Fox News Presses Obama on Clinton Emails, Then Criticizes Him For Commenting

[Surya Gayatri]

During the highly-anticipated sit down with Fox News this weekend, President Barack Obama was predictably badgered — over and over again — by Chris Wallace over the ongoing Justice Department’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s use of a private email server. While Obama admitted (again) to the general “carelessness” shown by Clinton in the matter, he again repeated that he did not think national security was jeopardized.

Some argued the President was deserving of criticism in October for speaking out on an ongoing case — it “rais[ed] the ire of officials who saw an instance of the president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation,” according to The New York Times — but Wallace pestered deeper this weekend. And I don’t use the word “pestered” lightly; the veteran journalist Wallace repeatedly followed up with Obama on the issue, pushing the Commander-in-Chief so far that he finally had to snap, “How many times do I have to say it, Chris?”

The message was clearly delivered from Obama: there will be no special treatment given to the Clinton email investigation as a result of her ties to the administration. “Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department, because nobody is above the law,” President Obama clearly said.

Yet within 24 hours, it seems some at Fox News conveniently forgot why the President spoke so intensely on the topic (hint, because they pushed it) and put the onus instead on Obama for his response.

Here is the transcript from the segment in question from Sunday’s interview. Someone, please, do me a favor and count the number of interjections from Wallace practically abusing the President into submission to talk about the issue:

WALLACE: Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say, “Hillary Clinton will be treated — as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected.”

OBAMA: I can guarantee that. And I can guarantee that, not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive, that is institutionally how we have always operated. I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line, and always have maintained it, previous president.

WALLACE: So, just to button this up —

OBAMA: I guarantee it.

WALLACE: You —

OBAMA: I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case.

WALLACE: And she will be —

OBAMA: Full stop. Period.

WALLACE: And she will be treated no different —

OBAMA: Guaranteed. Full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department, because nobody is above the law.

WALLACE: Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?

OBAMA: How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed.

I don’t know about you, but I counted five — FIVE times Wallace in the span of a minute pushed for the President to give a response, and today Right Wing Caped Crusaders hold the President accountable for answering?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-presses-obama-on-clinton-emails-then-criticizes-him-for-commenting-2/

________________________________

The same Caped Crusaders we find here on a Democratic forum, excoriating Pres. Obama for responding as delicately as possible to the obtrusive shill, Wallace.

Go figure. You'd think these "Dem Crusaders" have the same agenda as the RW.

[Surya Gayatri]

2. I sincerely hope so. Sad to think that real "Dems" would carry on this way.

[billhicks76]

10. Wallace Wouldn't Let It Go

He dragged out an answer and then criticized not the answer itself but that he answered. Circular logic. But the real issue is that if the primary stays rigged and states where Bernie wins he gets less delegates then we will see a mass exodus from tha party. I'm not just hearing it amongst activists. It's gone mainstream on TV because not only is it indefensible it goes against everything this country stands for and fought for. Ivory tower democrats who think it's more important to win than to be fair are going to learn a hard lesson and can only blame themselves for losing the average voter. I've heard it all. The people will be blamed for losing to Trump. No. If you cheat and rig a system it's then the ones who rigged things that are to blame. This behavior would be unacceptable even to our 10 year old children.

[Surya Gayatri]

12. Too late to change the rules in the middle of the game.

If Bernie had been a more faithful Democrat, and had worked within the party rather than outside it, he would've known how the primary system was organized.

And, his highly-paid consultants should have known in any case. They're supposedly the professionals. Political malpractice.

For all of the disgruntled Sanders people "exiting" the party, there will most likely be an influx of alienated moderate Repubs. ready to switch.

So it goes. Maybe the 20-30% of "Bernie or Bust" folks will start their own party. Good on them.

[pandr32]

15. Good points

There will be plenty of alienated Repubs who can no longer stomach their party direction and want a functional government.

[Surya Gayatri]

18. Sounds like a plan...

[billhicks76]

31. Could Lead Not Just To 3rd Party But 4th

It's naive to think repubs will come to Democratic Party if Hillary the nominee. She's too detested. Maybe if Bernie was. People have different cultural values. It's just a fact. I see both parties fracturing into 3rd and 4th. It sounds implausible given the timeframe but I now see the implausible as plausible. People in this day and age believe if you won more delegates then you should win. Super delegates may be in the rules to rig things but it's still rigged and most people were unaware of this factor. But you can't hide it forever. Now they know and are angry. Expect that anger to grow and turn into action. Smart super delegates will flip if they see Sanders win more regular delegates.

[Surya Gayatri]

33. Not what recent polls are showing. Many married (and unmarried)

Republican women are so repulsed by Trump that they report they would be willing to switch to HRC.

These survey results can be found by googling.

[billhicks76]

37. Yes But Depends On Outcome

If Trump wins his nomination a moderate republican may run as independent which would vacuum up the demographic your talking about. If Trump goes independent then they vote for Cruz or whoever is picked so I don't expect the exodus to come to us.

[Roy Rolling]

19. "Faithful democrat"?

So there ARE some Democrats who are more-deserving than others. The faithful ones. The ones loyal to people in charge, more than the democratic principles the party works for.

