Jesse Watters Defends Trump Jr….By Reading Constitutional Definition of Treason
With the big story in Washington surrounding Donald Trump Jr’s 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney in an effort to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, according to emails shared by Trump Jr. himself, there have been some very strong reactions from Democrats. And some, such as Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), said the Trump scion’s actions could be treasonous.
During tonight’s broadcast of Fox News’ The Five, the majority of the hosts — save liberal Juan Williams — openly complained about the overreaction from Democrats. After Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld weighed in with their opinions, Jesse Watters decided to read from the Constitution to defend Trump Jr.
“I think the left is playing Russian roulette with this story. They are going to lose once again. Treason is defined by the Constitution in Article III as levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Or elsewhere. Meeting with a Russian lawyer is not treason. Listening to someone dig dirt on another opponent is not treason. And how is that giving aid and comfort if you listen to someone give dirt on an opponent?”
When Kimberly Guilfoyle jumped in and said there was “no dirt,” Watters agreed with her while also noting that collusion wasn’t really a big deal anyway.
“There was no dirt,” he said. “There is another empty promise. Collusion is not a crime. Collusion is not a legal term. There is no collusion in the statute. There was no price-fixing going on here.”
Shortly after the segment aired, CNN’s Brian Stelter made the following observation on Twitter:
Jesse Watters defending the Trumps by defining the word "treason" via Article III of the Constitution.
Not a normal night on cable news.
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) July 12, 2017
[image via screengrab]
Have a tip we should know? email@example.com