Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” has broken the record for the highest-rated monthly viewership in the history of cable news, drawing in an average nightly audience of nearly 5.4 million, according to Nielsen Media Research ratings for October.
What are the details?
The Washington Examiner reported that the program, which airs at 8 p.m. EST, “averaged 5,359,000 viewers nightly, including 1,003,000 in the key 25-54 age demographic that marketers covet,” according to the Nielsen ratings, noting that “while the total ratings made cable news history, [Carlson] also became the first prime-time host to reach 1 million viewers in the 25-54 demo since September 2008.”
Fox News also broke a ratings record. According to TheWrap, “the network delivered the highest primetime averages in cable news history, too.”
But Carlson was not the only Fox News host to put eye-popping numbers on the board for this month.
Fox News pointed out that fellow primetime hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham also saw staggering viewership, reporting that “‘Hannity’ finished with its highest-rated month across both categories since the program launched in 2009,” and “‘The Ingraham Angle’ also made cable news history, finishing as the most-watched female host in history.”
Fox News further noted that it “finished with its second highest-rated total day viewership in the history of cable news, coming only behind its own coverage of the Iraq War in April 2003. With the victory, FNC has now beaten MSNBC and CNN in both total day and primetime viewership for 226-straight months.”
Tuesday’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” show is slated to feature Tony Bobulinski, who says he is a former business partner of Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Bobulinski claims to have in-depth knowledge and documented evidence of the explosive allegations linking Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to foreign deals involving his son, which were first reported by the New York Post and dismissed by several mainstream outlets.
Carlson tweeted Tuesday afternoon, “Tony Bobulinski says he met with Joe Biden about China. The media have suppressed the story, but it’s real and it matters. Voters have a right to know the details.”
President Donald Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump, Jr., wrote in response, “Eight words that the corrupt partners of the Chinese Communist Party over at Joe Biden’s campaign are dreading: ‘Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight.'”
Eight words that the corrupt partners of the Chinese Communist Party over at Joe Biden’s campaign are dreading: “Go… https://t.co/uHlcjWLi5u
Hollywood actress Kirstie Alley went on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Monday to stand firm on her decision to vote for President Donald Trump, despite the torrent of backlash she received from announcing her decision over the weekend.
What are the details?
On Saturday, Alley tweeted, “I’m voting for @realDonaldTrump because he’s NOT a politician. I voted for him 4 years ago for this reason and shall vote for him again for this reason. He gets things done quickly and he will turn the economy around quickly. There you have it folks there you have it.”
I’m voting for @realDonaldTrump because he’s NOT a politician. I voted for him 4 years ago for this reason and shal… https://t.co/a3iMdb0CRt
Hannity called her on his show to hear more about her reasoning, and began by pointing out some of the abuse the actress received for bucking the Hollywood trend of voting for Democrats.
“First of all, you’re brave to come on this show. I give you a lot of credit,” Hannity told Alley, before listing off messages where people told her she “should rot in hell,” and that she doesn’t “have a brain.” He noted that her “deeply held and personal religious beliefs” were also attacked.
“You know, they always attack the same three things,” Alley told the host. “That I’m a fat, irrelevant scientologist.” But, she noted, “this has been going on for 40 years.”
In defending her vote for Trump, Alley explained that in America’s past, politicians left their respective professions — such as Trump, who had not been a politician before running for the presidency — to serve the country and then returned to their trades in the private sector.
Regarding Democratic nominee Joe Biden, Alley hit out against his statements on race, noting, “What did he say, ‘you ain’t black if you’re not voting for me?’ and then these constant gaffes of these actual racist overtones, and I’m like ‘no, maybe you get one where you accidently said something inappropriate, but it’s pretty constant.”
Kirstie Alley joins ‘Hannity’ after receiving backlash over Trump support
Fox News host Leland Vittert grilled Biden campaign surrogate Jenna Arnold over the explosive Hunter Biden email stories on Sunday, eventually backing Arnold into a corner over her own spin.
In the end, Vittert forced Arnold into making a revealing admission.
The contentious segment began with Joe Biden’s own words last October, when he claimed he never discussed his son’s overseas business dealings. That claim was disputed last week by numerous stories related to emails and a computer hard drive allegedly connected to Hunter Biden.
Arnold began by claiming that “so much of this is unconfirmed.”
“Jenna, it’s real simple. You say it’s unconfirmed. Tell us what parts are not true,” Vittert shot back. “Hunter Biden knows what emails he has and hasn’t sent. Are you saying, and the campaign saying, that these emails aren’t his?”
What ensued was more than two minutes of spin by the Biden campaign surrogate.
“It’s unclear to me — I would say that what’s so important right now, from both the American citizen and the media — yourself included, Leland — is to continue to ask clarifying questions about this, why the FBI is investigating —” Arnold said before Vittert interjected. “It’s imperative to note that the NSA told Trump that Giuliani was being played by these emails.”
“But again,” Vittert responded, as the two talked over one another. “Again, Jenna, Jenna, Jenna. The easiest thing in the world to do: Stop with all the obfuscation. The easiest thing in the world to do would be to say, ‘These aren’t Hunter Biden’s emails.’ Nobody, including Hunter Biden, and including the campaign, has said it.”
After back-and-forth over Biden’s one response to the Hunter Biden email controversy — in which Biden attacked the CBS News reporter who questioned him — Arnold attempted to divert the conversation to talk about China and the coronavirus pandemic instead.
But Vittert shot her down.
“I’m so confused. What’s interesting is I feel like you still haven’t answered the fundamental question, which is: Can anyone say that these emails are inauthentic? And so far, I haven’t heard anybody say that,” Vittert said.
Shockingly, Arnold then admitted, “I think that’s fair. I don’t think anybody is saying they are inauthentic.”
Biden Surrogate On Alleged Hunter Emails: “I Don’t Think Anybody Is Saying They Are Inauthentic”
One email, dated May 13, 2017, and obtained by Fox News, includes a discussion of “remuneration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details. Fox News spoke to one of the people who was copied on the email, who confirmed its authenticity. Sources told Fox News that “the big guy” is a reference to the former vice president. The New York Post initially published the emails and other controversial messages that Fox News has also obtained.
The report came one day after the New York Post reported that it had obtained emails allegedly showing Hunter Biden “pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company,” CEFC China Energy Co.
The Post triggered a firestorm of controversy on Wednesday after obtaining a hard drive that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden.
That hard drive belonged to a computer that was dropped off at a Delaware computer repair store in April 2019, but was never retrieved. The FBI reportedly seized the laptop last December, but the repair shop owner made copies of the hard drive before turning it over.
