‘Aren’t We Financing the War?’; FNC’s Heinrich Drops the Hammer on Psaki Over Russian Oil

After having two days off for President Biden’s State of the Union and trip to Wisconsin, Thursday brought the return of The Psaki Show and, with the Biden administration still refusing to ban the import of Russian oil, the questions were fierce. 

They included a slew from Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich with one presenting Psaki with the notion that the U.S. is “financing” Russia’s “war” Ukraine “as long as we’re buying Russian oil.”

Heinrich started, however, by poking holes in the administration’s logic of refusing to expand domestic gas and oil production, but pushing for it in other areas to help drive down the price of goods:

[T]Yesterday, the President spoke out about increasing domestic manufacturing in order to lower prices for inflated goods. Why not use that logic here to increase domestic energy production? 

Psaki stuck with her original answer and blamed oil companies for the allegedly thousands of unutilized leases.

When Heinrich wondered why there wasn’t anything “the administration could do to get those providers back to pre-pandemic levels,” Psaki did what the White House has done with rising meat prices: blame corporations.

“You think the oil companies don’t have enough money to drill on the places that have been pre-approved. I would point that question to them and we can talk about it more tomorrow when you learn more,” Psaki stated, to which Heinrich interjected in between to say she was “just asking.”

Heinrich then moved to the halted Keystone pipeline, but Psaki insisted starting and/or finishing new ventures wouldn’t bring immediate relief. Thankfully, Heinrich saw the problem in that as well as in Psaki’s claim about real relief from the strategic petroleum preserve (click expand”):

HEIRNICH – Do you believe that Keystone could be opened and that more energy-friendly policies would help? 

PSAKI – The Keystone pipeline is not operational. For that to have any real impact, it would need years. Although I am aware of some members of Congress suggesting that, it is not a solution. It would be a long time before that happens.

HEINRICH: So, during that — those years where it would, you know, take to bring down prices, you’re saying, just continue to buy Russian oil? 

PSAKI: Well, again, Jacqui, I think you’re familiar with a number of steps taken, a historic release from strategic petroleum reserve — 

HEINRICH: But that didn’t bring down prices —

PSAKI: — well, we can —

HEINRICH: — last time or this time.

PSAKI: — well, let me finish. The President believes that we have the ability to make improvements over time, but it is important to remember our need for less dependence on oil. That is what the Europeans must do. That is the only way to go. We can prevent future disasters by investing more in clean energy and in alternative sources of energy. Any Republicans are welcome to join us in this effort. 

Psaki wanted to continue, but Heinrich saved the most spiciest for final. “[A]s long as we’re buying Russian oil, though, aren’t we financing the war?”

Psaki engaged in a bait-and-switch, ignoring Heinrich’s point about money coming into Russia from U.S. oil purchases and instead saying Russian oil only makes up “about ten percent of what we’re importing” Even if you have to take it out “would…raise prices.”

Heinrich is to be credited for reaching that point due to Psaki’s stonewalling of past questions. She started with two and ended up at the end. AP’s Colleen LongPutin will reap the benefits of higher prices as long as there is no ban. 

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was more blatant, asking if the White House’s “moving closer to banning Russian oil imports” and, after Psaki said she didn’t “have any assessment of that,” what’s the point of “waiting if it’s ultimately the step the United States is going to take.”

And even after Heinrich, the questions didn’t stop as NBC’s Kristen Welker highlighted the bipartisan support for banning Russian oil as a way of wondering what more does the U.S. government “need to see in order to make a final decision.”

Psaki initially played dumb before insisting they don’t “look at it exactly through that prism”Seit dem des all All Des Get get every them alles him Deal Weihnachts dar deal darin “we have not held back in taking significant, historic steps that are crippling the Russian economy right now.”

And, in her final briefing before taking over as Weekend Edition host, NPR’s Ayesha Rascoe hinged leftward by adding mentions of the U.S. needing to back more biofuels and purchase “more fuel-efficient cars” (click “expand”):

People have been asking you many questions regarding the price of oil. I will try to answer them in a new way. It is clear that the oil price is extremely high and is unlikely to drop anytime soon. In fact, it will likely rise. What is the — that White House looking at? The strategic release of oil was one thing, but is there more that the whitehouse can do to aid consumers at the pump and other issues? Direct subsidies or more biofuels might be possible. Maybe the Jones Act could be relaxed. So, how is it going to affect Americans living with such high oil prices.

(….)

How does the White House address American consumers? Like, should American consumers right now be thinking, “okay, I’m going to have to pay a lot more at the pump going forward?” Should they be taking that into consideration when they’re buying cars or, you know, should they try to buy more fuel-efficient cars or saving their money? How is the cost of gasoline going to effect them now?

To see the relevant transcript from March 3’s briefing (including one from ABC’s Mary Bruce about kicking Russia off the U.N. Security Council), click here.