Major Throwdown Live On Fox News In Tense Argument Over Trump

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

A heated debate over former President Donald Trump’s arraignment sent a Fox News segment off the rails. Several co-hosts of “The Five” couldn’t quite agree with each other, even on live television with hundreds of people observing their behavior.

During the segment, the table discussed Trump’s arrival in Miami for his indictment in the case brought against him by Special Council Jack Smith, who was appointed by Biden’s Department of Justice. Trump took to pleading “not guilty” through his lawyers in the federal court.

The federal judge granted the former president a pretrial release with the only special condition being that he can’t be in contact with witnesses. Smith has charged Trump with thirty-seven counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents, documents that NARA disregarded during Trump’s transition out of office. With this injustice, if former President Donald Trump is found guilty on all counts could face decades in prison. This would strip him of the ability to run in next year’s presidential election against Joe BIden, who is his chief rival.

The Conversation on “The Five” was doomed from the start. Jessica Tarlov, a very public liberal, cited Hillary Clinton’s idea that the Republican Party was developing into a “cult” rather than a political party.

“I don’t think it’s a cult but I think that Donald Trump holds an almost mystical level of power and control over a large swath of the Republican base and they are immune to taking in new information, new negative information, new dangerous information, new potentially criminal information about him,” Tarlov said.

“The Presidential Records Act, and Andy McCarthy was talking about this earlier, it doesn’t apply to agency documents. So the way that people are using this to say — I think you said it yesterday, Jesse — ‘Oh, you know, he’s allowed to do this’… He’s not allowed to do it.” She continued.

Jesse Watters sarcastically told her she had a “good argument” while smirking.

Tarlov wasn’t having that. She retorted, “Yeah, it is a good argument that he’s not allowed to have those documents. He can’t decide when he declassifies them. He admitted that on tape, which is going to be a huge piece of evidence in this, so stop using the Presidential Records Act.”

Watters wasn’t going to take that level of disrespect, so as things heated quickly, he declared “I will use that act whenever I damn well please!” to which Tarlov replied, “Well, continue to do it inaccurately.”

Watters remarked, “I am glad I printed it out! [Good thing] I printed it out ‘cause I’m about to smack you with the act in a second.”

Tarlov argued “When everyone says this is unprecedented, the problem is that Donald Trump is doing things that are unprecedented, and we don’t know that these documents weren’t compromised. We heard about that there were two intruders, two Chinese national intruders. We know that he waved around a classified document…”

Justin Baragona made a tweet saying “Jesse Watters [laughing]: ‘Now you care about Chinese Nationals!’ Jessica Tarlov: ‘The amount of deflection that goes on – when I say something about China, you go ‘Fang Fang!’ Or I say something about this, and you just throw out ‘Hunter Biden is a crack addict!’ Who cares?!’” and he attached a video of the segment.

As a result, Tarlov and Watters intensified their rivalry:

TARLOV: The amount of deflection that goes on… I say something about China and you go ‘Fang Fang’, or I say something about this and then you just throw out, ‘Hunter Biden is a crack addict.’ Who cares! Talk about what happened today, talk about the indictment, don’t make up things.

WATTERS: Before I get into the act, when I have here, you said something that the Trump voters are immune from taking in new information? That’s such B.S. Jessica because we’re actually learning about the Presidential Records Act, we’re learning about the Espionage Act, and we’re actually making legal arguments and using precedent and comparisons to how the Justice Department has treated Democrats.

Watters concluded his argument by saying, “You’re the ones that don’t want to take in any new information.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.






Send this to a friend