Sunday School Extra Credit: 10/6/19

There was a lot going on yesterday, mostly about impeachment on the talk shows, but today the talk was all about MTP's Chuck Todd and Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace and how they're pushing their guests to answer questions more than they have in the past.

Here's a link to video of a portion of Todd's interview with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, where the question on the table is why Johnson 'winced' when he heard that the aid to Ukraine was being held up because Trump wanted the Bidens, and the DNC, investigated.

While some are applauding Todd for his efforts, others suggest that giving him kudos for doing his job is kind of like giving everyone a participation trophy or something. And, of course there's the whole other point that this is way too little, way too late. Had he or any other journalists done this back in 2015, beginning with the escalator ride, we might not be sitting here having an impeachment investigation of the president. Why? Because Trump would not have been the nominee, had he faced even the slightest real scrutiny in the beginning - or even the middle - of his campaign. By the time most media outlets started to take him seriously, it was way too late.

I think there's a respectful way to get questions answered, and this was not that, but I do understand the frustration - I just don't know that it needs to be applauded. I mean, you can always just end the interview, can't you? "I'm sorry, sir, but clearly we're on different missions today. Thanks for coming in."

Meanwhile, here's Chris Wallace interviewing Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah.

Wallace started by asking Stewart whether he's concerned that a second whistleblower had come forward, with firsthand corroborating knowledge. Stewart said he wasn't concerned at all, since they've known "a little bit" that someone else was likely to come forward. And,

...one of our concerns has always been there hasn't been firsthand knowledge of this. The first whistleblower, virtually everything that he accused was second and third hand knowledge. But, Chris, it does not matter. This person is going to come forward and say, yes, the president had this phone call and, yes, that's the transcript. I mean why should I care at all what his perspective or his opinion and judgment of this transcript is? You and I can read it.

Um, we can't read the transcript, because what was released is specifically NOT a transcript of the call. And if Republicans were concerned about there not being firsthand information, - meaning, as they've been saying, the stuff was made up, completely unreliable or both - why aren't they concerned that there's now firsthand information?

If Wallace had been pushing, that should have been the question he asked. But he moved on to talking about corroboration of the allegations in the first whistleblower's complaint, saying that "it's more than just a phone call." Stewart disagreed.

But, Chris, that's just not true. I mean all of these accusations he makes about linkage after he just pulled from "The New York Times" and from "The Washington Post." There's no classified or secret information in that. It all comes down to this one thing. It comes down to one sentence in one phone call. And when you read that in its entirety, it's very clear, he doesn't ever link it to military aid. It's never even mentioned. He doesn't ever offer a quid pro quo. He never even mentions the upcoming election. He talks about one thing, we want to investigate corruption. And I think that's a reasonable thing for him to ask. And these other assumptions are things that some people, in their judgment, are concerning, but it's simply not found in this phone call

Again, Stewart said "anyone can read it" and again, that's a lie. People in the government can't even read the transcript of this call, and others, we're told, because it's on a secure server to protect the president, the country, and our allies. So again, Wallace could have pressed on that issue.

Instead, he showed a clip of Trump talking about not only Ukraine but also asking China to investigate allegations against Biden, and asked Stewart

Congressman, can you tell me of any other instance during the time President Trump has been in office where he asked a foreign leader to investigate a specific American on the issue of corruption?

Stewart's answer? "You bet. Attorney General Barr is doing it right now." Except that Snitty Snitty Bill Barr is not Donald Trump, and so Wallace did push back.

No, no, no. I asked -- I - forgive me. I said President Trump -- can you tell me of another instance where President Trump, on a conversation, a call, has publicly or privately asked for a foreign leader to investigate a specific American.

And again, here's Stewart pretending to answer.

Yes. Absolutely. Now look, he may have done it personally, but it doesn't matter, Chris, there's no difference between the president making the call or the president saying to Attorney General Barr or other of his subordinates, you make the call and investigate this. And he's been very clear on that. 

Wallace took that to mean that Stewart cannot give another example, and pushed again.

You -- I mean -- I don't mean to interrupt, but you can't tell me of another case where we have a record of the president specifically asking for  foreign leader to investigate a specific American? 

Stewart again pointed to Barr.

I'm saying he's -- he's willingly and -- and acknowledged that he's doing that through his attorney general. 

 Wallace, again, pushing:

And - and other than Joe Biden, can you tell me of another - I mean there are millions of Americans who do business overseas, all kinds of activities.

 Stewart agreed - "yes" - so Wallace tried again.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the one person that he has asked for a foreign leader to investigate, specifically by name, "investigate this person," just happens to be his chief rival for the 2020 campaign?

Stewart's answer is a thing of beauty.

But - but, Chris, you're missing the whole reason for why. He did that because he has knowledge of possible corruption. I mean Vice President Biden and his son -- he was dragging his son to the two countries that the vice president had primary responsibility for, Ukraine and China. And he's taking his son to those two countries with him.

And while he's doing official business, his son is signing, in some cases, $1.5B deals. And I think that a lot of people when they -- Americans, when they hear that, they think, you know what, that doesn't sound right to me. Maybe it's worth asking a few questions about that. That's all the president is doing here. 

Instead of going all Chuck Todd on Stewart, Wallace just asked the question again, with the added facts that there have been no crimes alleged against either of the Bidens.

And you think it's just a coincidence that -- I mean there are a lot of businessmen doing a lot of business a lot bigger than a billion dollars and the only person that he asked for - incidentally, we should point out, there has never, never been a specific allegation of any crime committed - does it look bad? Of course it does. But there's never been an allegation of a specific crime that Joe Biden or Hunter Biden committed. 

 And - and - neither in China nor in Ukraine. You think that it's just a coincidence that he's talking about Joe Biden?

Stewart, again, does his best to defend the president, no matter what.

Well, but Chris, you keep using that word 'coincidence.' It's not a coincidence at all. It is just that those are the facts presented to him and he's responding to those facts. If someone else brought other accusations against other Americans and - and they had reason to investigate that, I -- I'm sure the president would as well. But these were the facts that were brought to him and these were the individuals that were associated with those facts. 

At that point, Wallace turned the conversation to the Congressional hearings, and things wrapped up a few questions later.

And speaking of questions, I have a few of my own, about the Sunday Shows:

• Do you see a difference in how Chuck Todd handled his interview and how Wallace handled his, and do you have a preference?  
• Do you think there should be more of this type of questioning, this probing to get an answer, or is it a waste of time?

See you around campus.