Your questioning of Reince Priebus this a.m. demonstrates once again that you have a firm grasp of the conventional wisdom but little else. Your questions were the same as one would expect to hear on the mainstream networks or from New York Times reporters. (I sometimes think if your subscription to the Times were discontinued for some reason you would have to take a vow of silence. How, without it, could you prepare your questions?)
There were plenty of more interesting questions to ask than what you came up with this morning, not the least being: How come Barack Obama was a hero for saying early on that he wanted to get along with Iran but Donald Trump is a villain for saying he would like to get along with Russia? Perhaps he should have said he wanted a re-set button. Would that have made it all right?
How about trying to plumb why Russian hacking became a critical issue and a major story after November 8 when it was of no interest at all to those hamming it up about it now before then. Could there be the teensiest bit of political motivation here?
But the question of questions that no one is asking is exactly why should Russia have “a clear preference” for Donald Trump at 1600 over Hillary Clinton? Could the leaders of any country that wishes us ill possibly think they could have their way more with a Trump administration than with a Clinton administration? If they’re this dumb they should be pretty easy to deal with. I doubt that the reptilian Putin is as smart as Trump suggested this week — I see a low cunning in Putin rather than high intelligence — but he’s not so dumb as to prefer a strong American president over a weak one.
Allow me a suggestion here, Chris. Try prepping your Fox News Sunday questions without reading your New York Times first. You might surprise yourself and your viewers by coming up with some relevant and interesting questions.