The Biden campaign has denied any wrongdoing took place, but acknowledged that Biden could have had an informal interaction with the Burisma executive.
Campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told Politico, “Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as ‘not legitimate’ and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.”
Meanwhile, Biden was directly confronted about the controversy late Friday. In response, the former vice president snapped at the reporter who questioned him.
I asked Joe Biden: What is your response to the NYPost story about your son, sir?
He called it a “smear campaign”… https://t.co/tFoft0DbVS
As Democrats and the Joe Biden presidential campaign hover between refusing to answer the question on packing the Supreme Court or redefining what “packing the courts” means, one Senate Democrat says it’s none of Biden’s business anyway.
Speaking Monday on Fox News, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said the reason Democratic nominee Joe Biden won’t give his opinion on packing the courts is because it’s “not his business.” He argued that under the Constitution it is Congress, not the president, who dictates the composition of the Supreme Court by law.
“Why won’t he answer that question?” host Bill Hemmer asked Kaine.
“Well, I haven’t asked him but I have a pretty good idea, Bill. Because it’s not his business, the Constitution gives no power to the president or vice president to pack the court,” Kaine said.
“It’s not a presidential responsibility. Congress, according to Article I of the Constitution, sets the composition. So that’s why it’s not even a part of the campaign plan,” he continued.
Several progressive Democrats have argued that if Senate Republicans are successful in confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the current vacancy on the court, the next Democratic Congress and president must expand the court to undo a potential 6-3 conservative majority.
“You’ll know my position on court packing when the election is over,” Biden said.
“You know, the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that, other than focusing on what’s happening now. The election has begun. There’s never been a court appointment once an election has begun,” he added.
Biden’s running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) likewise dodged the question during her debate with Vice President Mike Pence last week, instead attacking President Trump for making 50 court of appeals appointments and not nominating any black judges.
Other Democrats have attempted to redefine the term, accusing Republicans of “court packing” by filling court vacancies with President Trump’s nominees. Traditionally, “packing the court” refers to expanding the number of seats on the court to create a more favorable ideological makeup of the bench, not filling vacancies, which is the constitutional duty of the president and the Senate.
Biden himself pointed out in a 1983 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on nominations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the origins of the term “court-packing” go back to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to expand the Supreme Court after several of his New Deal programs were ruled unconstitutional.
“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct,” a 40-year-old Biden told the commission. “But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”
Sen. Kaine was asked about Biden’s 1983 comments, which suggest that the composition of the court is, in fact, a president’s business.
“You haven’t heard Joe Biden say he wouldn’t send a plan to the court — I don’t think this is a matter for the president at all,” Kaine said, likely misspeaking as a president would send a court packing plan to Congress, not the court.
Kaine then accused Republicans of making two “momentous changes” to the way the court is composed, warning “they’re about to make a third.”
“The first was they refused to entertain the nomination of Merrick Garland, depriving President Obama in a historic way of being able to fill a position,” Kaine said. “Second, we used to require that a Supreme Court justice get 60 votes, a bipartisan measure of support, and we thought that was a good idea — Democrats thought that was a good idea, the Republicans changed that to elevate Neil Gorsuch to the court.”
The third change, Kaine argued, would be hypocritically confirming Barrett during an election year after refusing four years ago to give Garland a hearing.
Kaine did not mention that it was then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who first ended the filibuster for circuit court level judicial nominations, creating the precedent that Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) invoked in ending the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.
Prompted by Hemmer, Kaine also predicted that Barrett will have enough votes to be confirmed to the Supreme Court before the election on Nov. 3 but said he hopes the confirmation hearings will persuade some Republicans to change their votes and the next inaugurated president fill the court vacancy.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron responded to racially charged criticism launched at him for his handling of the Breonna Taylor investigation, saying the names he’s been called are “repugnant.”
“It is so unfortunate that because I have a different political philosophy and because in my role as the attorney general and as the special prosecutor in the Breonna Taylor investigation, because I led with the facts and the truth, and had that lead to the conclusion, somehow I betrayed my race,” Cameron told Fox News host Tucker Carlson in an interview Thursday.
After Cameron announced that the officers involved in Taylor’s death would not be charged with murder, outraged commentators called him names like “sellout negro,” “Uncle Tom,” and said he was “skinfolk” but not “kinfolk.” The only charge was issued against one officer for wanton endangerment.
“It is repugnant. It is so disappointing, but it’s par for the course,” Cameron said in response to his critics. “Anytime someone stands for the truth, and when that truth is different from a narrative that has been pushed by others, this is how they respond.”
Kentucky AG responds to harsh criticism he faced on Breonna Taylor decision
“I’m here tonight to say that enough is enough,” he added. “Black Republicans, folks that believe in the truth … we are going to stand up.
“That’s what I did in presenting all of the information to the grand jury in the Breonna Taylor investigation, and that is what I’m charged to do. That is my responsibility as the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” he continued.
On Sept. 23, Cameron held a news conference to announce the results of the state attorney general’s investigation into Taylor’s shooting death.
When the three officers charged into Taylor’s apartment around 1 a.m. March 13, Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired one shot at them. The officers were not in uniform, and Walker said he thought it was a home invasion. Walker shot Mattingly in the leg. The three officers returned fire with more than 20 shots. Taylor was shot five times.
Cameron said that because the police were fired upon first, the returned fire was justified and Kentucky state law prevented him from charging the police with Taylor’s killing. Two of the officers Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Detective Myles Cosgrove, did not face any charges. The third officer, former LMPD Sgt. Brett Hankison, was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment for allegedly firing his gun recklessly.
Asked by Carlson to dispel the biggest “myth” surrounding the facts of the shooting, Cameron criticized the claim that the police officer who was allegedly shot by Kenneth Walker actually shot himself.
“Well, the biggest myth that is being promoted right now is the idea that Sgt. Mattingly, one of the office officers who was administering the search warrant in the morning hours at Breonna Taylor’s apartment, was shot by friendly fire, meaning shot by another officer,” Cameron said. “Look, I’ve taken to calling this a conspiracy theory. In order to believe this narrative that’s being promoted by the defense attorney in Louisville, Kentucky, you have to believe, (1) to defy physics and disregard the trajectory analysis, but you have to believe that the officer that was standing outside the apartment shooting into the apartment, that he had a magic bullet, and that that bullet went through the apartment unit and then made a sharp turn left without any obstruction or any impediment to match it up with the entry point of the wound that Sergeant Mattingly suffered.
