Chris Wallace Makes an Astute Observation as Psaki Stonewalls Him: ‘You Are Being Less Transparent Than the Trump Administration’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

The Trump administration was often painted as doing nefarious things just out of the media’s eye despite the press being given access to many areas and events. The Biden administration is actively blocking reporters from covering the border crisis in person and stonewalling every attempt by journalists to get answers for the American people.

It took about a nanosecond for Fox News host Chris Wallace to realize that White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was not going to answer his questions either, prompting him to say, “You are being less transparent than the Trump Administration.”

Wallace opened the interview with a quote from President Joe Biden on the border crisis. Last week, Biden insisted, “Nothing has changed. … It happens every year.”

Wallace then read a comment from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas who said, “We are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.”

“So, who’s wrong,” he asked. “The DHS Secretary or the President?”

When Psaki begins an answer with “Well, first factually,” one knows that what follows will be a whopper and it was.

“There was an increase of about 31 percent of people coming to the border during the final months of the Trump Administration. It’s been about a 29 percent increase since Biden took office. But our focus is on solutions,” Psaki told him. Dodging the question, she then went on to enumerate all of the steps they are taking to protect children.

Well aware that immigrants likely began planning their journeys on Nov. 4, and the 31 percent figure Psaki quoted belonged to Biden, Wallace said, “You can play with percentages, but in absolute numbers, these are record numbers. There are now 18,000 unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody. …”

“Well, Chris. Our objective is to take a different approach from the last administration,” Psaki replied. “We are not going to send children under the age of 18, kids under the age of 18 back on this treacherous journey. They are fleeing challenging economic circumstances, hurricanes, prosecution in some scenarios. It does not mean they get to stay in the United States. It means their cases are adjudicated. …”

Pivoting to the administration’s pledges of transparency, Wallace played a clip of Biden at last Thursday’s press conference. “You’ll have full access to everything once we get this thing moving.” Asked how soon that would be, Biden said, “I don’t know.”

He then showed a series of photos taken last week by members of Congress who had traveled to the border. “Jen, these kids are living in these conditions now. They’re not living in these conditions some indeterminate time from now when the President says everything will be fixed, so why not allow reporters and camera crews in, on a pool basis, safely to take pictures and show the American people what’s happening in those border patrol facilities right now.”

“Chris, we are absolutely committed to that. The President is committed to that. I’m committed to that. Secretary Mayorkas is committed to that,” she insisted. “Just last week we had a pool camera providing footage to Fox News, just last week into the shelters. We want to provide access into the Border Patrol facilities. We are mindful of the fact that we are in the middle of a pandemic. We want to keep these kids safe, keep the staff safe. We are absolutely committed to transparency and providing access to media … and we’re working to get that done as soon as we can.”

Wallace wasn’t going to let Psaki’s disingenuous statement slide. “Just to clarify Jen. You allowed a camera crew in to see the HHS facilities. What we’re talking about here are the border patrol facilities, the detention cells. … There is a law – let me just finish – that they are not allowed to be there for more than 72 hours. Many of them are there for ten days. At this point, in terms of allowing access to border patrol facilities for reporters, you are being less transparent than the Trump Administration.”

“The Trump administration was turning away kids at the border and sending them back on the treacherous journey, or they were ripping kids from the arms of their parents. We’re not doing that. We are committed to allowing cameras into the border patrol facilities, absolutely. We are committed to solutions.” Psaki said.

However, according to a March 17 report, two CBP officials told The Washington Examiner that “Biden Homeland Security officials have muzzled spokespersons and top officials at the Customs and Border Protection agency from speaking with the media about the situation on the border. … Officials have been placed under a sort of “gag order,” and they said they were told verbally not to communicate with media beyond statements approved from the top.”

Switching gears, Wallace said, “The president has come out strongly for the voting rights bill that has passed the House and is now being deliberated by the Senate. But look at some of the things that are in H.R. 1, the House voting rights bill. It creates public financing of congressional campaigns. It takes redistricting away from state legislatures and it opens the door to D.C. becoming a state.”

He asks Psaki, “Now, you can argue whether these are good ideas or bad ideas, but to get bipartisan agreement, to get compromise with Republicans, would the president consider supporting, taking some of those elements out and focusing just on voting rights?”

The press secretary delivers another non-answer. “Well, the president is absolutely open to the idea from Republicans, from Democrats, to make any piece of legislation better and stronger. But what he is not going to allow for is efforts to make it more difficult and harder to vote. And efforts to do that, people should question whether they have – why they would be doing that? If they have the best ideas, they should make it easier for people to vote. But you know, this is the process of a bill becoming a law – .”

“Chris, if Republicans want to come to the table have a discussion about what kind of package they can support to make voting more easy, easier and more accessible, the president is absolutely open to having that discussion.”

Wallace moved on to the filibuster. He noted that some Democrats were trying to convince Biden “to push to kill the Senate filibuster in order to pass legislation to protect voting rights.”

He played a clip of Biden from his press conference. “If there’s complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we’ll have to go beyond what I’m talking about.”

Referencing Biden’s current characterization of the filibuster as “a relic of the Jim Crow era,” Wallace played a clip of Sen. Joe Biden when he supported the measure.

Biden said, “At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill. It’s about compromise and moderation.”

