testifies that the president told him Ukraine aid was being held up unless the Ukrainian president publicly announced an investigation into the Bidens.
“Well, the president’s defense is that those things didn't happen,” Scalise responded. “And it’s not just the president's word. President Zelensky himself said that the aid wasn’t conditioned and there was no pressure.”
“The real bottom line is he got the money,” the GOP representative added, reiterating a key party talking point. “Ukraine got the money.”
Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting that many of them became immediately upset that Trump pressed Zelensky on investigating a Ukrainian gas firm that Vice President’s Joe Biden’s son worked for.
“Those were [House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam] Schiff's witnesses,” Scalise insisted.
“No, sir, they are career foreign service officers and these are people who worked in the Trump administration,” Wallace retorted, adding that an aide to Vice President Mike Pence recently testified that Trump’s call was “inappropriate.”
“You had Tim Morrison, who was on the NSC staff, who said that he—alarm bells immediately went off for him,” the Fox News host continued. “Alexander Vindman immediately went to see—these are all people, you say they are Schiff's witnesses—they all were working in the Trump administration.”
Scalise attempted to pivot to the whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, claiming the Intelligence Community inspector general said the whistleblower had political motivations. Wallace, meanwhile, snapped back: “We are not talking about the whistleblower!”
After saying that he didn’t want to answer “hypothetical” questions about Sondland’s upcoming testimony, Scalise then asserted last week’s impeachment witnesses —senior State Department official George Kent, top Ukraine envoy Bill Taylor, and former U.S. Amb. to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch—essentially said Trump did nothing wrong.
“All three of them were asked, did you see any impeachable offenses” he declared. “Did you see any bribery? Any of that? Not one of those things were mentioned. Not one person said they saw a crime committed.”
“With all due respect—with all due respect, that very badly mischaracterizes what they said,” Wallace pushed back. “They were asked, William Taylor, for instance, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was asked whether or not these were impeachable offenses. He said I’m there as a fact witness. I’m not there to pass judgment, but he made it clear what he thought about what the president was doing.”
Wallace would then go on to play a clip of Taylor’s testimony, further noting that Taylor said that withholding aid to Ukraine to help Trump’s presidential campaign was “crazy.”
This wasn’t the only time that Wallace left Scalise stumbling in Sunday morning’s interview. When the Louisiana congressman dismissed concerns about the July phone call by brushing off “third-hand” accounts while pointing to the Ukrainian foreign minister’s claim there was no link between aid and investigations, Wallace retorted that the foreign minister “was not on the call either.”
Via MSN
Photo: © Provided by The Daily Beast
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
. @ SteveScalise blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @ FoxNews past. Great job Steve!
Unless he is on? What a pompous ass Trump is.
Scalise must have drawn the short straw. Not many of the GOP Reps are coming out from under rocks to opine on REAL media about the mountain of evidence against Trump's corrupt acts.
And again, instead of saying anything about what Wallace is talking about, in true fashion, it is just attack Wallace.
That's Crooked donnie's MO...attack, attack and attack some more...he's delusional
And his followers do the same. Sad.
A pair to draw to...Lair/conman,,,Conman/lair
With a Nixon stamp of approval.
It always amazes me when the left tries to draw some kind of close relationship between President Trump and Epstein when their boy slick willie has been to pervert island numerous times flying on the Lolita express. Release the tapes they confiscated from his home....
It always amazes me when the right refuses to acknowledge the relationship between Trump and Epstein. Clinton was NOT at the island, but Trump was, more than once.
Lmao Just because you are in denial doesn't mean it didn't happen.
More than 26 times Slick Willy flew on the Lolita express.
Denial is not a river in Egypt...
tRump and Epstein both took turns raping Ivanka.
If tRump could still get it up, he'd still be boinking Ivanka.
Look at how someone's references to Bill Clinton being on Lolita express is all from Fux 'new's or World Nut Daily or some blogs and other nonsense.
NOT VALID SOURCES.
Shoot that messenger!!!!!!!!!
did you post this to the wrong site?
No it is not, it is also the number 1 political strategy for Trump apologists.
WHEN HAS TRUMP BEEN ACCUSED OF RAPE OR ATTEMPTED RAPE? ALLEGATIONS INCLUDE A CHILD, HIS WIFE AND A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE
What amazes me is the speed of the right wing nuts, and paid (Russian, Chinese, RNC, etc) posters to jump on every Epstein article to try and divert attention away from Trump. The speed and vehemence of it, is indicative of absolute fear.
Nice photoshopped picture.
Allegation against Trump by left wing nut jobs.
I agree that Trump is no saint. He is a womanizer/playboy.
Never one allegation against Trump until he became the Republican candidate.
Lets get back to my original comment you can't defend.
Trump may have bumped into Epstein hanging around the Clintons and Democrat fundraisers. Trump did not hang out at pervert island like Slick willy did no mater how much in your fantasy world you believe he did.
Paula Jones was the one that opened the flood gates of accusations. She worked for Clinton during his stint as the Governor of Arkansas and won a massive $850,000 settlement from Clinton. The stipulation, of course, was that Bill did to have to admit to any wrongdoing as long as he inked that check.
Juanita Broderick was a nursing home administrator that claimed Bill raped her in a hotel room in 1978. She has recently resurfaced to warn people how evil these two are and that they cannot be allowed to once again get into the White House.
Kathleen Willey was a volunteer who alleged Bill attacked her in 1998. Her original accusations came to light during a “60 Minutes” special.
Eileen Wellstone has one of the more disturbing claims due to the fact it goes back to when Clinton was at Oxford University as a student in 1969. I say this because it was not just political power that led to this behavior if her claim is true. This would establish him as a serial rapist with behavior that started decades before he ever came into prominence.
Carolyn Moffet met Clinton at a fundraiser in 1979. She claims she was invited by Bill to go back to his hotel room, where Bill demanded she perform sexual acts. It is yet another example of Bill using his position to lure a woman in and then assault her once he got her behind closed doors.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen won the Miss America contest in 1982 and alleged Clinton forced her to have sex shortly after gaining the crown.
Becky Brown served as Chelsea’s nanny. Two people came forward to reveal that Bill Clinton made sexual advances on her while she was serving in this capacity at the Governor’s mansion in Arkansas. Her husband and local state trooper backed up her story.
Helen Dowdy claims to have been groped by Bill during a family wedding while she was on the dance floor. That seems to be a popular move by Bill as we have seen in several videos that have come to light in recent weeks.
Cristy Zercher was one of those girls I just spoke about, as she claims Clinton groped her while she was serving as a stewardess on his campaign jet. In her interview with Star Magazine, she said the alleged incident took place for approximately forty minutes.
This, of course, is not the full list, as there are numerous other “alleged” rapes, illegitimate children, and mistresses. And this is the man the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural First Gentleman.
And Not one Conviction either !
Democrat and Liberal types "Forget" ….. to easily.
Expert Opinion ?
She is blocked from posting to me but still seeks my attention. You should see the private msg's she sends me.
Funny, Hillary isn't running for office - and neither is Bill.
Yet the Trump supporters keep throwing their names out there anytime someone brings up Trump's corruption, as if that somehow makes what he's doing OK. Talk about hypocrisy. If Bill's actions bothered you as much as you claim, there should be no possible way you could support Trump.
A decent person would put morals and ethics ahead of policies in some instances, as you seem to imply with your comment - but Trump supporters don't do that.
Try following the thread before you jump in with your self righteous indignation.
Thanks for helping me out and admitting Bill Clinton is a pervert though.
Anytime. I call it like I see it, and Clinton is a pervert.
You said "the left wants to serve the country as the inaugural Frist Gentleman" - the tense you use implies that somehow Hillary is running for President. So perhaps you should learn about tenses before you try to insult me for my comment.
Please check your PN's.
That's the article I copied....
Looks like Trump is "Socializing" with Melania to me.
Frosty is not capable of following a thread either.
Or he posts meme that have nothing to do with anything being said.
Billy was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob. But apparently, trump commits extortion of a foreign country to aid him in his personal campaign and you are fine with it. I am SO shocked... /s
After you just posted an article about Bill Clinton, which has what to do with the current impeachment? I mean, other than nothing at all?
None of the Witness's for the "Schiff Parody Prosecution" has said any such thing !
Besides....where did that infamous "Prid-Quo-Pro" wording go anyway ?
No. He was impeached for obstruction of justice, multiple counts of perjury and witness tampering.
Again I know it's hard but try following the thread instead of jumping in.
What happened to "lock her up"? Now you're waiting for convictions????
