Did The Clinton Campaign Try To Sack Mika Brzezinski?

220px-mika_brzezinskiIt seemed that during the campaign the media could not spend enough time on Donald Trump’s attacks on the media. I thought it was well-earned criticism and I was shocked by Trump’s lashing out at the media. This included accounts from various people who claimed that there were call made to intimidate them. However, Mika Brzezinski has now claimed that not did the Clinton campaign try to pull her off the air but that the brass at MSNBC knew about it and said nothing publicly.

On air, Brzezinski said “I was concerned the campaign was not understanding that perhaps there was an arrogance. They needed to sort of get off their high horse and understand that this isn’t ove. I’ll just say it: NBC got a call from the [Clinton] campaign. Like I had done something that was journalistically inappropriate or something and needed to be pulled off the air.”

Brzezinski was no fan of Trump on the show but apparently crossed the acceptable line with a fairly innocuous observation that Clinton might not have the election all sewn up as suggested by most people in the media. That was enough it appears for her bosses to get calls asking that she be pulled off the air immediately on MSNBC, which was criticized by many as being overwhelmingly anti-Trump and pro-Clinton in its coverage.

This is a very serious allegation but the media has largely ignored it. If Brzezinski is lying, that is important news. She has a good reputation in the industry and there is no evidence of any axe to grind in making such a disclosure. If she is telling the truth, it is even bigger news. First, there is the effort to silence a journalist — something that would have received immediate coverage it the call came from the head of the Trump campaign. Second, it suggests that (while Trump was being hammered for his attacks on the media) MSNBC never disclosed that the Clinton people felt comfortable in demanding the sacking or suspension of a major anchor. As with the failure of the mainstream media to follow up on the Donna Brazile scandal, the question is why there is not interest in this attack on the media.

104 thoughts on “Did The Clinton Campaign Try To Sack Mika Brzezinski?”

  1. If our professors are so gullible to believe that trump intimidated the innocent media then what can you expect from the brainwashed Ivy League graduates who after studying constitutional law are first to break it

  2. This is part of what I find so distressing about Democrats. I will explain below.

    Clinton does not have the right to pull people off the air because they are making statements she doesn’t want in the public domain or which simply displease her. In the LEAKED e-mails, it shows her campaign giving orders for newz sleazes to change what they are saying as they are speaking live, on the air. The newz sleazes were happy to change to suit what she told them. It isn’t much of a stretch to go from doing that to having someone saying “wrong” (meaning truthful or displeasing things) pulled from the airways. This is exactly what a fascist leader would do and here is why Democrats bother me so much.

    They claim to be terrified of Trump because he is a fascist. I agree he is a fascist. But they really aren’t bothered by fascist “leadership”. They are bothered by fascist “leaders” who are not from their party. Their own party’s fascists are fine. This is exactly the attitude that has been allowing Obama to implement one fascist action after another the last eight years.

    Democrats! If you do not like fascism then don’t support it, EVER. Now we need to get together as a large group of people and speak out against fascist actions by our “leaders”. That means criticizing Obama as well as Trump. It means speaking out about wrongdoing, no exceptions. Your sitting president and your candidate, Clinton are doing things that any totalitarian would be proud to accomplish. Speak Up. Yell about Trump but yell about your own people. If you don’t, you are just handing out powers that will be given over to those who displease you. More importantly, it shows a complete lack of intellectual or moral integrity not to call things out when ever you see them.

    Please come on board with the idea that wrong is wrong, no matter who is doing it. It’s the only way out of this mess. Please take it!

      1. Thanks Olly! Your statement means a lot to me because I know we don’t agree on certain issues. I want to thank you in return for your posts which are thoughtful and show your principles!

    1. Jill – spot on as always. I thought about copying your post and sending it out to my diehard Demoncrat friends, but it would be a complete waste of time — and no doubt further alienate the ones I have left =)

      Tim Black and HA Goodman did a great show last night about the whole “Russians did it meme”

  3. Wow y’all are on a roll today – many thanks (Paul, Olly and Nick especially) for providing some humor. Always good to laugh in troubling times.

    So, I have a question for you legal eagles – if it is indeed verifiable that HRC tried to get Mika fired does this violate any FCC regulations? It seems like no matter what the Clintons and their DNC surrogates do they get away with it with no repercussions.

