Nice work not only from Megyn but also from Judge Napolitano, who is excellent when he's explaining the law and the constitutional structure of government - and how it's supposed to work as opposed to how it's done by hyper-political officeholders.
My guess is that the interviewer isn't even aware of half the issues Megyn correctly asserts Holder should have been asked about, which is not to say the questions would have otherwise been asked, necessarily. I just get the sense that the MSM is more up to speed on the Washington Redskins brouhaha than on the administration's abuse of its power or its refusal to enforce the law.
Enjoy:
One thing they don't mention, which I can almost guarantee you was a factor (if not the leading factor) is that Holder isn't going to grant an interview to ABC or to anyone else without conditions. It's typical these days for just about anyone a reporter seeks out for an interview to want to see written questions in advance. That's your average tool and die shop marketing coordinator.
Eric Holder will only give an interview if he believes it is in his own best interests and in Obama's best interests. If the media are clamoring for a chance to interview him (as even Kelly admits she is), then Holder understands the supply/demand equation works in his favor and he will dictate the terms. You will not ask about Fast and Furious. You will not ask about the IRS. You will not ask about his and Obama's refusal to enforce the law. You can ask him about what he wants to talk about, like criticism of Obama being racist.
The fault here does not lie solely with the reporter who tossed out the softball questions and avoided the serious ones. It also lies with the producers and news directors who no doubt accepted Holder's terms as the price of getting the interview, and then neglected to tell their viewers that this is what they did.
Just a reminder: The Obama administration exists to serve itself, not to serve you. And the same is true of the news media.
