Michael Goodwin

Michael Goodwin

 Opinion

Kamala’s softball ABC sit-down shows network’s bias – and how she has nothing to say

By
Michael Goodwin
Published Sep. 14, 2024, 9:08 p.m. ET
Action News 6 ABC anchor Brian Taff asked Kamala Harris multiple questions, including what she would do to bring down prices as president.
Action News 6 ABC anchor Brian Taff asked Kamala Harris multiple questions, including what she would do to bring down prices as president. ABC 6

There she goes again.

Kamala Harris ga♎ve another interview that reveals why she hides from questio🎃ns. 

She has nothing to say! 

In an 11-minute sit-down with a Pennsylvania ABC affiliate that has dra⛎wn over 5 million views on X, the vice president lapsed into recycled sound bites and snippets from past speeches. 

Reporte🐼r Brian Taff asked direct questions about policies, but never got direct answers.

She filibustered with tales about he♔r childhood, with the inane kicker being that “folks were very proud of their lawn.” 

Wow, so deep — if she’s mind-melding💯 with Chaunc💯ey Gardiner from “Being There.” 

As for the “opportunity economy” she promises, Harris offered no new insights, inste♒ad repeating pledges to give away money to small businesses, parents and homebuyers. 

How does she differentiate herself from Joe Biden? 

“I am a different person. . . . I’m obviously not 💟Joe Biden.” 

Checkered ‘fact-check’ 

How does she appeal to Donald Trump’s vo🥀ters? 

“People want a leader who brings us together” she said, before citing the support of Liz and Dick Cheney as proof! 

Count on the interviewꦛ being her last one for awhilꦜe.

Back to t🍰he Biden basement strategy for the wannabe leader of the free world! 

Still, the segment does serve a larger purpose by illustrating how much she ben🦄efited from ABC’s bias at last week’s debate. 

Catch up on The Post’s debate coverage

The network denies cla💧ims it gave Harris th🅘e questions beforehand, but the case isn’t closed. 

It can’t be because the ABC moderators so blatantly tipped the scales in Harris’ favor with a rigged “fact-checki🍌ng” scheme they employed only against Trump. 

Harris was protected with selective questions and moderators﷽ didn’t press for details or call out her fals﷽e claims. 

As new evidence emerges, the deba♕te looks as if it was a trap designed to ensnare Trump and humiliate him in front of 6🎐7 million viewers.

Aꦉs such, it has more in common with a political dirty🃏 trick than honest journalism. 

Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis accused the former president of giving false ꦑor misleading answers fiv♒e times.

But thanks to an interview Davis ga🗹ve after the debate, we know the tilt was planned. 

She told the Los Angeles Times the idea of live fact-checking emerged from 🧸the June debate between Trump and Joe Bide💯n on CNN. 

“People were concerned that statements were allowed t🦄o just hang and not [be] disputed by the candidate, Biden at the time, or the moderators,” Davis was quoted as saying.&nbsღp;

She references only Trump even though Biden made false claims, such as saying no American soldiers died on his watch despite the fact that 13 service members were killed in his abandonment of Afg👍hanistan. 

That didn’t concern ABC.

It’s only takeaway was to fact-check Trump. 

Most troubling, Davis revealed that specific questions were a🗹sked of Trump because she and Muir studied hours of his speeches and anticipated his answers. 

They then devised corrections based on his expected🌌 answers.

In effect, they selected questions designed to catch Trump making statements they could declare false.&nb⛦sp;

That’s more like election🏅 interference than public s🔴ervice. 

Anti-Trump trap 

Davis revealed the outl✨ines of the entrapment plan to LA Times writer Stephen Battaglio.

She told him she and Muir spent weeks gaming out scenarios “♎where the anchors and ABC News producers tested their questions and played out the possible responses.” 

R♓egarding a key moment during the debate, Battaglio wrote that Davis and Muir “fully anticipated that Trump’s erroneous abortion claim would come up when she questioned him o𝓀n the issue.” 

Davis explained her expe♓ctation oওf what Trump would say by adding, “Politicians tend to say the same things again and again.” 

Trump walked into the trap — and Davis pounced. 𓆉;

Asked about his view of limits to abortion access, Trump defended the concept by citing a former governor of Virginia backing the killing of certain infant🍬s up to and even after birth. 

He was referring to Democrat Ralph Northam, who said in 2019 that in cases of deformities or a nonviable fetus, “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated, if tha🔯t’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” 

As soon as Trump fin෴ished, Davis delivered her planned “fact-check,” declaring, “There is no state in this country wheꦓre it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” 

The plan worked — except the facts a🔯re not as clear as she made them seem. 

For example, The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Am𒈔erica group said Davis was wrong and demanded ABC issue a correction in a letter that read: “Her statement tragically ignores the reality of babies who survive failed, late-term abortions but are denied basic medical care and left to die.” 

Also, nine states and Washington, DC, have no te🥃rm limits ജon abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 

In another sequence, Muir sai💛d Trump was wrong to say crime was rising, citing FBI statistics.

But it’s well-know🐻n that upwards of 20% of local and state officials do not report crime🍸 stats to the feds. 

Thus, the facts are debatable an💟d the issues shou💝ld have been left to the candidates.

But that wa🔯sn’t good enough for ABC, which inserted its opinions in an example of media arrogance and partisanship. 

I am among those who believed Harris ☂out𝓰performed Trump during the 90-minute debate, but knowledge of ABC’s biased scheme gives me pause. 

Had the candidates been held to a single standard, had Harris been pressed to be specific instead of giving va♎cuous speec🗹hes and been corrected when wrong, my scorecard would have been different, maybe even close to a tie. 

Instead, AB💖C kept Trump on defense and c🌳reated an unfair impression that much of what he said was false and everything Harris said was true, which is certainly not the case. 

Among her false statements ﷺwas that Trump was praising neo-Nazis when he said there were “fine people on both sides” during a 2016 c🦋onfrontation in Virginia.

It is well-known he s𒈔aid in the next sentence that “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, 🌠because they should be condemned totally.” 

Why didn’t the moderat🔥ors correct Harris with that faꦉct? 

They also stayed mum when she insisted “th♌ere is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a c🎃ombat zone in any war zone around the world.” 

In reality, there are thousands of American troops in combat zones in Iraq, Syria and Israel💃.

Last January, three US soldiers were killed by a drone attack in Jordan from an Iranian proxy and scoꦆres of others were wounded in similar strikes in Iraq. 

The Houthis a﷽ttacked our ships in the Red Sea and 🦩our military is deployed in warring parts of Africa. 

Did the moderators not know any of this?

Or were they completely corrupted by their desire t🏅o damage💎 Trump? 

If that’s the𒉰 case, they succeeded, at leas💧t temporarily.

But in the process, they made ABC 𝓀the biggest loser of the night.