I am for economic justice. It isn't happening. It hasn't happened for thirty years. If the party loyalists admit to letting the middle class be destroyed under their watch, maybe they'd get the credibility and loyalty they crave.

Democratic values have been systematically dismantled under their watch. I'm supposed to cheer the party elite and ignore their performance? I put my faith in lasting democratic principles, not temporary democratic politicians.

[Surya Gayatri]

21. Faithful / loyal, whatever. Very tough to know or influence the inside workings of

any organization from the outside looking in.

Want to have a say in the drafting of the rules? Get involved instead of remaining aloof.

But, when you snub an organization, that makes it all the more convenient for you to play the clean-handed critic, from the perspective of a more elevated high-horse.

[billhicks76]

32. An Organization?

The two party system has become a monopoly that used the media to squeeze out other contenders. If they wish to have this privilege then they can't rig democracy in favor of the few. This is what revolutions were fought over. You sound like a King George supporter. You talk about certain realities. You're forgetting how ugly reality can get when we oppress democracy. Don't be so short sighted. None of us want a breakdown of society or mass revolts. Don't encourage one by subverting the will of the people.

[Surya Gayatri]

35. If you have studied Poli Sci, you know that the American

system is organically and historically non-conducive to a European-style multi-party configuration. It's not for nothing that for 230 years, third parties have NEVER been nationally successful.

Two-party, big-tent symmetry is the natural fit in our presidential/congressional system, in contrast with the parliamentary/prime ministerial multi-party arrangement.

[billhicks76]

38. Things Change

That's the only constant. People are fed up. The situation is fluid and dynamic. Your analysis though rooted in history is currently static. A third party could do well this time.

[EdwardBernays]

3. Poor Obama

Forced to speak against his own beat interests, and the best interests of National security, by Fox News.

[Cha]

4. Love President Obama standing up for Hillary.. fox "news" is a collective idiot.

[yallerdawg]

7. We have commenters and posters at DU...

bringing up Rose Law firm files and Whitewater.

This "email fantasy" is just another ridiculous rightwing smear - I expect Democrats dismiss it like all the rest of the heaping piles of crap!

I expect non-Democrats will never ever dismiss it.

[Cha]

8. Oh yeah.. they were hoping this would take Hillary down.. because BS can't do it.. no matter

how much he disingenuously smears her.

yallerdawg!

[Glorfindel]

5. Well, when you lie down with jackals, you get up with fleas.

The President should not have been interviewed on fox anyway. There are plenty of legitimate news services he could have talked to. To me, the most disappointing thing about President Obama's term in office is his continuing efforts to make friends with the right wing. They are NEVER going to love him, no matter what he does.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. Whether we like to admit it or not, Fox News IS a major player

on the US media scene. And, their viewers ARE American citizens, however deranged they may appear.

Pres. Obama is President of ALL Americans, not just those who agree with him or admire him.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. +1!

Occasionally even sane people watch Faux Noise. I am ashamed to admit that my spouse watches on occasion - but this is only after he has watched the more mainstream news programs and generally only to hear the Faux spin.

It drives me crazy when he does, but fortunately our house has more than one room.

One other point: often local Faux channels actually cover the local news pretty well. It seems to be at the national level where most of the craziness occurs. Also, one of my sons is an indie filmmaker who earns some actual $$$ as a stringer with Faux on occasion. Ironically, he says that Faux actually treats stringers better than most of the others.

Just as Hillary does not write off - or disparage - any state or region of the US, neither does Obama absolutely write-off any method of communication to Americans.

[Surya Gayatri]

26. "One other point: often local Faux channels actually cover the local news pretty well."

I'll admit it. When I really want up-to-date, breaking news, out of the political sphere, I switch over there.

They have even better on-the-ground facilities than CNN. Lots of investment in field operations, unlike MSNBC.

[BlueMTexpat]

28. If they could ever get rid of Roger Ailes

and the pro-GOPer bias, there might be some hope for them. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

My son would strongly agree with your assessment of investment in field operations, based on his firsthand experience.

[BlueMTexpat]

22. Hmmm ... I seem to remember

that when Fox offered to host a Democratic Town Hall forum, it was Bernie who accepted first. How does he not end up with fleas too by your logic?

[Surya Gayatri]

27. Oh, snap! For the win...LOL!

[Glorfindel]

34. Well, of course he does. I can't remember mentioning anything to the contrary.

Or mentioning Bernie Sanders, for that matter. I only expressed a mild regret that our president would demean himself so much. Maybe next he'll give a long interview to the National Enquirer.

[BlueMTexpat]

36. Right now, Prez O

can give any interview to any media outlet he wishes. He's in the last year of his second term.

[CalvinballPro]

6. Chris Wallace wouldn't be able to find work without FOX.

What a joke he has become, all because of his devotion to Rupert Murdoch.

[raindaddy]

11. "Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Dept. Because nobody is above the law"

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2016, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

How many fraudulent bank executives responsible for taking down the economy were prosecuted by Obama's Justice Dept.?

Gotta hand it to him he was able to say it with a straight face!