We are still waiting for all those indictments for Obama and Hillary and everyone in his administration
You sound exceedingly bitter and venomous
Dominoes falling?
Tick tock
I'm Not waiting for a damn thing.
[Deleted]
Says Mr. Off Topic Inappropriate Memes.
But, but, the Clintons!
You're waiting for your next talking point to show up in your spam folder.
No, it really doesn't. You can think all sorts of negative things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he should be removed from office. That's the point Scalise was making. He didn't try to claim the witnesses approved of Trump's actions. All he said was that none of them would say the president should be impeached over it.
They didn't say he shouldn't be either.
Democrats are looking for someone in this list of witnesses to push everyone else over the edge with them. They want a witness who makes it unequivocally clear that Trump did something that requires impeachment and it's just not happening. None of these career people are dumb enough to put their heads on the chopping block and tell the committee they need to impeach the president.
You know that Hill, Volker and Morrison have already resigned right? Their testimony is upcoming.
Sondland is DONE and he'll just have to 'scrap' by on his nest egg. He has 3 choices, claim the 5th and be seen as a liar, LIE and have jail hanging over him or suck it up and tell the truth.
I think that the Democrats should seek an affidavit from Yermak, Zelensky's top aid.
Yes it really does.
You can think all sorts of positive things about what Trump did, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be removed from office.
If that was indeed the point that Scalise was TRYING to make, he failed miserably.
He just tried to dismiss the witnesses as Schiff minions.
NONE of them were there to state their OPINION about what the Congress should DO about Trump's conduct. All but Morrison stated that they felt that Trump's call was at minimum 'inappropriate'. Yet even Morrison knew that there was an issue with the content of the call and HIS reaction was to insure that it was buried.
That is all he did, try to shift blame.
Who called them to testify? Isn't Schiff organizing all this?
"Inappropriate" is simply their opinion. Not saying they're wrong, but "inappropriate" does not necessarily equal "impeachable".
So that inherently makes them 'Schiff's minions'? How?
Should we all then view Morrison and Volker as Nunes' minions?
The House will make that decision.
"Minions" was your term. He said "Schiff's witnesses", which appears to be accurate.
And the Senate will make theirs.
Which you answered by inferring that they WERE.
No he wasn't accurate because they were FACT witnesses and Volker, who the GOP called, stated that those prior FACT witnesses caused him to alter his own testimony. In short, Volker recognized them as giving truthful testimony.
I note that you didn't answer me about whether we should all view Volker and Morrison as Nunes' 'witnesses'.
Now your getting it.
I think you mean "implying", but I wasn't. You are doing the inferring. Incorrectly. Again.
The witnesses Schiff called are most certainly "Schiff's witnesses".
If he called them, then yes.
*eyeroll*
Oh sweetie....... bless your heart.
What are you 'inferring' that I am 'inferring' incorrectly? Please be specific.
No again. They are Committee witnesses.
Well gee Jack, Nunes and the Minority requested that the Committee call those witness. So are they Nunes' witnesses or not?
Not your 'sweetie' Jack. I need no blessing.
Oh good grief.
And yes...most definitely...bless your heart.
Even Fox is starting to see the writing on the wall. Lies, misinformation, disinformation is the basis for Republicans and Fox. Add gerrymandering, voter suppression and allowing election interference by hostile foreign influence and the GOP proves time and time again, they know they cannot win with the real majority of Americans and the popular vote, so they cheat and lie.
"Wallace, however, pointed out that a dozen people listened in on the now-infamous July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, noting that many of them became immediately upset "
Chris has "rapped" himself up in the "Feelings" train !
Even Chris didn't say it was an "Impeachable" offense ….. just like "NONE" of the "Others" have ever said either !
In fact....."NONE" of the so-called "Witnesses" have said anything of the sort. All they can "Report" on…. is that they "Feel" !
Nice gymnastics with the truth....
The "Witnesses" are providing facts/testimony of the call when asked questions on the substance of that call.
When asked about their feelings of the substance matter, they are supplying their feelings.
Two distinct differences, but you seem to only realize one because you have a narrative you want to push. Being a "Forever Trumper" is quickly becoming as popular as a case of gonorrhea....
Like:
NO....to hearing Bribery !
NO....to hearing extortion !
NO....to hearing a "Prid-Quo-Pro" (Which isn't used by Democrats anymore. Not "SHOCKING enough) !
But - #feelingsmatter