  4. No clue why Prof. Turley wants us to believe he was ‘shocked’ that Trump ‘lashed out’ at the media.

    That aside, I think Miss Brzezinski’s experience is another episode of the proprietary mentality liberals have toward institutions. They fancy the courts are theirs, the schools are theirs, the newsrooms are theirs, academe is theirs, by right. Any deference given by these institutions to other social segments is an intolerable violation of the natural order.

    1. This is not good. I asked why JT didn’t comment on this thing last week. Guess fireman will have a new job–like the Fahrenheit 451 firemen.

      1. Professor Turley could have missed it. It isn’t anywhere! The WP did one article on it on Nov. 30. I googled it, checked the NYT and WP separately and…nothing else. The NYT didn’t even have a story like the WP’s article. I have not checked other MSM sites, but I expected them to pop up on a Google search. Nothing but .gov links to the H.R. and S. bills, the one WP story, Senator Portman’s site, and sites like Zerohedge.

        Curiouser and curiouser.

  5. The reason the media is not up in arms over this is because they agree w/ Hillary. A few days before the election, a respected reporter, Mark Halperin, had the temerity to say on Lyin’ Brian Williams MSNBC show that Trump had a narrow path to victory. Lyin’ Brian ripped Halperin a new one for saying what turned out to be prophetic. All this drivel about fake news from the fake news elites is creepily Orwellian.

      1. Creepy is right. Thanks for the link. I have to wonder if Trump will take advantage of this or fight it for what it is and not quite sure how he would do the latter. He doesn’t strike me as one who will refuse power.

        Anyway, the current administration sees little downside to moving us in this dystopian direction allowing either side to abuse. Another reason I don’t think there is a hairs difference between parties. If Obama were truly concerned about the “other side”, he would be back peddling all these undemocratic and supra-constitutional powers he has secretly been claiming for the Presidency. He is not. R and D; two peas in a pod.

        1. That’s a good question BB. But I have to say, it may come to the point where Trump will have to use the power. It is shameful and scary to see what these democrats will sacrifice to keep control. It’s so bad, you have to wonder if they aren’t covering up for something else. Yikes, who knows what’s going to bubble up out of the cauldron next….

          1. It’s so bad, you have to wonder if they aren’t covering up for something else.

            True, but this is already quite enough. Clamping down on internet sites and news media in general, creating a Ministry of Truth, this is really scary stuff.

            1. State Dept.will be the principal agency involved. Wonder how The Exxon dude and Bolton will handle the new responsibilities. One might want to hide under the bed or seriously consider fleeing.

      2. Wow Rose, thanks so much for posting. It’s impossible for anyone person to keep up with all this Machiavellian stuff going on. I’m so grateful for the info that is shared on this blog.

        Wonder if Obama will sign it on New Year’s Eve while everyone is distracted like he signed the Indefinite Detention NDAA.

  6. Viewers should by and large look at these shows as a form of entertainment. They’ve become almost like “Access Hollywood – Politics edition.” They are all fighting for ratings and their influence is waning. More and more people have cut the cable cord and stopped watching. We only use our television as a larger viewing screen to plug the laptops into to watch YouTube.

  7. Hillary Clinton is not the type of person to defame another woman or have her lose her job. Hillary is part of the Sisterhood!!!

    1. You must be joking? Yes, of course you are. Because we all know that Hillary Clinton is out for Hillary Clinton and her unquenchable quest for power, control and money and God help anyone – man or woman, friend or foe, who stands in her way.

  8. Of course this allegation should be followed up on and taken seriously. But it won’t be. The MSM has finally been ‘outed’ as the propaganda mouthpiece for Democrats that it has always been. The blatant collusion between CNN and other journalists and the Clinton campaign as revealed in the Podesta emails should cause any thinking person to continuously question the veracity of these so-called “journalists” and “news” organizations.

  9. Are you sure this not the Russians reporting this? I am sure they hacked MSNBC, too.

  10. Poor Mika…… Trump said she was crazy and Hillary wanted her sacked. She did fare better than Katy Tur and Megyn Kelly. The Trump goons actually threatened their lives.

    1. I bet Mika didn’t get her “payoff” from the Clinton campaign as promised, so she went rogue on them. Bet that’s it. Payola issue.

  11. Say it aint so! And Mika B. will still suck up to HRC. Morning Joe should be more neutral and question all these hacks on both sides.

    1. Unsure of the effect of the Russian hacks but Nate Silver’s data show that the Comey effect in sacking her. is undeniable, Jay.

