Fox News’ Chris Wallace claims all impeachment witnesses believe ‘there was a quid pro quo’

Fox News viewers who have been paying attention to the network analysis of the impeachment proceedings were treated to a display of obvious bias from Fox host Chris Wallace, who has made it clear that he can’t be trusted to provide a fair analysis and is siding with Democrats against President Donald Trump.

It seemed at times that Wallace hadn’t even listened to the testimony of many witnesses and is already convinced of the need to impeach the president, a perception that was reinforced on Thursday. During a break in the public hearing, Wallace claimed that all of the witnesses believe that “there was a quid pro quo.”


Wallace attributes fact to witness opinions

Wallace’s remark came during Thursday’s hearing, which featured former National Security Council official Dr. Fiona Hill and State Department diplomatic aide David Holmes.

Hill, who was not on Trump’s July 25 call with the Ukrainian president that is at the heart of the inquiry, largely spoke of her knowledge of Russia, Ukraine, and the temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine. Holmes, meanwhile, shared a snippet of remarks he claimed to have overheard in a phone conversation on July 26 between Trump and Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to the European Union, in which “investigations” were supposedly mentioned.

“There was a quid pro quo”

Wallace apparently places great stock in what those witnesses had to say, dubious and beside the point though their testimony may have been.

“What becomes clear in all of this is that everybody seemed to be working off the same set of facts, and the set of facts were that [Trump’s personal attorney] Rudy Giuliani was working on behalf of the president,” Wallace said. “That Sondland was working on behalf of the president, that he was the direct conduit to the president, the kind of person who could get the president on a phone call on his cell phone in a patio of a restaurant in Ukraine.”

“And that they all believed the same thing, which was that there was a quid pro quo. If you wanted a meeting with the president, you would have to agree to investigate the allegations of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election as well as Burisma,” Wallace said.

The key word in that statement, however, is “believed,” in that none of the witnesses could clearly testify that a “quid pro quo” was an established fact. The only witness who even tried was Sondland, but even he prefaced his assertion as being a “presumption” and later testified during questioning that President Trump had been clear that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine, and that there was “no quid pro quo” to be had.

Was Wallace even watching the same hearings?

Something else that Wallace ignored in his analysis is that each and every witness has been hand-picked by the Democrats for the express purpose of bolstering their narrative: that the president committed an impeachable offense.

Yet, each and every one of the carefully selected witnesses crumbled under Republican questioning and failed to provide proof of anything rising to the level of an impeachable offense. At best, they could only say they felt the president had acted inappropriately or that their feelings were hurt for being left out of the loop in terms of policy decisions.

It had already become clear over the past few years that Wallace dislikes President Trump. His commentary during Fox’s impeachment coverage has only further confirmed that he is not fair and balanced.

Share on facebook
Share to Facebook

Latest News