Dhillon on Pelosi Introducing Bill To Create Commission To Remove Trump

Harmeet Dhillon Appears on FBN’s ‘The Evening Edit’ To Discuss Pelosi Introducing Bill To Create Commission To Remove Trump

According to Dhillon (Video Transcript):

It’s another example of the Democrats trying to reverse the outcome of the American people’s vote. They started doing that in 2016 with their refusal to accept President Trump as our president, and now they’re doing it preemptively. And, Nancy Pelosi thinks that she’s backing away from it by saying it’s about all potential presidents. Well, who could that be? Joe Biden? Is this the Kamala Harris Presidential Protection Act? This is insane and Americans should see what’s going on here, Liz.

I’m not a doctor. I think the President is listening to the advice of his physicians. I’ve seen some information that he should be if he’s getting better, testing negative within the next 72 hours. And I’m sure that if that’s not the case, that he won’t go forward. But look, he has the greatest medical support in the country, the best advice and also tons of protections in place for anybody who chooses to attend one of these events. So the election is going forward. The campaign is going on, the president doesn’t really have a choice, but to get out there and do his best like he’s always been doing.

I think we have to look at the science. I mean, is he infecting people by being on Hannity, or is he infecting people by being on Tucker Carlson? Are we going to be infected remotely? I don’t really understand that. I think that the precautions are there for the people who are interacting immediately with the president. We have seen stories about how people in the White House have been issued additional protective gear. And, I think the interactions are pretty limited from what I understand. So second guessing those arrangements would be just speculation.

Well, they’re not believing it because of all the disinformation that’s being sown out there. And so again, I think we should focus on the science, focus on the medicine, and let the president listen to that advice and then operate according to that advice. I haven’t heard any evidence that the President is ignoring the advice of his physicians who are the best in the country. And so I think we should defer to them.

I think I don’t believe him. And, the reason why I don’t believe him in part is because Twitter sleuths have found that he claimed to have been hacked in 2012 and 2013, as well. So I don’t believe in coincidences and I don’t believe that this professional journalist was hacked three times in a row. Finally, the fact that he deleted his account earlier today, a couple of hours ago, is evidence of guilt in my opinion, it’s called evidence destruction. So no, he deleted his own account. I think he deleted the account. Yes. And so, when you delete the account and make it more difficult for people to find out, who logged in, when and from where, and when you look on Twitter settings, yes, you can see how many devices are logged in from where, what city, what device it is. So, by deleting the account altogether, he may have destroyed that evidence. Yes. The Commission on Debates needs to investigate this, and I think C-SPAN just for its own credibility, which is important, needs to replace him as the moderator, and we need to stop having this bias process. We’ve seen it again and again and again. I think that this whole Presidential Commission on Debates needs to be eliminated and we need to have a fairer, more modern format. Liz.

For example, you could have one sort of nonpartisan journalist or a blogger or a podcaster or like Joe Rogan host a freewheeling exchange, ready rough-and-tumble. You could have a openly partisan debate format, where you have one known conservative, like Laura Ingraham and you have Rachel Maddow, they can alternate and ask questions so that everybody knows what’s going on. But the folk pretense that we have these objective journalists who are doing this, we all know what’s going on. We’ve seen it with our own two eyes with the Steve Scalise situation. And the last two debates, we had the vice presidential debate and the first presidential debate, were extremely biased from the point of view of conservatives. We don’t hear liberals claiming they were bias. So that should tell you something as well.

Well, that’s absolutely right. And, the other thing that you’re seeing here is, let’s just be honest, the people who, the journalists who are doing these debates, they’re beltway insiders, they are cocktail party aficionados and their reputation amongst their peers apparently matters more to them than their integrity in moderating these debates. A good moderator, whatever their political persuasion, would ask hard follow up questions of each, they would interrupt equally or not at all. And, neither of those things happen in the Chris Wallace situation. He didn’t ask follow up questions. He posed biased, loaded questions to the president, but not the former vice president. And it was a sham. So the president was fighting both the moderator and Joe Biden.