Why it matters who Fox News hires!

In the Federalist, Robby Starbuck shows the infamous Fox News effort by two Fox commentarians to keep Newt Gingrich from talking about George Soros funding leftist local officials. He then goes on to detail the local races and how much Soros spent to get leftists elected here.

Does this make your blood boil?

WOW! This is unbelievable! https://t.co/a35BvEAVxd

— 🇺🇸Eric Carmen🇺🇸 (@RealEricCarmen) September 16, 2020

Exposing those who have moved Fox News leftward

Rudy Giuliani does not like being a victim of someone spreading lies about him. In this tweet he refers to Brian Murphy, Fox News senior political affairs specialist. Giuliani also refers to John Solomon, Victoria Toensing, and Joe diGenova who, like Rudy, are Trump supporters.

I challenge Brian Murphy to a debate on Fox on the lies he is spreading about us.

If he needs help maybe he can bring a few others. I’ll bring Joe or Vicky or John or all of them.

Fox owes us an opportunity to respond to this attack.

I can prove what I’m saying. Can he?

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) February 7, 2020

Fox News no longer to be trusted?

Ace of Spades is providing more information almost daily about how Fox News is no longer to be trusted. Here is what he offers in one of his posts today.

Fox News

Peter Barry Chowka writes about the conflict at Fox News between their highly rated opinion shows (Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson) and their low-rated news shows (particularly Chris Wallace and Shep Smith) here.

New York Times: Don't forget our enemies at Fox News!

Emily Steel and Michael S. Schmidt "report" at the New York Times about the Times' enemy, Fox News. The "report" compares the Harvey Weinstein payouts to the Bill O'Reilly payouts.

...Publicly known harassment settlements involving Mr. O’Reilly have totaled about $45 million... The Times reported this month that Mr. Weinstein had reached at least eight settlements with women, most of whom received between $80,000 to $150,000.

...After a few days of negotiation, Mr. O’Reilly and Ms. Wiehl reached a deal, according to a copy of the term sheet for the agreement that was sent anonymously to The Times and confirmed by the people briefed on the settlement. Dated Jan. 7, it called for Ms. Wiehl to be paid over a period of time to ensure her silence. In return, she agreed not to sue Mr. O’Reilly, Fox News or 21st Century Fox. And all photos, text messages and other communications between the two would be destroyed.

...In response to questions about why he sent sexually explicit material to Ms. Wiehl, Mr. O’Reilly said that during his time at the network, he had been sent threatening messages almost every day, including some that had obscene material. To deal with this problem, Mr. O’Reilly said, he set up a system in which the material would be forwarded to his lawyers so they could evaluate whether he needed to take any legal action. Mr. O’Reilly said Ms. Wiehl was among those lawyers.

...On April 13, Mr. Zweifach, the company’s general counsel, notified the Murdochs about a new document request from federal prosecutors investigating the network.

Got that? Obama's federal prosecuters were "investigating the network!"

A day after the meeting with regulators, while Mr. O’Reilly was on vacation in Italy, he was dismissed. He left the network with a $25 million payout.

...In recent weeks Mr. O’Reilly has made several public appearances to promote a new book. He said on the “Today’’ show that he never sent a lewd text or email to a Fox News employee, that his conscience is clear and that “a political and financial hit job” brought him down.

“This is horrible, it’s horrible what I went through, horrible what my family went through,” Mr. O’Reilly said in a raised voice at the end of the interview with The Times. “This is crap, and you know it.”

More here.

Was O'Reilly's firing really about Trump?

Roger L. Simon writes at PJ Media,

If I were Fox talent right now, I'd be very nervous and especially careful about saying anything too positive about Trump. I'd remember to add a few negatives, maybe more than a few, to undercut any approving statements about the president or his policies, just like they do it on CNN. The Murdoch boys will be watching. Like characters in a Greek tragedy, the brothers have taken over and are maneuvering their aged father off stage. And Fox News is the big loser in this drama.

...Did what Bill supposedly did really amount to a firing offense or were his accusers just looking for money or fame, as O'Reilly himself has implied? Or was it just a political hatchet job by the seemingly endless legions who spend all their waking hours and seemingly most of their sleeping ones doing their best to oppose, discredit, and destroy all things Trump?

Read more here.

A good round up

h/t Adrienne

Shocking?

Former Fox News star Andrea Tantaros has filed a lawsuit claiming all kinds of juicy things against various Fox figures. The Daily Mail loves it here.

Will Ailes be leaving Fox News?

We may be seeing some changes at Fox News. Hank Berrien reports at The Daily Wire,

Roger Ailes has come under fire for alleged sexual harassment after Gretchen Carlson accused him of harassing her during her tenure at Fox News. An investigation has been ongoing in which nine other women made similar claims in New York magazine and The Daily Beast. Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, the network’s most visible star, had been silent about any sexual harassment claims but as New York magazine reported Tuesday morning:

According to two sources briefed on parent company 21st Century Fox’s outside probe of the Fox News executive, led by New York–based law firm Paul, Weiss, Kelly has told investigators that Ailes made unwanted sexual advances toward her about ten years ago when she was a young correspondent at Fox. Kelly, according to the sources, has described her harassment by Ailes in detail.