      1. This Dave troll has been selling the Nate Silver drivel for days now. Nate pissed on both legs regarding the primary and general. The Emperor is naked, Davey boy!!

        1. Nate has the data. I know that does not count any more now that we have a celebrity president that has weaponized twitter.

              1. Pres Obama has weaponized late night talk show hosts. He was just on the Daily Show last night. That is one of his weapons of mass deception. When people talk about Mr. O’s popularity numbers being in the high 50s they need to know part of O’s master PR plan of attack to keep those numbers high is: go on the late night comedy talk shows. And the Ellen show. And The View. Because, he believes, “that’s where, gosh darn it, people like me and I can say things and read mean Tweets so they keep liking me – and Michelle too.”

                1. Another strategy: never ever let Pres Obama stand at a podium answering questions or commenting on any stories tied to incompetence, misconduct or scandal from within his administration b/c that way, we don’t have a news cycle that ties Pres Obama’s face and words with all of that. Just put him on late night talk shows that make people like him and how cool they think he is. The result? His popularity numbers stay in the high 50s.

                  1. The reality behind the propaganda tells another story that our MSM will never share with the distracted and brainwashed masses.

                    Abe Lincoln summed it up: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Hence the decimation of the Democrat party under eight years of Pres Obama.

          1. Here’s the data that’s meaningful:

            Trump won 2626 counties

            Clinton won 487 counties

            Trump won 32 states

            Hillary won 18 states

            Trump won 306 electoral votes

            Hillary won 232 electoral votes

            Therefore, in our electoral college system, Trump won, by a lot.

            Now the CIA is being politicized and Russian hacking theories are being used to try to delegitimize Trump’s win and intimidate the electors in advance of their official voting on Dec. 19. They are using all they’ve got to try to stop Trump from taking office on Jan 20.

            1. Trump will take office. If republicans decide they want President Pence and feel that Trump has engaged in impeachable offenses somewhere down the road then that is up to Paul Ryan and the Republican held House of Representatives to take that action.

            2. One more number:

              122,000,000 eligible voters sat this one out.

              Hillary didn’t ‘win’ anything. She lost and she lost bad. And remember, the “it’s the Russians” excuse started from within the Clinton campaign.

              1. 122,000,000 eligible voters sat this one out.

                There’s a core electorate (about 37% of the total) who vote routinely and a peripheral electorate (16% of the total, give or take), who appear only when the presidency is on the ballot. That’s bog standard and there’s nothing different this year.

                1. I see it as my civic duty to vote. I hope more begin to cherish and exercise this privilege and get out and vote in the next election. And if the Dems keep up with this “the Russians are coming!” BS and try to mess with the Electoral College vote, they will usher in the Republican super majority in 2018.

            3. Except that Hillary won 3 million more American votes, over 2% more than Trump; that’s real. and honest observers see the outcome as very mixed. Lots of counties and plenty of states are big and empty, so don’t be silly. And Trump’s margin in the three critical rust belt states was extremely narrow, leading to a below average electoral college ‘win.’

              BTW, the CIA announces what it finds within the bounds of what can be disclosed. That information is what it is. I’d be curious to see if you still cry ‘politics’ when they finally disclose all they know, the specific, factual intel.

              1. TheTwoMajesties – the CIA lies for a living. They have lied to Congress. They have lied to just about everyone. They have spied on Congress. Are you really going to believe them?

      1. The Clinton camapaign was sunk by it’s own bad decisions starting with DNC collusion to get Hillary the nomination, then hiding Hillary from any press conferences for nearly a year, lying to the American people, the press, Congress, probably the FBI (“I don’t recall” 40 times!), destroying files under Congressional subpoena, calling half the electorate ‘deplorable’, taking the Rust Belt voters for granted, collapsing on 9/11, questions about the Clinton Foundation pay for play, etc. Hillary sunk her own campaign and lost fair and square.

        1. lee – and it is not over. Judicial Watch has depositions coming up. Hillary will have to testify under oath.

          1. I don’t blame you Dave. It’s a safe space that will comfort you. Unfortunately it won’t help you negotiate the stages of grief. We’ll be here for you should you ever want a safe space where you can also be exposed to alternative points of view.

          2. Dave, you are entitled to your opinion. It seems running a candidate under FBI criminal investigation turned out not so good. So I guess the analysts are saying that if Hillary hadn’t lost, she’d probably have won? And remember before the election the ‘analysts’ were all talking about “the road to 270”, not “the road to the popular vote as determined by the state of California”. Trump strategized accordingly. Hillary, not so much.