“It is a silly notion; it’s one of the biggest myths that has been promoted here in the last few weeks,” Cameron continued. “Before three weeks ago and before this defense attorney uttered this statement, it was a foregone conclusion that what happened that evening was that Kenny Walker, Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, fired a shot at the officers. The officers responded and returned fire, justified in doing so because they had been fired upon. And the tragedy, and again, I’ve said this from the very beginning, the tragedy here is that Breonna Taylor was in that hallway as well and was hit.
“But the tragedy doesn’t allow for me to not present the facts and the truth, and that’s what we’ve done here,” he said.
Cameron blamed celebrity and media commentators for driving false narratives about the shooting, leading to confusion about what happened.
“Well, again, there were a lot of people inside and outside, a lot of celebrities, a lot of folks that were either misrepresenting the facts because it was to their advantage, or didn’t know all the information,” Cameron said. “They made conclusions first and then want to cherry-pick the facts to meet those conclusions. I don’t have that luxury as the attorney general here in the commonwealth. My responsibility is to the truth and to the information, and then that is ultimately what leads to the conclusion. We presented all the information to the grand jury. Ultimately, we presented to them as well the fact that the officers, Mattingly and Cosgrove, were fired upon and they were justified in returning their fire.
“We obviously have a prosecution into a third officer that was there that night,” he continued. “I can’t get into the specifics because that is an ongoing prosecution, but again, a lot of folks had already made up their mind and weren’t interested in what the truth is, and now are still trying to cherry-pick so that they can fashion a narrative that meets their agenda and advances their own interests.”
Since Cameron delivered his news conference in September, several new facts have come to light that raise questions about the findings the Kentucky attorney general’s office presented.
Bodycam footage made public days after the investigation’s findings were released appear to show Louisville Metro Police Department officers and SWAT team members breaking department policy regarding officer-involved shooting incidents.
Notably, for obvious reasons, officers who are involved in a shooting are prohibited per LMPD policy from being involved in the investigation of those shootings and are furthermore explicitly required to be promptly separated from the scene and paired with a “peer support” escort who can both comfort shaken officers and also vouch for the fact that the officers did not fabricate evidence or otherwise adulterate the crime scene.
Videos taken of the shooting aftermath show that this policy was flagrantly disregarded, particularly by the now-terminated Hankison and Cosgrove, and that the SWAT and Public Integrity Unit officers who were there complained aloud about the officers they were investigating still being “in the mix” and even actually in the active crime scene. One of the other officers involved in the raid was also observed to have left the scene and been canvassing witnesses.
Also, a ballistics report released recently contradicted Cameron’s claim that Walker shot first and struck Mattingly and that friendly fire was ruled out.
Kentucky State Police said that “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the bullet that hit Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated” as coming from a 9mm pistol fired by Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, the outlet said.
The ballistics report also contradicted Cameron’s claim that the cops only carried .40-caliber handguns, when the shot that hit Mattingly was a 9mm.
The report said Police Officer Brett Hankison had also been issued a 9mm handgun.
In statements to reporters outside the White House, Meadows said that the president is experiencing “mild symptoms.”
“He has mild symptoms,” Meadows admitted. “The doctor will continue to provide expertise in the residence. He’s in the residence now. In true fashion, [Trump] is probably critiquing the way I’m answering these questions.”
He added, “I can tell you that a number of us will be reporting back to him on the task at hand.”
In the early hours of Friday morning, Trump tweeted about his and the first Lady’s COVID-19 diagnosis.
He wrote, “Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!”
Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately.… https://t.co/CIIB2LDQtr
The president has yet to tweet any follow-up statements regarding the status of his health or anything else at the time of this reporting.
In a Friday morning letter, the White House physician said that Trump and the first lady were “both well” and that he anticipated the president would continue carrying out his presidential duties.
According to Meadows’ Friday morning tweets, Vice President Pence and his wife, senior advisers Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin all tested negative for coronavirus as of Friday morning.
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tests positive
A spokesperson for the RNC told TheBlaze on Friday that GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel received a positive COVID-19 diagnosis on Friday after coming in contact with an infected family member.
The spokesperson said, “After a member of her family tested positive for COVID-19, the Chairwoman was tested for the virus. On Wednesday afternoon, she got confirmation she was COVID-19 positive. She has been at her home in Michigan since last Saturday.”
McDaniel tweeted her well-wishes for the president and his wife on Friday morning.
“Wishing @realDonaldTrump and @FLOTUS Melania Trump a speedy recovery,” she wrote. “We are praying for you!”
Wishing @realDonaldTrump and @FLOTUS Melania Trump a speedy recovery.
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace responded to criticism Thursday over his moderating of the chaotic first debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden earlier in the week, saying that Trump ruined his plans for a “substantive” discussion.
What are the details?
Speaking on Fox News’ “Bill Hemmer Reports,” Wallace told the host he initially thought the night started off well after Trump and Biden each answered their first questions. But from that point, things went off the rails.
“It became clearer and clearer over time that this was something different and that the president was determined to try to butt in, and throw Joe Biden off,” Wallace said, before citing a Fox analysis “that indicates the president interrupted either Biden’s answers or my questions a total of 145 times.”
The veteran journalist said the president “bears the primary responsibility for what happened on Tuesday,” adding that Trump interrupted Biden more than twice as many times as Biden interrupted him.
Wallace went on to explain how he tried to rein things in during the debate, before explaining, “Literally, hundreds of man hours and woman hours between me and my researcher went in to try to prepare a substantive debate and on so many issues — Biden’s tax and spending plans, Trump’s climate and environmental policies.”
“You know, I was really hoping for the debate that I think America wanted to see,” he continued, “which was a serious exchange of views.”
Wallace then made an analogy in describing how he felt while moderating, telling Hemmer, “I felt like I had gotten together all of the ingredients, I had baked this beautiful, delicious cake, and then, frankly, the president put his foot in it.”
Chris Wallace responds to criticism of his debate moderation
Wallace has taken heat for not doing more as moderator to control the 90-minute back-and-forth between Trump and Biden, which was full of interruptions and insults from both sides. But Fox News Media executives defended the “Fox News Sunday” host’s performance, saying in an internal memo after the debate, “No moderator could have managed a debate of that magnitude better than Chris.”
Wallace told The New York Times the day after the event, “Generally speaking, I did as well as I could, so I don’t have any second thoughts there.”
He added, “I’m just disappointed with the results. For me, but much more importantly, I’m disappointed for the country, because it could have been a much more useful evening than it turned out to be.”
Fox News Media executives sent out an internal memo expressing their gratitude and congratulations to veteran anchor Chris Wallace on his performance moderating the first presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, praising the journalist’s “professionalism, skill and fortitude.”