If Ailes leaves, the network’s news may look quite different: Financial Times reports that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren all have clauses in their contracts that would enable them to quit if Ailes leaves.

Read more here.

Trump to duck Cruz (and Fox News) Monday night

Donald Trump is not going to participate in Monday's debate. Maybe Ted Cruz is right when he says that in a head-to-head debate, he would defeat Trump.

Trump renews his attack on Megyn Kelly

Apparently Megyn Kelly returned to Fox News' airwaves last night after an eleven day unscheduled vacation. Donald Trump authored three tweets in honor of her return. One called her a bimbo, one said she returned looking like Nancy Grace, and one said he liked The Kelly File much better when she was on her unscheduled vacation. The question now will be how will Fox News respond to his attacks.
Read more here

Update: Ace of Spades writes about Trump,

It does not presage well for a Trump presidency -- he'll have plenty of people talking smack about him as president, and, as president, do I trust that he will limit his zest for payback to Twitter?

This worries me. He does not seem capable of just shaking it off and moving on. He seems to be frozen forever at his point of psychological pain.

Furthermore, pissing of Fox, pissing off his actual ally Roger Ailes, might be the one thing this guy could do to actually blow himself up and take him out of contention permanently.

Read more here.

The most important story of the month

Does evil exist?

"No such thing as Lois Lerner’s missing emails!"

Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch told Fox News today:

A Department of Justice attorney told a Judicial Watch attorney on Friday that it turns out the federal government backs up all computer records in case something terrible happens in Washington and there’s a catastrophe, so the government can continue operating. And they say it would be too hard to go get Lois Lerner’s emails from that backup system.

So everything we’ve been hearing about scratched hard drives…it’s all been a pack of malarkey. They could get these records, but they don’t want to.

And there’s no such thing as Lois Lerner’s missing emails. It’s all been a big lie. They’ve been lying to the courts, to the American people, to Congress. It’s outrageous.

Jennifer Van Laar at IJReview writes,

Mr. Fitton goes on to say, “The Obama administration needs to get on the ball and start retrieving them [the emails], as opposed to stonewalling and continuing to obstruct justice.”

Judicial Watch will be asking the Court for relief on this issue, likely in the form of a court order to produce the emails from the backup system.

Read more and watch the Fox News Interview with Mr. Fitton here.

Update: Here is the Fox News interview with Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch

Thanks to The Washington Free Beacon

Hat tip Cliff Stewart

Uppity

Victor Davis Hanson asks why do liberals hate certain people so much? For example,
Sarah Palin:

Middle-class white conservative Christian moms from Alaska are not what liberals mean when they talk of diversity.

Why do liberals despise Rush Limbaugh more so than, say, conservatives hate Bill Maher or Chris Matthews? Yes, he is vastly more successful and influential, and does them, as the president so frequently whines, a lot of political damage. Of course, the Left hates the fact that Limbaugh went from middle-class to a billionaire, and without the proper educational credentials and anguish along the way to contextualize his wealth. (Keeping millions of listeners entertained for three hours, 250 days a year, is supposedly easy; in contrast, teaching a graduate seminar fifteen times a semester on your dissertation is an ordeal, full of deep thinking and contemplative heavy lifting.)

Liberals hate entire countries too, especially Israel. Why? Is it because unlike its neighbors it follows the rule of law? Is Israel too fair to gays and women?

Liberals hate Israel because like a Palin or Limbaugh, it seems too self-assured. Does not Jerusalem care that Harvard or Oxford professors despise it? Cannot it do the calculus of seven million versus the 300 million who hate it in the Middle East? Apparently not.

Liberals sure hate the Koch brothers. At first glance, this too baffles. It is not the money per se. After all, they idolize George Soros, who predates the Kochs in subsidizing political causes.

And like Palin, the Kochs have pretensions, in their case of giving to the fine arts and humanities, as if they think they are something more than they are. Yes, they are uppity as well.

Then there is Clarence Thomas. Liberals despise him too. He is a free thinker who makes no apologies for his past or present. Moreover, he is a far better representative of the black American experience of the late 20th century than, say, is the Hawaii prep-schooled, choom-ganger Barry Dunham, son of a white PhD and rather odious Kenyan hustler, whom we now know in his final and most successful reincarnation as Barack Obama.

Finally, liberals really hate Fox News. It trumps the audience of MSNBC and CNN combined and then some. Envy of its success accounts for a lot of the ire. Fox really believes they are a news agency.

How uppity is that?

Read more here.

Changing the channel

Since I never watch t.v. at home, unless the Broncos are playing in the Super Bowl, and then the t.v. is turned off by halftime, when I go to the gym I like to see what's on Fox News. The first thing I do is change the channel, which is always on CNN for some reason. My changing the channel has never caused a fight or argument, since I live out in the suburbs, but I can imagine it might be controversial if I did it in Denver or Boulder. Do you do something similar?

What did Jesus look like?

Apparently, in December, Fox News host Megyn Kelly said both Jesus and Santa were white. This remark inspired Chris Byrne to give us this blog post analyzing the various theories of what Jesus looked like.

ethnically, Jesus probably looked a lot like a stereotypical "swarthy mediterranean man".

He was most likely fairly hairy, with a tan or olive complexion, brown eyes, and black or dark brown hair, which was most likely curly.