[LS_Editor]

13. He should not have commented on the case.

[Surya Gayatri]

16. Of COOUUUURSE not. But, if he had bashed Hillary about it,

rather than backing her, I have a sneaking suspicion that your position would be just the opposite.

I call BS on BS.

[LS_Editor]

30. Based on what? Your vast knowledge of me? It's an open criminal investigation.

He should not have commented on it regardless of his position.

[beastie boy]

17. He did not.

He commented on the integrity of the Justice Department and FBI under his leadership.

[EdwardBernays]

25. Nonsense

what do you call:

“there’s classified and then there’s classified”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/275887-obamas-classified-comments-strike-nerve

and:

"I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America's national security"

and

"She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/10/obama_clinton_didnt_intentionally_put_america_in_jeopardy_i_guarantee_no_political_influence_in_server_probe.html

That IS DIRECTLY commenting on the facts of the case and the OUTCOME of the case... the FBI has even complained about this sort of public second-guessing in the past by Obama... it's pure political smokescreen and honestly - where you wanna believe it or not - it damaged Americas national security, because the message is that people working in the security services can just choose what they choose to believe is classified and because if you are connected to the President you know he'll publicly tell the FBI what the outcome of their investigation will be, before it concludes.

IF Bush was doing this the left would be shouting from the rooftop that he was manipulating the process and endangering Americans... and they'd be absolutely right.

[beastie boy]

39. How do you know "the case" involves national security?

By the same measure Bernie should not comment on the Clinton Foundation because it may or may not be part of "the case"...

[EdwardBernays]

40. What are you talking about?

Obama - when asked about the email - mentioned national security. Ask him.

On top of that, by telling every security official and employee that somethings labeled classified aren't and that it's basically up to people to decide for themselves if something labeled classified is actually classified, not "classified" etc, he's completely undermined the classification system. As President. And that impacts national security. Obviously.

And if Bush said that shit, to protect say Donald Rumsfeld you'd understand. But because it's Clinton I'm sure you'll continue to nkt understand or disagree.

Bleugh.

[beastie boy]

42. You are still takling about the "case" aren't you?

because it looks like you are trying to change the subject.

The FBI is on the case. Neither you nor I nor Obama know exactly who or what they are investigating and to what effect.

Obama's comment was a direct answer to a direct question, not a comment on the "case". If you don't like his opinion, it is pointless to argue about the merits of your viewpoint.

[EdwardBernays]

43. Obama said about the case

Reuters:

"Obama says Clinton never jeopardized national security in email case"

Everyone but you and your fellow Clintonites see that Obama was commenting on the case and reaching a conclusion on the outcome... Which is an attempt to manipulate the process for political reasons. Obviously. There's no confusion about what happened except the manufacturered confusion by the Clintonites.

Anything to make it all look ok when it's so obviously not.

[beastie boy]

44. Pay attention: I asked you whether YOU are still talking about the case.

This is the rambling I am responding to:

On top of that, by telling every security official and employee that somethings labeled classified aren't and that it's basically up to people to decide for themselves if something labeled classified is actually classified, not "classified" etc, he's completely undermined the classification system. As President. And that impacts national security. Obviously.

Remember?

Since you have no idea what the FBI is investigating and what their conclusions might be, this is pure speculation on your part, and it doesn't create in Obama a sense of obligation. Furthermore, Obama didn't comment on the classification system. He did, based on his expertise in the matter which is far greater than yours, conclude that Clinton did not jeopardize national security. And it's supposed to influence "every security official and employee" and reaching a conclusion on the outcome... how? You don't even know whether they are investigating any possibility of a breach in national security! (Duh! Do you get a sense that we are running in circles here?)

I tell you what: show me how your idle musings have anything to do with the known realities of the "case", and I might reply. Otherwise, you are welcome to keep running in circles. I (and all my "fellow" Clintonites whom you dragged into this thread... why?) will just step aside and chuckle.

[EdwardBernays]

45. Jesus

The comment you highlighted is about what Obama said in the SAME interview.

And yes it's all still about the case.

And yes you've already been told this once in this conversation.

As for "furthermore, Obama didn't comment on the classification system":

"The president’s comments — “there’s classified and then there’s classified” — suggested some classified information is more sensitive than other classified information, uniting in scorn critics across the political spectrum."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/275887-obamas-classified-comments-strike-nerve

So yes:

- he did comment about the case
- he did comment about the classification system, in the context of the case

And like I said, you've been told this already, you know it, so pretending not to know it is just disingenuous, and an attempt at obfuscation on your part.

You can chuckle all you want but everyone except you and your fellow delusionals can simply click the link and see how dishonest you're being.

[surfer2009]

14. annoying attitude

Exactly look at the last question and obama answer. It looks like at this stage President was totally annoyed of him.
WALLACE: Even if she ends up as the Democratic nominee?

OBAMA: How many times do I have to say it, Chris? Guaranteed.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x43wyvv

[Surya Gayatri]

29. You must really get off on stuff like this (sarc.):

GOP Rep. to Obama: 'You Lie!'

[mcar]

24. K&R

[HillareeeHillaraah]

41. K&R