What are the details?
The Hill’s Joe Concha posted a joint memo issued by Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott and President Jay Wallace, which read, in part:
We’d like to take a moment to thank and congratulate Chris Wallace for moderating last night’s extraordinary debate. We are extremely proud of his professionalism, skill and fortitude in a unique situation while doing everything possible to hold both candidates accountable. NO moderator could have managed a debate of that magnitude better than Chris.
The letter went on to praise the “equally impressive” coverage of the debate by Bret Baier, Martha MacCallum, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Shannon Bream and others who contributed to the night’s success for the network.
“More Americans watched FOX News Channel last night than any other network on broadcast or cable with 17.8 million viewers tuning — shattering records as the highest rated presidential commission debate in cable news history,” the executives noted.
Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott and President Jay Wallace congratulate presidential debate moderator Chris Wallace… https://t.co/WJN9KBnJSC
The debate itself was roundly panned as chaotic, with both candidates attacking and interrupting each other while Wallace did his best to reign it in. As TheBlaze‘s Phil Shiver described, the event “was every bit as entertaining — and feisty — as advertised.”
The Washington Examiner reported that several of Wallace’s Fox News colleagues joined in on criticizing the job he did as moderator, including Ingraham and “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade. Contributors Andy McCarthy and Dan Bongino also hit out at Wallace.
What did Wallace say?
Wallace told The New York Times on Thursday, “I’m just sad the way last night turned out. I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did.”
“I’ve been involved in a certain amount of soul-searching,” the anchor added, upon reflection. “Generally speaking, I did as well as I could, so I don’t have any second thoughts there. I’m just disappointed with the results. For me, but much more importantly, I’m disappointed for the country, because it could have been a much more useful evening than it turned out to be.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also questioned Barrett what it meant to be an “Orthodox Catholic.” Of course, the concern of Democratic lawmakers at the time was that Barrett may be placed in a position to someday help restrict abortion rights — or perhaps even overturn Roe v. Wade.
What did Lieberman say?
Speaking on Fox News, the former Connecticut senator — who was a Democrat for the majority of his political career until he left the party in 2006 — predicted that if Democrats focus on Barrett’s faith, “it will hurt her opponents.”
Lieberman, who is an observant Jew, explained that, in his experience, religious piety deeply resonates with Americans.
“I found that the fact that I was religious and observant was actually a tie, a bond [with] people of other religions who were similarly observant,” Lieberman said.
“You can disagree with somebody based on whether they’re pro-life or pro-choice, but when you start to say that you’re against them because their religion, in this case, their Roman Catholicism determines their point of view, you’re doing something really abhorrent that I think is bigoted, is un-American, and incidentally, is unconstitutional,” he added.
In fact, “Article VI of the Constitution says that you can’t apply a religious test for any office of public trust in America. That’s how wise and fair the people who wrote the Constitution were,” Lieberman explained.
Regarding Feinstein’s comments in particular, Lieberman called them “improper” and “biased.”
“I thought Sen. Feinstein’s question in that case was really improper, and was biased really. Everybody brings to the Senate, to the Congress, to [the] Supreme Court experiences and beliefs that they have,” Lieberman said. “There’s no reason why a religiously observant person should be accused more of dogma than somebody who is particularly ideological in a secular way.”
A black civil rights official predicted to “Fox & Friends” Friday that “violence” awaits “intimidators” who’ve been harassing restaurant diners as part of protests against alleged racial injustice and police brutality.
What are the details?
Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, told the network that protesters who have been harassing easily picked-on diners — many of them elderly — will soon overplay their hand: “It’s not gonna end well at some point. At some point, they’re gonna sit at the wrong table, and it’s gonna have some violence.”
“This type of behavior obviously is unjustified, but it’s rationalized by these protesters — and they’re not even protesters: They’re intimidators, disruptors of the peace, in some cases they engage in overt violence, but it’s rationalized by them because of this false narrative of systemic racism and that cops are disproportionately shooting blacks,” he told “Fox & Friends.”
What happened to the elderly diners?
Video of the St. Petersburg incident shows a mob of protesters repeatedly chanting, “Stand up, fight back!” while facing diners at a restaurant before one apparent activist pulls up a seat at a table occupied by an older man and woman.
The woman at the table quickly stands up and says, “Nope, this is my table” and unsuccessfully attempts to tip the protester out of the chair before he slams it back down — and then two more activists fill the remaining empty seats while flashing signs and joining the chant. Additional activists followed and stood to surround the couple.
One activist can be heard telling the man, “Why don’t you shut up? Who the f*** you think you’re talking to?” before the first activist who stole a seat told the woman, “I’ll knock your old-ass boyfriend the f*** out!” and accused her of being a “wild Karen in her natural f***ing habitat!”
Content warning: Language:
Protestors are now going restaurant by restaurant to chant at diners on Beach Dr. in St. Pete. A lot of diners yell… https://t.co/DKQiws1HXc
Kirsanow also noted in his “Fox & Friends” interview that there’s no data showing that black people are disproportionately targeted in police shootings and that media members have handled police shootings of unarmed black people “irresponsibly.”
And as for the charge that “systemic racism” is infecting our country, he said that “the evidence, the data, for decades now, has been irrefutable that that is not the case.”
“There’s a huge cohort of individuals that leap on the initially reported facts and perpetuate them because many of the facts related to George Floyd, for example, Breonna Taylor, began to come out, but the media wasn’t reporting them, and this type of hysteria develops because of a false narrative, and it needs to be corrected because something is going to happen soon,” Kirsanow added. “We’ve already seen billions of dollars’ worth of property damage, in large part because of the belief in this false narrative.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) said it’s “awful” that Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s religion is being attacked as rumors circulate that she’s the front-runner to be President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.
“I’m Catholic, OK. And religion should not enter into it. It sure doesn’t with me,” Manchin said in an interview on Fox News Wednesday. “The freedom of religion is one of the basic rights we all have as American citizens.”
Judge Barrett, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, is widely seen as President Trump’s likely pick to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. She has been the subject of recent articles raising critical questions about her Christian faith as she undergoes the vetting process for the Supreme Court.
Previously in 2017, during Senate confirmation hearings on Barrett’s appointment to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) caused controversy by questioning her Catholic faith, saying, “the dogma lives loudly within you.”
“It’s awful to bring in religion,” Manchin said in response to a question about the criticisms of Barrett’s faith on “Fox & Friends.”
The moderate Democrat also declared his opposition to voting on a SCOTUS nominee before the election and also opposed packing the courts in retaliation if Republicans advance a nominee to the court.
