FNC’s Wallace Shuts Down Dem Rep’s ‘Red Herring’ Comparison of Powell to Hillary on Email


On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace seemingly lost his patience with Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) defense of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton email scandal by bringing up former Secretary of State  Colin Powell’s limited use of private email.

Wallace called the use of Powell’s email in the argument a “red herring” and noted Powell wasn’t running for president.

Partial transcript as fallows:

WALLACE: Congressman Schiff, one, we had never heard about these attempted attacks until the IG’s report. So that’s new. Two, if the sever was so secure, why did they have to keep turning it off? And, three, as Senator Lankford points out, you don’t always know if somebody has a successful attack because hackers don’t leave fingerprints.

SCHIFF: No, that’s true. What we do know from the OIG report is that there were a couple of attempts to hack into the system that were unsuccessful. So we don’t know that there’s any evidence of a successful breach.

But I do want to get back to the point that — that I want to finish, and that’s — Senator Lankford mentioned, and that is, the comparison with Secretary Powell is —

WALLACE: Oh, come on. Can we — well, forgive me. Forgive me.

SCHIFF: Well, no, you — you told me you would allow me to — to push back, and I want to push back.

WALLACE: Wait a minute. No, no, I’m sorry, I’m sorry.

Hillary Clinton is running for president. Colin Powell is not running for president. The rules in 2004 were completely different. They’re complete different guidelines. Sir, the guidelines were repeatedly strengthened in 2005, in 2006, in 2007 — 20011. Hillary Clinton was operating in a different world. Can we please stay to the issue of what Hillary Clinton did or didn’t do and not talk about Colin Powell?

SCHIFF: Well, I know you don’t want to talk about Colin Powell because you — you don’t want to —

WALLACE: It’s not — it’s irrelevant to the issue.

SCHIFF: It isn’t irrelevant in this sense. If you look — please, let me — let me finish. The rules —

WALLACE: Did — how can she say — how can she say it was secure when they had to turn — turn off the server because there were attacks?

SCHIFF: Chris, the rules —

WALLACE: Just answer my question.

SCHIFF: I will. I will answer the question. She should not have used the private server. She’s admitted she should not have used a private server.

WALLACE: How did she know it was secure?

SCHIFF: Look, we — we know from the OIG report that there were two attempts to breach the server that were unsuccessful. That’s what we know. But — but please let me at least finish the point.

WALLACE: Not on Powell. I’m — I’m — forgive me, I’m going to keep going. I — I — I — we’re done with Colin Powell.

SCHIFF: I think it’s very telling —

WALLACE: We’re done with Colin Powell.

SCHIFF: OK. I they it’s very —

WALLACE: OK, well, then we’ll move on.

SCHIFF: I think — I think it’s very telling, though, Chris, that there’s no interest in anyone here but Secretary Clinton. That, to me, is a very different standard.

WALLACE: Really? Because she’s the only one running for president.

SCHIFF: Yes, but does that mean that other secretaries didn’t use the same practice, that their practices are irrelevant here?

WALLACE: I — I think, first of all, we’ve shown that it is — it is different. And, secondly, I think it’s, frankly, a red herring, sir, and I would expect more from you.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.