An interesting post at Hot Air by Allahpundit - Chris Wallace from Fox has thrown petrol on the fire between between the two camps at his network. Here's the key part of it:
According to Wallace, diGenova is working with Giuliani on the Biden
business with Ukraine. The guy whom Tucker invited on as some sort of
dispassionate legal analyst to counter Napolitano turns out to be a secret participant in the matter that’s being analyzed, Trump’s interactions with Zelensky and his government. I didn’t see the first Tucker segment with diGenova but you can watch the second here.
He’s introduced merely as a former U.S. Attorney, and Carlson prefaces
their conversation by noting that legal opinion is split on the point
about a “thing of value” that Napolitano had made. In other words,
diGenova was presented to the audience as nothing more or less than a
seasoned lawyer whose acumen led him to a different opinion than Judge
Nap’s. Tucker even laughed at one point at Shep’s claim that diGenova is
a “partisan.”
Now here comes Wallace to imply that the entire segment was basically
a fraud, with diGenova concealing a glaring conflict of interest....
Did Tucker know and conceal the information? Presumably he was in the
dark, but he’s a buddy of Trump’s and has been known to talk foreign
policy with him by phone. Did Trump ever idly mention to him that Rudy
*and Joe diGenova* are working on the Ukraine thing? Also: Did Fox
executives know of diGenova’s role? If so, why did they conceal the
conflict of interest? If not, will there be any sanction against
diGenova for not disclosing his involvement in the Ukraine stuff before
appearing on a segment to comment on it?
Relatedly, who greenlit this on-air revelation by Wallace? It’s to
Fox’s credit that they allowed it to be reported knowing the questions
it would raise about diGenova’s segments this week and his role on the
network going forward, but I’m surprised that they allowed it to be done
in such a showy way. They could have relegated it to a story on the Fox
News website and then quietly warned Tucker not to have him back on, or
at least to be forthright about disclosing his role in the Ukraine
matter next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment