Fox News anchor Chris Wallace has increasingly revealed over the past few years that he is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, and his TDS appeared to be especially pronounced in his analysis and coverage of the president’s impeachment trial.
Given that the trial wasn’t going quite as well as anticipated by Democrats and their Trump-hating allies in the media, Wallace’s mood appeared to have soured — and he took out his frustrations on a fellow colleague at Fox in a way that prompted a slight rebuke from the anchor moderating the coverage.
The Hill reported that Wallace and Fox contributor Katie Pavlich were engaged in an intense discussion regarding the calling of witnesses in the Clinton impeachment inquiry and trial as compared to the process in the Trump proceedings when Wallace snapped at Pavlich to get her “facts straight” while also repeatedly interrupting her at other points.
The heated manner in which Wallace addressed Pavlich compelled anchor Bret Baier to suggest “let’s tone it down.” You can watch the fireworks right here:
Wow @KatiePavlich seems to have Triggered Chris Wallace because she pointed out that Democrats in the House rushed their investigation and now want the Senate to finish their incomplete work for them. pic.twitter.com/6TUpWVPPsb
— ALX ?? (@alx) January 27, 2020
With regard to the demand for the issuance of subpoenas for new witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, Pavlich explained, “The Senate is not the House. The House did not come with a complete case, and every impeachment beforehand, the witnesses that were called had been called in the House before being brought to the Senate.”
“So there are questions here about the process,” she added before being interrupted by Wallace.
“That’s not true. That’s not true,” Wallace said. “They hadn’t all been called in the House. In the Clinton impeachment, they’d been called by the independent counsel. They had not been called by the House.”
Pavlich pointed out that the witnesses in the Clinton trial had been part of an “extensive” investigation by the Justice Department, which simply wasn’t the case with regard to Trump’s trial. They continued to spar for a moment over the differences between the two trials with Wallace repeatedly attempting to interject and talk over Pavlich, prompting her to demand he let her finish her statement.
Baier broke in to ask Wallace to deliver his final thoughts before the day’s session began, and Wallace turned to Pavlich and said, “Katie, what you’re saying just isn’t true.”
He then flipped the script and in turn told Pavlich to allow him to complete his thought.
“The fact of the matter was that the whistleblower information was given to the inspector general, who gave it to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided not to investigate, and that is why it went to the House,” Wallace said, the tenor of his voice rising.
“So to say that in the Clinton investigation that these people were interviewed by the House, one, they weren’t, and to say it wasn’t done by the Justice Department because the Justice Department refused to carry out the investigation. Get your facts straight,” he went on.
Baier stepped in and calmly said, “Ok, ok, let’s tone it down.”
“OK, let’s talk about some of the facts here, Chris,” Pavlich replied. “The point is that all the information that the grand jury and the Clinton investigation, all of the witnesses the House wanted to call, that the Justice Department called in the Clinton case, were done before the articles were voted on and put over to the Senate.”
“That is not what has happened here,” she continued. “The House voted on incomplete information and gave it to the Senate, and now they are saying the Senate should call additional witnesses who have not been called before, and who were not part of the House evidence.”
Wallace interrupted yet again and said, “So we just shouldn’t listen to what John Bolton has to say?”
Pavlich fired right back, “I’m not taking a side, Chris. I’m not saying Bolton should or should not testify. I am simply talking about what senators are saying and whether they should go with the process.”
Throughout the exchange, Pavlich kept a calm demeanor while Wallace appeared to grow increasingly testy, and it almost seemed like they were both talking past each other about slightly different things as Wallace never quite addressed the point Pavlich was attempting to make.
Whether Wallace was purposely avoiding Pavlich’s point by talking about something slightly different and whether he intended to snap at her was unclear.
Regardless, Pavlich emerged as the winner of the debate, especially in light of the fact that Baier had to step in and cool down a worked-up Wallace.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.