            1. lee – Nate Silver had Hillary at 70% going into the voting. His analysis going into the election was that she was going to win. In his defense, Nate was the lowest except for one poll that had Trump winning.

              1. Yup, nearly all underestimated Trump and overestimated Hillary in a change-election year. And all of these ‘analysts’ who were so wrong still have their jobs, and expect us to keep listening to them?

                  1. Personally, I was a very early decider to never vote for Hillary. I was also never for Trump. Time will tell if he’ll prove to be a progressive wolf in sheep’s clothing. For that he’ll be on the clock beginning January 20th, 2017.

            2. Wasn’t it Trump that said he would win the popular vote and that the election was rigged? She was not a good candidate but then again neither was he. I think he got very lucky at the end when Comey interjected himself one more time. The untimely release of the Obamacare premiums hurt her also.

              1. Dave – Trump was a very good candidate when he stayed on message. However, he was fighting the MSM, Republicans and Clinton. It really is a historic victory.

                1. Should a candidate not say he would win the popular vote? Neither candidate got a 50% plus majority and where it mattered, Trump got the majority of states and electoral votes.

                  1. Olly – I read that Trump said that he expected to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college vote.

          3. Biased narrative? I was listing verifiable facts surrounding Hillary and her campaign. But, whatever.

            1. Actually, Dave, you may be right about that ‘biased narrative.’ I’ll admit to being a card-carrying Hillary hater. Always was, always will be. So I’m very happy with the results of this election. Not that I am a big fan of Trump, but I have no doubt that he was the better choice this time around. That’s how I look at it, anyway. And I say this as a life-long independent voter -who believes voting is part of my civic duty -and so not voting was not an option for me. I voted for Trump. And I was happy to do it. I wasn’t even holding my nose.

              1. Lee,
                I was a lifelong Republican but it wasn’t for some principled reason. It was selfishly motivated because I was in the military and believed the GOP would protect my interests. Although I swore an oath several times during my 20 year career, I hadn’t actually read the constitution until 8 years after I retired. Once I began studying U.S. Civics I soon realized there is no principled difference between the two major parties. Neither is concerned with the rule of law; only the rule of the party. That’s when I dumped the GOP and registered Independent.

                1. Agreed. Over the years I have considered registering with a party just to be able to vote in primaries, but have never actually done it.

                  1. lee – after years of not being able to vote in primaries because I was an Independent, they finally changed the rules. Independents can pick which primary they want to vote in. However, the Democrats select all their major candidates in caucus, the Republicans are the only ones with a primary.

                  2. If more people dumped the two major parties and registered Independent then they (Republicans and Democrats) would have stop assuming (profiling) voters are for them or against them. The voters could begin to take control of the election cycle by claiming to be independent of any political party and by not participating in surveys or polling efforts. Make the candidates sweat it out. THEY do not deserve our allegiance.

                2. Once I began studying U.S. Civics I soon realized there is no principled difference between the two major parties.

                  Well, your studies weren’t so effective.

                    1. The Democrats are the electoral vehicle of certain occupational groups: the social work industry, primary and secondary schooling (the teachers colleges and administrators; the teachers much less so), academe, the media (the supralocal media; local media much less so), and the bar (the law professoriate, the organized bar, the appellate judiciary, ‘public interest lawyers’, and BigLaw; rand an file lawyers, much less so). The social ideology they trade in reflects the passions (and interests) of these social sectors. Appended to these are certain vernacular clientele, like blacks-qua-blacks, trashy single mothers &c.

                      The Republicans are an omnibus which represents just about everyone else. The Republicans do not resemble their base much socially (they do to a degree) and tend to be drawn from the less articulate, so are readily buffaloed.

                    2. Toad, the thread won’t allow me to reply to your 4:27pm comment:

                      You perceive constituencies as the “principled” difference between the two major parties? I’m not clear how principled it is to identify with only those subsets of America that fit under your tent. Assuming your perception is accurate, what you have provided is proof neither party is interested in governing for ALL of America. Equal protection under the law depends on being under the right tent. In other words, elections have consequences.

                      As I stated previously, “there is no principled difference between the two major parties.” The keyword being “Principled”. These two parties are Utilitarian at best.

                    3. You perceive constituencies as the “principled” difference between the two major parties?

                      ‘Principles’ are congruent with statements of interest.