Pressing further, Wallace reminded Psaki that, “Just last year, Kamala Harris, when she was in the Senate, led the filibuster against Republican Senator Tim Scott, an African American, his plan for police reform. So, is the filibuster racist? Is it wrong?”

Psaki replied, “As the president said just last week, Chris, it’s been abused, and in the first 50 years of the filibuster being around, it was used about 50 times. It was used five times that many last year. The president doesn’t think that’s how the filibuster should be used.”

The Democrats often used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation. But no one is supposed to remind them of those days. Regarding its frequent use last year, it looks like Psaki forgot which party was in the minority.

Psaki continued with her deflection. “There’s an easy solution here, though, which the president would certainly advocate for, which is Democrats and Republicans, Republicans coming to the table with a willingness and an openness to discussing how we get things done. They want to come the table and talk about how to make voting easier, more accessible, let’s have that conversation. The president is eager to have it.”

“He’s not eager to move with destroying the filibuster,” she added. “He’s eager to get things done for the American people, but he’s also not going to stand by and prevent forward moving progress from happening. So that’s what people heard from him last week.”

Wallace rightly points out the obvious, “If you’re talking about abuse of the filibuster over the last two years, the Democrats were in the minority, so they were the ones abusing it.”

Could it be that the radical transformation of the U.S. government under the Biden Administration has become too much even for anti-Trumper Chris Wallace?

We learned nothing from this interview. From the get-go, Psaki was in defense mode. She struggled to provide cover for an administration whose real motive is to amass power for the Democratic Party and make it difficult for Republicans to ever win another presidential election.

We are witnessing the most flagrant power grab by a political party in American history. The Trump years left the Democrats emboldened. They paid no consequences for perpetrating a plot to frame then-President Donald Trump for crimes they knew were false, two bogus impeachments and so much more. Now that they control the White House and both chambers of Congress, they’re looking to consolidate that power so they can control the U.S. for generations to come.

Black Leaders Take Aim at Sens. Sinema, Manchin Over Refusal to Nix Filibuster; ‘They Are, in Effect, Supporting Racism’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why the filibuster is bad news for Democrats:

“It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.”

“If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.”

With a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Their latest challenge is that two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have both quite strongly announced their opposition to abolishing the filibuster.

Just two months ago, a representative for Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

Up until then, conservatives had been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

Shortly after the announcement from Team Sinema, Politico reported that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Protecting the filibuster is essential to protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Even with the filibuster in place, Democrats can do and have already done a lot of damage. But their major radical initiatives, such as the Election Reform bill which passed the House earlier this month, granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and stacking the Supreme Court, can be blocked by the Republicans.

Naturally, Democrats are trying to exert maximum pressure on Sinema and Manchin to change their minds.

Politico has interviewed several black civil rights leaders to find out what they plan to do about this. According to Politico, “top [civil rights] officials framed the choice as existential for a party that depends on Black and brown voters — and they are planning pressure campaigns privately and publicly to make that clear.”

Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.”

Sharpton cautioned Democrats that if they fail to end the filibuster, then “civil rights leaders might have less reason to help generate enthusiasm and turnout in the 2022 midterm elections without being able to point to actual laws Democrats passed.”

Sounds like a threat.

He added, “Many of us, and certainly all of us in the civil rights leadership, are committed to policies and laws and causes, not to people’s political careers. We’re not into that. We want to change the country. And if there is not feasible evidence that we’re doing that, it is not in our concern to be aggressively involved.”

Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders come to their states and call them racists.

Although politicians are famous for flip-flopping, after putting out such a strong statement of opposition as her representative did in conversation with the Washington Post reporter, I would be surprised if Sinema caved. Sharpton’s actions might just make her dig in her heels a little deeper.

Manchin, on the other hand, strikes me as less resolute than Sinema. However, he did say he was “emphatic” he wouldn’t vote to end the filibuster.

There is another option. The Senate could potentially create a carve-out specifically for voting rights legislation, a measure they’ve taken before. The Senate has created exceptions to the filibuster in the past for confirmations of Supreme Court nominees and for budget reconciliation (which is how the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was passed).

Manchin is currently the only Senate Democrat who is not a co-sponsor of the voting reform bill known as S. 1.

On Wednesday, Manchin told reporters, “I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to voting rights.”

But if the bill were to be limited to votings rights, according to CBS News, “it would strip provisions related to campaign finance and ethics reform, which are key priorities for progressives.”

In a Tuesday statement, “Manchin expressed concerns about S. 1, and said that he would support bipartisan legislation on voting rights.” The statement said:

As the Senate prepares to take up the For the People Act, we must work toward a bipartisan solution that protects everyone’s right to vote, secures our elections from foreign interference, and increases transparency in our campaign finance laws. Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.

He issued another statement on Thursday in which he reiterated his opposition to creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule specifically for voting rights. He noted that would be “like being a little bit pregnant.” You either kill the filibuster or you keep it.

Let’s hope that both he and Sinema stand by their pledges not to abolish the filibuster. All Republican senators, even those whose votes can’t always be counted on, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are unanimously opposed to ending the filibuster. They are also opposed to the voting reform bill.

Sinema and Manchin are the only thing standing between us and the enactment of the Democrats’ entire radical agenda.  Let’s hope they stand strong.