Kilmeade sets up Issa to level false and misleading attacks without challenge

Kilmeade introduces interview by saying Issa doesn't “seem annoying.” On the July 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Kilmeade cited a New York Times article that called Issa “annoyer-in-chief” and introduced him by noting that he considers the title “a compliment, because he says he's on a mission to raise issues about the administration that have largely been ignored and underreported.”

Issa calls ACORN “very much” a “criminal enterprise” and falsely claims his accusations “were proven right.” Kilmeade asked Issa: “Number one, ACORN. What was the issue there that you think got under the administration's skin?” Issa responded that ACORN was “distorting democracy with funds coming right out of the federal government, and we asked that basic question, which is, is it a criminal enterprise?” Issa said that “we did 33 pages in a minority report that showed it very much was” and falsely claimed Republicans “ultimately were proven right.”

In fact, numerous investigations have cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing. For instance, a March 1 New York Daily News article reported that “Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.” The article added that “the unedited version” of the ACORN tapes were “not as clear.” In his December 7, 2009, “Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN,” former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger (D), who was hired by ACORN to conduct an inquiry in part into the videos, concluded that, among other things, “there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.” In an appeal filed December 17, 2009, asking a federal court in New York to review a decision that lifted a congressional ban on federal funding to ACORN, the Department of Justice did not allege any criminal wrongdoing on the part of ACORN employees. And in an April 1 press release, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. said that the videos show “some members of the community organizing group ACORN engaged in 'highly inappropriate behavior,' but committed no violation of criminal laws.”

Kilmeade asked Issa to discuss how his allegations about “the backroom health care deals that gave us health care reform ... annoyed them.” Kilmeade went on to ask Issa about how Issa's allegations about “the backroom health care deals that gave us health care reform that's wildly unpopular even today ... annoyed them,” referencing the Obama administration. Issa said administration officials “haven't actually answered” his accusations, but that he had spoken to “some” of the “organizations” involved, although he didn't specify which “organizations.” He claimed that some of these unnamed groups had told him “here's what we did, and here's what we got for it.”

In fact, right-wing media allegations of “special deals” in health care debate were often based on false or misleading claims of “special deals” in health care reform. While Issa didn't mention any specific allegations of “special deals,” as Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media's allegations of “backroom deals” in the health care reform debate were largely based on false and misleading smears.

Kilmeade: “You pointed out” that “they were picking the Democratic candidates they wanted to win and making deals to make sure it happened.” Kilmeade set up Issa again by claiming that the Obama administration was “picking the Democratic candidates they wanted to win and making deals to make sure it happened, like with Congressman [Joe] Sestak and with [Andrew] Romanoff. You pointed that out.” Issa responded by falsely claiming the administration was “using your tax dollars to distort elections in their favor.”

In fact, the White House did not offer Romanoff a job. According to The Associated Press, Romanoff said in a statement that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina contacted him and “suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race,” but that Messina “could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions.” Romanoff also reportedly stated: “At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina's assistance in obtaining one.” The White House later detailed that Romanoff had previously applied for a position with the administration during the presidential transition, and that Messina followed up with him “to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the U.S. Senate.” The White House further noted, “As Mr. Romanoff has stated, there was no offer of a job.”

With regard to Sestak, administration officials reportedly asked former President Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to gauge whether he would have interest in an “unpaid position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board” or if he was still interested in running for Senate. Sestak reportedly was not interested in the position, and as The Washington Post reported: “Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, says there's no 'there' here. This couldn't be bribery, she says, because the position was unpaid.”