“We should be waiting, and if I use the words of all my colleagues, Republican colleagues with Merrick Garland, let the people decide. It’s an election year, let them decide, but especially within 42 days to go,” Manchin said.
He believes having a politicized confirmation fight in the Senate before an election will increase partisan divides.
“My goodness, everything is so political. Jurors should be picked on their qualifications, their experience level, and basically their findings. And you can say you agree or disagree because of the way they ruled on other cases,” Manchin said.
He fears holding a vote on Trump’s nominee before the election will be a partisan effort that will erode the Senate’s character.
“There’s no civility, there’s no fairness to it, and we have to make sure we set some precedent to it,” Manchin said. “The Senate is much different. The Senate was basically designed and intended to be bipartisan and every time we break away and keep pulling that cover off, there’s not going to be any difference between us and that hot cup of tea that comes over from the House, as Washington said.
“We’ve gotta cool that off, and the Senate’s gotta cool that off, and we’re not doing a very good job of that,” he said.
Manchin touted his record as the “most bipartisan person in the Senate,” noting that he’s voted for 161 of Trump’s judicial nominations. Manchin was also the only Senate Democrat to vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Asked about threats made by Democrats against Republicans to pack the court after the election, Manchin suggested that would be another partisan effort akin to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees and would backfire on Democrats.
“I do not believe that would help anybody,” Manchin said. “Basically no one is working together. So if you have 11 or 13, it’s going to flip the other way no matter who comes into power. So why would you go down that path? It didn’t work in 2015 with the nuclear option, and I would have doubts it would work this time.
“We’ve got to fight for basically who we are as the Senate,” he said. “Can we represent the people in a bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans?”
President Donald Trump on Monday questioned the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s reported dying wish that her replacement on the Supreme Court not be nominated by Trump, wondering aloud if her alleged statement was “written by Adam Schiff, Schumer, or Pelosi.”
Ginsburg, 87, died Friday evening of complications from a long battle with pancreatic cancer. According to NPR, days before her death, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera, saying, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
As Democrats are threatening to impeach President Donald Trump should he move forward with a Supreme Court nomination before the election, the president questioned whether those words were said by Ginsburg or, he suggested, written by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of House Intelligence Committee and leader of the drive to impeach the president earlier this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi?” Trump said during an interview on “Fox & Friends.”
“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff & Schumer & Pelosi? I would be more inclined for the second” — Trump claims Schiff, Schumer, & Pelosi actually wrote RBG’s dying statement, & suggests she’d actually be fine w/him nominating her replacement pic.twitter.com/xLQq1csNTz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 21, 2020
“I would be more inclined to the second. That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe Pelosi or shifty Schiff … maybe she did and maybe she didn’t,” the president continued.
There is no evidence that the Democrats fabricated Ginsburg’s statement.
“Look, the bottom line is we won the election,” Trump said, adding, “We have an obligation to do what’s right and act as quickly as possible.”
The president on Monday declared his intention to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court on either Friday or Saturday, after funeral proceedings for Justice Ginsburg have concluded.
Democrats have threatened to restart impeachment proceedings against the president if he moves forward with a nominee. Asked by reporters Sunday evening whether impeachment was under consideration, Senate Minority Leader Schumer nodded in agreement as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “We must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”
Speaker Pelosi also suggested retaliatory impeachment is among Democrats’ “options.”
“We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi said.
Trump predicts that any impeachment action taken by Democrats will help him win the election.
“I heard if I [nominate], they’re going to impeach me,” Trump said. “So they’re impeaching me for doing what constitutionally I have to do.”
Speaking with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Cruz said the integrity of the election depends on the court having nine justices, especially considering the enhanced likelihood of a legally contested contest this year.
“I think it is tremendously important that not only does the nomination happen next week but that the confirmation before Election Day,” Cruz explained. “Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear, they intend to challenge this election, they intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede. You should challenge this election.'”
“We cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 court,” Cruz said.
If the seat is not filled prior to Election Day, America risks a “constitutional crisis,” the Texas senator went on to say.
“A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine justice Supreme Court, particularly when there’s such a risk of a contested litigation and a contested election,” Cruz explained.
“Twenty years ago, I was part of the legal team that litigated Bush v. Gore and went to the Supreme Court. Thirty-seven days the country did not know who the president was going to be, and if we had a 4-4 court it could have dragged on for weeks and months,” he continued.
“So, I think we have a responsibility — a responsibility to do our job,” Cruz said. “The president should nominate a principled constitutionalist with a proven record, and the Senate is going to take a lot of work to get it done before Election Day but I think we should do our job and protect the country from the constitutional crisis that could result otherwise.”
Earlier in his interview, Cruz said, “This nomination is why Donald Trump was elected. This confirmation is why the voters voted for a Republican majority in the Senate.”
It’s not yet clear who President Donald Trump will nominate to fill the high court vacancy.
Detroit Police Chief James Craig blasted Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) after the Democratic lawmaker called for disarming “every police department” of a variety of weapons including “tear gas, rubber and plastic bullets, and bean bag rounds.”
Craig appeared Monday on “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Fox News where he countered Markey’s remarks.
What are the details?
In a Monday news release, Markey said, “Our streets are not meant to be battlefields, and law enforcement shouldn’t be using weapons of war against protesters and other Americans. Law enforcement’s use of tear gas also compounds the effects of structural racism, because we know communities of color are already suffering disproportionately during this global respiratory pandemic. It’s time we stop using these potentially lethal weapons against our own people.”
He later tweeted, “Portland police routinely attack peaceful protesters with brute force. We must disarm these officers, and every other police department in America, of weapons of war, and enact a nationwide ban on tear gas, rubber and plastic bullets, and bean bag rounds.”
Portland police routinely attack peaceful protestors with brute force. We must disarm these officers, and every oth… https://t.co/E9Iimcabgs
Craig told MacCallum that Markey’s statement was “absolutely ridiculous.”
“You know what I find fascinating, Martha, and even Rashida Tlaib here out of my state here in Michigan who is calling for me to resign, let me just say this,” he said. “When are we going to start talking about disarming criminals? I’ve been on the record. I support law-abiding citizens to be armed, but criminals?”
He continued, “And so it’s OK to attack police officers and then everyone always says one thing. ‘These were peaceful protesters.’ So I guess when you throw Molotov cocktails, railroad spikes, other projectiles, using green lasers, I guess that constitutes being peaceful. We have never tried to stop folks from their right to free speech. We’ve been dealing with this for in excess of 100 days. Six instances where we’ve had to use force because they were either attacking us or they resisted a lawful arrest.”