      2. Davey, WE GOT IT the previous 20 times you posted this link. Do you get paid by Nate the Buffoon?

                1. There is no “boss here” – but as JT says under his “Civility” guidelines for this blog, “…this site relies heavily on its regulars to preserve decorum and civility.”

                  Regulars like Paul S.,Nick S. and others, obviously contribute a lot in this regard.

                    1. Read there are even Trump trolls in Macedonia. Suppose I better be careful as I might get hacked.:)

    2. “At this point what difference does it make?”

      Hillary: “Does this pantsuit make me look fat?”

      Voters: “No, your fat makes you look fat!”

      Did Russia blow up the Clinton campaign? No, she blew it up herself.

  12. The pure, unadulterated idiocy of HRC’s campaign is enough to disqualify her from any office. It’s as if they never heard the phrase “Never underestimate your opponent.” So what we learn in this article is that HRC’s campaign cared more about appearance and HRC ego stroking than allowing anyone to publicly state the TRUTH, that Trump had some chance greater than ZERO of winning. “Truth is stranger than fiction,” indeed.

    99% of every person who publicly shared on opinion of who would win guaranteed it would be HRC. What could possibly go wrong?

    And ever more baloney, as HRC this week had the gall to lecture us about the dangers of “fake news.” No one ever shovels more fake news than MSM.

    The all time greatest NFL HC Bill Walsh (RIP), prior to some of the toughest, biggest post-season games he ever played, publicly doubted his team’s chances. Often, such as a game vs. the Eagles, and of course the ’84 SB vs. the Dolphins, he won by stupendous margin. Coincidence? I think not.

    1. The cleverness of Trump’s campaign was tailored to his audience, those bought by cleverness, not intelligence. Trump winning is an inditement of less than half of American voters as being shallow, mindless, and easily purchased.

      1. “The cleverness of Trump’s campaign was tailored to his audience”

        How stupid of the Trump campaign to go after the electoral vote rather than the popular vote. Yes, please continue to believe you have superior intellect.

        1. And the smug Canadian can’t even spell “indictment” w/ spell check! Liberals do have condescension down pat. Even when their pooping their pants they have their noses in the air. The elevated noses are also to get above the poop stink.

          1. Nick,
            If we are to be judged by our spelling accuracy I’m afraid many of us would be considered idiots.

            Issac doesn’t have a spelling problem, he has a worldview problem. He’s an intelligent man with a disdain for republicanism. He is a classic Wilsonian progressive. I believe he is fully aware of America’s founding principles and in a true progressive (socialist) perspective believes those principles no longer apply because human nature has advanced (progressed) right along with science and technology.

            This election cycle may prove to have been a battle between the progressive globalists (Clinton) and progressive nationalists (Trump). Time will tell if constitutionalists will have a dog in this fight.

            1. Olly, You’re wrong on the Canadian. He shows, day in and out, a fundamental ignorance of the US Constitution. He’s half as smart as he thinks he is on many topics, from history to politics, to food. I point out his misspelling because that is part of his repertoire. I like to go to the body, head, and even below the belt at times against certain opponents. I don’t like taking low blows, but sometimes it’s needed.

      2. So Trump ran a clever and persuasive campaign and he won. Hillary ran a disastrous, message-free, collusion-filled, hubris-filled campaign and lost. Who would I rather have in charge? Trump.

      3. How many different ways can you pathetic losers dream up to say: “People who disagree w/me are stupid!” If you think that makes you smart, in reality, it confirms you are a vacuous twit.

        Try that debate argument in your tryout for the Harvard Debate Club. No need to confirm the result, same as the rest of your drivel here: FAIL!

        Or better yet: “YOU’RE FIRED!”

      4. Please, please, by all means, do apply to run the campaign of the next DNC “nominee” for POTUS! What can I do to make this happen?

        Issac calls Trump voters “not intelligent” in the same sentence w/non-existent words. Dude, learn English, then make up your own language. Remember: “Baby steps, baby steps…”

  13. issacbasonkonavich:
    I’d just like to say thank you for your “peeps” (DNC owned MSM, Barack, and all those glamorous Hollywood types) publicly guaranteeing that Hillary had 1000% chance of winning, thus making sure all your lazy unemployed FSA buds slept in till after the polls closed.

    Bravo! Well done! “Take it to the bank” (that Trump would lose), per Tom (the doofus) Hanks, the “most trusted man in America.”

Comments are closed.