Christiane Amanpour has had some pretty shabby outings. She’s shilled for the Ground Zero mosque proponents. She’s cheered Democrats and boosted liberal spin . And she’s shown herself to be, unserious, under-informed and unskilled. So when she decided to interview liberal Robert Redford about his latest film, egging him on to make parallels between the military trial of Abraham Lincoln conspirator Mary Surratt, you knew it was going to be bad. But I bet you didn’t know it would be this bad:
I’m not sure which is worse; Amanpour’s presenting as fact her opinion that military tribunals were a constitutional assault or her failure to challenge Redford on his constitutional “analysis”:
“I’m a little wary about talking about the parallels because it could look like they were invented by me. They weren’t. They’re a matter of historical record,” Redford explained.
“But the parallels, which have been capped this week by Eric Holder -- and you could tell he wasn’t happy about the decision to move to a military tribunal, which should, you know, in a lot of people’s opinion, a civic trial.”
“And so therefore, the Constitution is always kind of at stake,” Redford said. “And messing around with the Constitution has been going on ever since this time of Lincoln.”
And that brings us to the real problem with the interview: Why in the world is Amanpour treating Redford like a serious constitutional commentator? It couldn’t be because he agrees with all her liberal biases, is it?