Earlier this month, Craig fired back at a group of Democratic lawmakers demanding an investigation into what they say is the use of “excessive force” on protesters.
In an open letter, the group demanded accountability.
“The lack of accountability and urgency to investigate claims of excessive force and constitutional violations, coupled with a dismissive attitude of the movement for racial justice, has eroded public trust and community relationships,” the letter said. “Internal investigations by the Detroit Police Department cannot fix this.”
Craig fired back, “It’s unfortunate that these representatives have chosen to repeat a number of false claims in their letter without verifying the facts.”
“What really disturbs me is that when the protesters assaulted Detroit Police Officers with rocks, railroad spikes, and fireworks, never once did these representatives ask for an independent investigation into their violent criminal activity,” Craig added.
Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered a temporary ban on Detroit police officers using anti-protest gear including batons, rubber bullets, shields, tear gas, and more against peaceful demonstrators.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is known for his debating skills and for winning numerous cases before the Supreme Court. But does the conservative lawmaker have aspirations to one day sit on the high court?
On Sunday, Cruz responded to being added to President Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
According to the Texas Tribune, the president released a list last Wednesday indicating the pool of candidates from which he would draw Supreme Court nominees should he win a second term and should another vacancy open on the Supreme Court. Cruz was among the 20-candidate pool.
What did Cruz say?
Speaking with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, Cruz said that he would not accept a Supreme Court nomination, explaining that his focus remains on representing Texans in Congress.
Cruz called his inclusion on the list “deeply honoring” and “humbling,” but said serving on the Supreme Court is “not the desire of my heart.”
“I want to be in the political fight. I want to be fighting to nominate and confirm three, four, five principled constitutionalist justices, but that’s not where I want to serve,” Cruz explained. “I want to stay fighting right where I am in the U.S. Senate.”
Cruz says he would not accept SCOTUS nomination: ‘I want to be in political fight’
Cruz’s response came days after his initial statement did not indicate whether or not he was interested in the opportunity.
“It’s humbling and an immense honor to be considered for the Supreme Court,” Cruz said last Wednesday, the Tribune reported. “In the Senate, I have been blessed to lead the fight to preserve our constitutional liberties — every day, to defend the rights of 29 million Texans — and I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come.”
Who else was added to Trump’s shortlist?
Two other Republican senators found themselves added to Trump’s list.
Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Miss.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) were also revealed to be on this list. Hawley said that, although he was grateful to be considered, he, like Cruz, is content to serve in the Senate.
“I appreciate the President’s confidence in listing me as a potential Supreme Court nominee. But as I told the President, Missourians elected me to fight for them in the Senate, and I have no interest in the high court. I look forward to confirming constitutional conservatives,” Hawley said.
If the vaccine for COVID-19 won’t be made mandatory, why is there always a politician or official or expert expressing concerns that the American public won’t take it? What is in this thing that makes every single authoritarian eager to plunge needles into our arms?
Previously, Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci have both been worried that the public won’t find a rushed vaccine to be very safe. Polling has shown that that’s exactly how Americans feel and the coronavirus panic and fear being perpetuated by the mainstream media hasn’t been working as well lately to convince people to line up for the shot. So what gives?
Whoever controls your perception, controls your reality. Question everything. Especially something rushed that will be injected into every human being on this planet if they get their way.
Fauci toldthe New Yorker that he “never liked,” the name “Operation Warp Speed” because it “suggests, incorrectly… that you’re prematurely putting something out there that isn’t entirely safe,” echoing concerns he voiced in August that it “subliminally” suggests “reckless speed.”
But there’s been little about this vaccine that’s been “subliminal.” Everyone, including anchors on Fox News, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the entire Trump administration are intent upon vaccinating the public.
Even though polling shows skepticism about taking a vaccine, many (68%) are confident that the Food and Drug Administration ould only approve a safe vaccine, meaning they won’t ask any questions when told to lift up their sleeve and take this shot.
Why are they so intent upon vaccinating the public? And what the hell is in this vaccine? There’s a lot of speculation, but it’s difficult to come by actual ingredients on this concoction, and even if we did, who is to say there are not things in there that were conveniently left off the ingredient list.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson released bombshell audio Tuesday of CNN President Jeff Zucker and Michael Cohen, the disgraced attorney who was once a member of President Donald Trump’s inner circle, indicating that Zucker once attempted to curry favor with Trump through Cohen.
The conversation took place on March 10, 2016, hours before the final Republican primary debate — which CNN hosted.
What are the details?
In the call, Zucker claimed any aspiring presidential candidate needed CNN on his side to win election:
Here’s the thing … you cannot be elected president of the United States without CNN. Fox and MSNBC are irrelevant — irrelevant — in electing a general election candidate. … You guys have had great instincts, great guts and great understanding of everything. But you’re missing the boat on how it works going forward.
Upon being told by Cohen to email Trump himself, Zucker refused — but admitted he is “fond” of “the boss,” a reference to Trump:
I’m very conscious of not putting too much in email, as you’re a lawyer, as you understand. And, you know, and as fond as I am of the boss, he also has a tendency, like, you know, if I call him or I email him, he then is capable of going out in his next rally and saying that we just talked, and I can’t have that, if you know what I’m saying.
Zucker then told Cohen that he wished he could talk to Trump every day:
It’s not that I don’t want to talk to [Trump] every day. I’ve just got to be careful because I’ve just got to be careful. I just don’t want him talking about it on the campaign trail. But you know what? I’m going to give him a call right now and I’m going to wish him luck in the debate tonight.
Shockingly, the CNN president even said he wanted Trump to host a weekly show on CNN:
I have all these proposals for him. Like, I want to do a weekly show with him and all this stuff. Is he back in New York tomorrow, do you know?
Later in the call, Zucker admitted that Trump would win the debate:
I think the other guys are going to gang up on him tremendously … and I think he’s going to hold his own, as he does every time. He’s never lost a debate. And you know what? He’s good at this. … He’s going to do great.
Finally, Zucker dispensed political advice for Trump. The CNN president said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) would repeatedly refer to Trump as a “con man” during the debate, instructing Cohen to have Trump’s aides constantly refer to him as such preceding the debate so that Rubio’s attacks would not faze him.
New Audio: CNN chief Jeff Zucker cozies up to Michael Cohen
Actress Candace Cameron Bure, who spent nearly a year as a co-host on “The View,” told Fox News that she would much rather spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ than return to the long-running daytime TV show.
What are the details?
Bure, 44, told the outlet that she has no interest in returning to the show, which she appeared on between 2015 and 2016.
