If you watched ABC or CNN this morning, you were told to see President Donald Trump's statements as shocking. The president sat down in the Oval Office with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, the former Clinton advisor and de facto press secretary.

While speaking about the redesign of Air Force One, he answered a few questions about foreign government and whether or not he would listen to the provided information or call the FBI if one were to offer damaging information about a political opponent.

Mr. Trump responded by saying, "I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, (and said) 'We have information on your opponent,' oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

Well, that interview seems to have spun some heads, as CNN has been jumping all over his words, perhaps to again influence House Democrats to add to the Trump impeachment meetings.

I'm awfully confused here. Because we know for a fact that in the spring of 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign hired a foreign agent to solicit exactly that from a foreign government. Also,  not just any government.

Former British spy Christopher Steele was employed and directed to approach his contacts in the Russian Kremlin to see if damaging information could be harvested from Russian intelligence there.

So, how is the media so obsessed with President Trump's openly candid position to at least hear what someone has to say, no matter where they are coming from? In his hypothetical, he is approached, not reaching out. In reality, the DNC and Clinton Campaign were soliciting info from the Russians!

The double standard is mind-numbing because it is clear that our sacred media is not reporting truthful news with the protection of the First Amendment but rather has been weaponized to serve the Democratic Party.

And consider this, Trump said, "maybe you do both." If the so-called information is damaging in terms of legal infractions by the subject of the incoming information, the president has included the scenario that he might indeed contact the FBI. What the bleepity-blipping bleep is wrong with that sane, understandable position?

In my opinion, the DNC, Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS, Comey, Clapper and others were trying to set up the Trump campaign by marching a Russian attorney into their campaign headquarters on June 9, 2016, for a meeting.

That meeting was only taking place because Ms. Natalia Veselnitskaya promised to provide written proof of illegal money coming from Russia to the Clinton campaign. The proof was never offered once she was there. Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort were present and ready to learn.

Trump, Jr. left the meeting quite bored with the failure of Veselnitskaya to deliver and she left them empty-handed. Now the point of this recollection is to remind you that no charges were filed. There is no law against listening to someone, anyone.

Now, had she provided them with such evidence, there is no law against accepting it. The next logical step would have been to contact the authorities—in most scenarios. But what if you knew enough about these federal authorities in the Obama era to realize they were hostile toward your campaign and were in support of your opponent who was, until recently, a major component and authoritative part of that same administration?

President Trump said nothing wrong yesterday, but you will be told again and again that you need to find it as outrageous. I almost worry about some advanced Pavlovian technique being used that makes so many process the information by these networks in the exact way they would want them to. It's sci-fi stuff, but how else can we explain this?

A far more serious infraction would be in reaching out to a foreign nation (an adversarial one in particular), getting dirt on the political rival through them, using it without verifying the truth, and then lie to a federal judge about confirming the info and where it actually came from in order to get a warrant.

That was done with the Steele Dossier. This was perpetrated on this very same Donald Trump!

To reiterate, I hypothesize (with a mountain of evidence) that they also used a Kremlin operative in the Russian prosecutor Natalia Veselnitskaya to give the Russian collusion warrant request some legs by design.

As the media whistles past the graveyard on that entire plot against the president, I'd like quote the late Kansas Senator Bob Dole, "Where's the outrage?"

Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at ken.pittman@townsquaremedia.com and follow him on Twitter @RadioKenPittman. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.