Read time: 2 minutes

Spicer Gets Testy With NPR Reporter Challenging His Evelyn Farkas Lies

Sean Spicer suddenly gets miffed having to defend timelines and what he sees on television.
Views:

A reporter got under Sean Spicer's skin this afternoon after she pointed out that Evelyn Farkas, Fox News' new conservative scapegoat and Trump's distraction, left the administration in 2015 and couldn't have helped spy on Trump in 2016.

Conservatives are using Farkas' MSNBC interview as proof that Obama officials took actions which supposedly proved Obama wiretapped Trump. They don't.

This has been debunked since Farkas was actually discussing a NY Times story which discussed preserving Russian interference in our election. Nevertheless, Spicer persisted.

Tamara Keith of NPR asked, "[Farkas] left the administration in 2015, so why is something she said in 2017 relevant to something that happened in 2016?"

Spicer fumbled around before turning his answer back on her. "The question I have for you is, exactly. Why is it, what she said, in her things..."

Word salad surgery!

He continued, "I'm urging my colleagues, I'm urging them at the hill, but it's odd that the presumption seems to be 'why is it interesting" Have you asked her?"

The reporter doesn't take directions from the White House and never asked if Farkas was interesting, she asked if her interview was relevant to Trump's wiretapping allegations.

Spicer then flipped it back on her, "Have you asked her?"

She replied, "No, you're the one telling us..."

Spicer jumped at her, "But she's been on television talking about what she's done (puzzled look on the reporter's face) and you.."

She snapped back, "I don't believe everything I see on TV."

See, Trump believes everything he sees on Fox and Friends. Steve Doocy and company have endlessly played the MSNBC interview with Farkas on air to prove Obama wiretapped Trump. So, Spicer does believe everything he sees on TV and apparently expects everyone else to believe it.

Sean continued, "Well, neither do I, but I would assume that as a reporter that actually is interested in the story, a senior Obama administration official that handled Russia."

Another reporter jumped in, reminding him again that Farkas wasn't there in 2016.

Spicer was miffed, "Thank you, I appreciate the timeline. You seem to be rushing to her defense."

No, they are refuting Spicer's smoke screening talking points. If Dr, Farkas wasn't there in 2016, how could she have done something untoward Trump?

At some point she came on, she went on television and talked about actions that she and her colleagues took to spread classified information and instead of Jonathan, instead of defending her, it might be worth asking her what she's talking about,..."

Tamara then asked him if he was more concerned about Farkas or Russians interference the presidential election.

This also pissed Spicer off, but he stayed mostly with his talking points and then said both were terrible.

As Fox News' Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters said, these attempts to muddy the waters are a diversion from finding out if Putin penetrated the White House and as he so aptly put it, "It all stinks."

Can you help us out?

For 16 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit. We work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for our labor of love, but with rising hosting and associated costs, we need your help! Could you donate $20 for 2020? Please consider a one time or recurring donation of whatever amount you can spare, or consider subscribing for an ad-free experience. It will be greatly appreciated and help us continue our mission of exposing the real FAKE NEWS!

More C&L Coverage

Comments

NOTE: We will be changing to a new commenting platform in the next couple of weeks. We will supply more details as we get closer to the change. We understand some users are having problems with comments loading and this will hopefully remedy that problem

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.