“I just don’t publicly want to talk about politics,” she reasoned. “Not because I don’t believe that my viewpoints and opinions are important, but I would much rather share Jesus with people. That’s really my passion.”
Bure, an outspoken Christian, added that she’d sooner focus on sharing her faith rather than engaging in discourse that has been increasingly proven to lead to further and further divide in America.
“I don’t want to get into the political debate because it is just about division and separation,” Bure explained. “And I want to learn. I want to be [part of] a conversation about how to build a bridge.”
In April, Bure said producers of the hit show approached her several times about co-hosting duties before she agreed in 2015.
“The funny thing is, sometimes what you end up doing is what you least expected,” she told Good Housekeeping in an interview. “I never pursued that show, but they pursued me, and it was very unexpected. I tried to say no, I did say no several times.”
She admitted that she always loved a challenge, so it eventually made sense for her to take producers up on their offer to feature her on the show.
“I love to grow and be challenged,” Bure said. “And that’s exactly what it was. So I was up for the challenge and I’m glad that I did it.”
On her decision to take part in the show, the conservative Christian concluded, “I am really happy for the experience. It helped me grow a lot.”
Kelley Paul, the wife of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), delivered a blunt message to the media and Joe Biden’s campaign for refusing to denounce the “bloodthirsty mob” that attacked her and Sen. Paul.
What’s the background?
Kelley’s comments came after she and her husband were surrounded by an angry mob upon leaving the White House early Friday morning, where they watched President Donald Trump give his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination.
Video of the tense situation showed a large crowd of protesters screaming at the Pauls and shoving police officers who were protecting them.
But the media largely ignored the violent nature of the mob. The Associated Press said, “Sen. Paul complains about ‘angry mob,'” while NPR called the protesters “peaceful.”
What did Kelley say?
Kelley told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the protesters were anything but peaceful.
According to Kelley, the “bloodthirsty mob” threatened that “they were going to ‘eff us up.'”
“At first I was trying to look in their eyes and trying to have any kind of reason or to see someone as a human being and I realized they did not see us as human beings,” Kelley explained. “I really thought that we were going to lose our lives. I thought someone was going to throw a brick. It was the most terrifying moment of my entire life.”
Then Kelley shared her message for the media and the Biden-Harris campaign.
“I am furious,” she said. “I’m furious that Biden and Kamala Harris are not denouncing this. You tell me if you are surrounded by a mob, that will not let you move, that is screaming in your face, that is holding you completely hostage, and you cannot walk to your hotel and you are on a dark street, you tell me that’s not violence. You tell me that is not an attack.”
Shockingly, Sen. Paul added that he thought the mob was going to kill him and his wife.
“I truly believe we would have been killed,” Paul said. “The police saved our lives because these thugs would have killed us. They would have stomped us and killed us.”
Sports commentator Stephen Smith rebuked his co-host Max Kellerman after he gave a very one-sided account of the debate over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
The pair launched into a fiery debate on their show “First Take” while talking about controversial comments from Hall of Fame linebacker Brian Urlacher about the police shooting that inspired rioting and looting. Urlacher claimed in a social media post that Blake had been reaching for a knife when police shot him. While a knife was recovered in the car, it has not been established if Blake was reaching for it when he was shot.
“He’s susceptible to low quality information it seems to me,” said Kellerman of Urlacher.
“If you exist in a Fox News silo or a Facebook silo of extreme right wing propaganda, what you will notice, and by the way this even makes its way into the mainstream. When a Black man is killed by law enforcement, the stories that come out about him, especially with those silos with low quality information, paint him as a very bad person. And focus on, even if he was in commission of a crime at the moment he was shot, focus on the worst aspects of their lives, and dehumanize them,” he explained.
“Whereas Kyle Rittenhouse, white militia, seventeen year old kid, drove to Kenosha and killed two people, in cold blood, two protesters,” Kellerman added, “in cold blood including the second person, who tried to stop him from killing more people, and drove all the way home and was arrested the next day finally, the cops were practically aiding him, they gave him water when they first saw him.”
Kellerman claimed that some of the media was humanizing Rittenhouse, and added that they “do the same to white terrorists, who blow up government buildings and shoot up schools.”
“What you don’t want to do is hear the other point!”
Smith was displeased with Kellerman’s framing of the issue and the debate quickly got heated.
“You know you’ve got to be careful about generalizing. When you talk about low-quality information, you’ve got to be specific about that,” said Smith.
“Excuse me, just like you brought up Fox News,” Smith continued as Kellerman tried to interrupt, “there are people that could look at CNN or MSNBC and they’re going to have their opinions about those networks.”
“No, this is not an issue of opinion, Stephen A,” responded Kellerman. “I’m talking about independent fact-checking organizations and the quality of the information…”
“Max, you’re not right,” interrupted Smith, “Hold on. No, no. We listened to you! We heard you, alright! But the point is do you know that Brian Urlacher got that information from Fox News? Do you know that? How do you know what television network he was watching? That’s the point!”
“No, I didn’t, and I didn’t say he did,” replied Kellerman.
“Don’t even bring it up. Alright then! You said low-quality information, you mentioned Fox News. I watch them all, I watch them all!” said Smith.
“No but I saw certain facts,” continued Kellerman, “certain facts that he was incorrect about, including he reached for the knife, because that’s where it’s framed in low-quality information news silos.”
Part of the debate was circulated on social media:
in other words…
an interesting exchange…
with Stephen A. Smith defending Fox News and right-wing… https://t.co/P6zzylESAQ
— Colin Kaepernick 7?? Was Exiled Exercising Rights (@Colin Kaepernick 7?? Was Exiled Exercising Rights)1598636318.0
“Listen, I saw ‘certain facts’ everywhere,” continued Smith. “There are a multitude of outlets, we heard you. See, that’s your problem! Cause you like to talk and then what you don’t want to do is hear the other point, because you want your point to be stuck with everybody.”
Kellerman said that Smith was misrepresenting what he said, and continued decrying Fox News and Facebook.
“I don’t want people doing that on First Take, I don’t want people doing that on First Take! Period!” said Smith.
While ESPN posted more of the segment between Kellerman and Smith on their YouTube account, their video omitted the portion where Smith defended Fox News and other outlets. Similarly, the Twitter version of the exchange omitted Smith’s later comments where he explicitly denounced the police shooting of Blake.
Kellerman made headlines on Thursday when he made similar comments about fans of SEC college football being “easy to propagandize and almost immune to facts,” in regards to the coronavirus pandemic.
Here’s ESPN excerpted version:
First Take reacts to the Bears disavowing Brian Urlacher following his criticism of NBA protests
Fox News was forced to cut away from a segment Tuesday morning after former Democratic National Committee Chairman Donna Brazile lost it on fellow guest, conservative Fox News commentator Tammy Bruce.
The two were brought in by “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade to discuss the first night of the Republican National Convention, but before long, the conversation devolved into a shouting match, the Wrap reported.
Things went south after Bruce began discussing race relations in America and events such as the Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd’s death in late May and the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the police shooting of 29-year-old unarmed black man, Jacob Blake.
Bruce suggested that Republicans, in contrast to the Democrats, had a unifying message regarding race relations and how to deal with rioters, pointing to Monday night speeches by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.
That’s when Brazile lost it and pulled the race card.
“This is why the choir sounds like a note coming from a scratched record. It sounds like I will never be an American in your world, because after 400 years, my family cannot walk out of this house without fearing violence!” she shouted.
“No one is saying that,” Bruce retorted as Kilmeade chimed in agreeing: “That’s not what anyone said.”
Nevertheless, Brazile continued, shouting: “You ignore the pains of people that are hurting … You do not recognize my existence!”
“You’re the shameful one Tammy, because I will not allow you to erase my existence,” Brazile continued.
The two guests talked over each other for more than a minute, before Fox News decided to pull the plug on the interview.
At one point, Kilmeade exasperatedly said, “I’m not sure how it got off the rails” before acknowledging he was “not too sure anyone benefitted from that.”
Last year, in a move that was criticized by both liberals and conservatives, Fox News hired Brazile as a paid contributor.
Brazile previously worked for CNN before being fired after tipping off the Hillary Clinton campaign about topics that would be brought up during a presidential debate in 2016.
The embattled New Jersey gym that had its business license revoked earlier this month after repeatedly defying Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s COVID-19 shutdown order has made what appears to be a nifty strategic move in response.
Frank Trumbetti and Ian Smith, co-owners of Atilis Gym in Bellmawr, have partnered with Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rik Mehta to turn the gym into an official campaign rally location, Fox News reported.
“We took a stand for our constitutional rights and for the rights of all small business owners throughout the country,” Smith told “Fox & Friends Weekend” Sunday. “And it wasn’t intended to become political. We were trying to offer a solution to a problem where the government was failing, and it turned political. And that was because of Gov. Murphy’s actions. So now we made it political just as much as he has.”
What are the details?
The cable network said since state officials can’t interfere with a political campaign, that should prevent Murphy & Co. from shutting down Atilis Gym. Mehta is looking to unseat Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, Fox News said.
But Trumbetti told the network the gym’s new status may not prevent local officials from trying to shut down the gym again.
“We hope it gives us a reprieve until Nov. 3,” he noted to Fox News. “Everyone who comes in here will be a volunteer for the Mehta campaign, and we’ll be here to exercise our rights.”
Smith added to the network that Atilis members are “excited” to be a part of Mehta’s campaign since he backs small businesses that have been fighting to stay alive since the shutdown began.
“We’re really tired of this one-sided control that the governor has,” Mehta told Fox News. “We’ve asked many times … where’s the science? … We flattened the curve, and they keep moving the goalpost.”
“You want to hurt small businesses? You’re crushing the American dream,” he added to the network. “And if you look at the unemployment rates in New Jersey, they’re the highest that they’ve ever been. … Gov. Murphy turned this into a political chess game. And so what we said is ‘checkmate, governor.'”
What’s the background?
Despite Murphy’s order, Atilis Gym first reopened in May — after which Smith and Trumbetti have been issued nine pairs of citations, have had their business forcibly closed and boarded by the government, and even have been arrested.
The New Jersey attorney general’s office recommended daily fines of $10,000 and imprisonment for the co-owners to “coerce” them to comply with Murphy’s order.
“Atilis Gym’s brazen conduct is abhorrent to an organized judicial system, jeopardizes the public health and the safety of New Jerseyans, and must not be tolerated,” the state’s AG office said, NJ.com reported. “It is clear that additional sanctions and relief are necessary to coerce Atilis Gym’s compliance with the court’s order.”
But governmental threats haven’t stopped them. In fact, after they were released from jail, Smith and Trumbetti once again made headlines when they kicked down the front doors of their business, which had been boarded up by the government.
These former members of Congress cited Trump’s corruption, destruction of democracy, blatant disregard for moral decency, and urgent need to get the country back on course as a reason why they support Biden. These former members of Congress are supporting Joe Biden because they know what’s at stake in this election and that Trump’s failures as president have superseded partisanship.
What happened in the interview?
Republicans and conservatives who refuse to support Trump often cite his policies — that they are neither conservative nor do they authentically represent what the Republican Party has historically advocated.
So how can a conservative endorse Biden because they oppose Trump’s policies, when Biden’s policies are even less conservative than Trump’s? MacCallum sought to expose whether Flake endorsed Biden based on his policies or his personality.
MacCallum asked, “Joe Biden, he has said that, ‘If I’m elected, I will be the most progressive president in history.’ How do you, as a lifetime Republican, support someone who has that goal?”
In response, Flake justified Biden’s comments by deferring to the fact that Biden made them during a presidential primary rife with ultra-liberal candidates.
“I think, if you look at Joe Biden’s record, he’s not been that,” Flake said. “He’s a creature of the Senate. He knows how to compromise. He knows how to work across the aisle, and I’m confident he will do that in the future.”
MacCallum later responded, “I’m just trying to figure out in terms of actual policy what it is that you really like in Joe Biden as a lifelong Republican.”
For example, MacCallum noted how Flake had long supported the First Step Act, a major criminal justice reform bill — and that it was Trump, not former President Barack Obama, who signed the legislation into law.
“The president was actually able to sign that into law,” MacCallum said. “We had eight years of the Obama-Biden administration and they did not take action on that. So why support Joe Biden over President Trump?”
Flake responded by noting that the Obama administration, with the help of Biden, helped appropriate more money for border security. But beyond that, he did not note other areas of policy agreement with the former vice president.
“I’ve been supportive of many of the things that the president has pushed —” Flake began to say.
“But you just don’t like his character,” MacCallum interjected.
Later, when MacCallum confronted Flake with the fact that he and Biden differ on education policy — school choice, for example — the former Arizona senator again seemed unable to reconcile his principled stand against Trump with his support for Biden.
“I think [Biden] will preserve the public space so that we can go back to disagreeing about policy and not just this ripe tribalism that we see today,” Flake said.
Martha grills Jeff Flake on if he’s backing Biden on policy or personality