Trump: “Something Weird Going On At Fox”

President Donald Trump blasted Fox News yesterday for simply reporting various polls showing him falling farther behind with voters across the country. Trump complained that “something weird going on at Fox.” This follows the firing of Trump pollsters (including long-standing campaign aides) after poll results were leaked showing Trump behind Biden in various key states. Trump denied any such polls existed and denounced the stories as “fake news”, but later the White House admitted that they did exist. There is nothing weird going on. Just reporting.

Fox News on Sunday released a new poll that showed Trump losing to various Democratic presidential candidates. Bernie Sanders was shown with a nine point lead. That tracks a number of polls, including the internal White House polls. A Quinnipiac poll released last week also showed Trump trailing a number of Democratic contenders, including Biden by 13 points. 

Trump has reacted angrily to such polls and suggested that it was “weird” for Fox to report polling that showed him losing ground in key states. He also took time to contest the extract amount of time spent with ABC:

Polls are always bad for me. They were against Crooked Hillary also. Something weird going on at Fox. Our polls show us leading in all 17 Swing States. For the record, I didn’t spend 30 hours with @abcnews, but rather a tiny fraction of that. More Fake News @BretBaier23.2K7:49 PM – Jun 17, 2019

I have spoken with members of Congress who are worried that Trump does not recognize that his approach is alienating key voters in the general election. The constant badgering of the media and others may play well with his base but 52 percent of voters now say that they are “very uncomfortable” voting for him. That is with a strong economy. What is strange is that the White House continues to step on its own lines, undermine its strongest claims, and push independents away with continual controversial tweets and missteps.

I have great respect for many people at Fox. Indeed, some of the toughest interviews faced by Trump have occurred with Fox hosts like Chris Wallace. Martha McCallum, and Bret Baier. Rather than acknowledge that Fox is the least hostile to Trump, these comments are deeply insulting to journalists who seek to inform their viewers on the current polling and trends in the election.

Yet, Trump has even objected to Fox holding town hall events with opposing candidates as  in May when Trump denounced Fox for “wasting airtime” and warned that “Fox is moving more and more to the losing (wrong) side in covering the Dems. They forgot the people who got them there.”

117 thoughts on “Trump: “Something Weird Going On At Fox””

  1. I see you are a poster child for inferior Constitutional Education in America. First we don’t govern by or assemble our Government by polls, we do not select the President by a general election, and it’s not possible to win a State, or a State’s Electoral College Votes, because the States dont Have Electoral College Votes, they are entitled to Select a number of Electors who Vote!

    The electorate for the Selection of the President are the Electors, and the Electors Vote by their own Ballots with The constraints of age, citizenship, residency, and at least one of the persons chosen must not be from the same state as themselves. The constraints on the selection of Electors is they must not be a “Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector”.

    Then we need to discuss the number of Electors each State is Entitled; “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:”, which is the whole number of Representatives which does not exceed 1 for 30,000, that’s the number each is Entitled, that’s 10,347, not the 538 the parties controlling Congress determine to give them, and who can tell a State that they cannot maximize their representation to the Constitutional limit, especially when it is the States Themselves in Congress which make the decisions and come to Majority Consensus in Congress!

    If you have been following along, there is no race that can be won by candidates for the office of President or Vice President which are two separate and equal elections following the ratification of the 12th Amendment! So just what are all these candidates doing competing in Party Nomination processes that have no bearing, or significance, in the selection process for our next President?

    The Election of the President by the Electors is a formal poll of each State for the most qualified persons to hold the offices of President and Vice President, in the first instance, then if a person achieves a majority of the Electors voting, not Elector’s votes, then that person is immediately declared the President elect, but if no person receives the required majority, then the top 5 persons receiving votes according to Article 2 Section 1, or the top 3 according to the 12th Amendment, move on to the next phase of the Selection process which is an election in the House for the President, or an election in the Senate for the Vice President, 1 vote per State in either case, to determine the winner by Majority of the States Voting, only 1 person per State is required to achieve a quorum in either body; “ But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.”!

    So, I will iterate, what’s wrong, or unintelligible, about Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution that we feel that we cannot follow the Constitutional method and must supplant the Constitution with a method of our own making which depends on Party selections and party Elections?

  2. Polls are polls. Unless Trump can show that the polls are invalid it would be extremely poor journalism not to publish them because it gave Trump heartburn.



    At the Amway Center in Orlando, Trump told the crowd that his election in 2016 was the result of a great political movement that has been under attack ever since, despite what he described as the great successes of his presidency.

    “We accomplished more than any other president has in the first 2½ years of a presidency and under circumstances that no president has had to deal with before,” he said, using the hyperbole that has marked much of his career.

    The president quickly dispensed with soaring rhetoric about his vision for a second term, instead heaping derision on an enemies list that includes Democrats, the press and federal investigators who examined ties between Russia and his 2016 campaign.

    “They are really going after you,” Trump said. “They tried to erase your vote, erase the legacy of the greatest campaign and the greatest election probably in the history of the country.”

    It’s that approach that appeals to supporters like 36-year-old Michelle Best, who described Trump’s brashness as “brilliant.”

    “He knows how to irritate people. He’s very intelligent. He knows how to get to them,” said Best, a Brandon, Fla., resident who traveled here for Trump’s rally. “Trump knows weaknesses, and he knows how to exploit them. Is he the nicest guy? Nice doesn’t get things done. I don’t want a nice president. I want a president that gets things done. And he’s getting things done.”

    Some critics warn, however, that the president’s flair for drama and controversy is turning off moderate voters and making Democrats more determined to oust him in 2020.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Reelection Launch Contrasts White House Drama With Campaign’s Message Of Success”

    This evening’s Washington Post

    When one reads about personality cults, literature typically states that cults emphasize hostile external forces. Cult leaders tell followers, “everyone’s against us’. Fear of hostile external forces keeps followers inside the cult’s bubble. Trump emphasizes that message at every rally. In Trumpland there’s always a conspiracy to ‘suppress Trump’s leadership’.

    And one can see that mentality in the comments of Michelle Best, quoted in the article above. Ms Best volunteers that Trump “irritates people”, which she considers a positive. Only someone with a cult mentality could arrive at that conclusion.

    The left wants to prevent Sarah Sanders from gaining employment, now that she has moved on from the Trump White House. An outfit called American Bridge is seeking signatures in support of the blacklisting of Sanders. Its email reads:

    “Hello: We signed an open letter to America’s CEOs demanding they won’t hire anyone from the Trump administration who was complicit in Trump’s family separation policy.

    Trump just announced that Sarah Sanders, his long-time press secretary and avid liar from the White House podium, will be leaving his administration at the end of the month.

    Sanders will no doubt be looking for her next big gig––but CEOs must reject her resume….”

    Targetting an individual so that individual won’t be able to find a job is reprehensible. She worked for the President of the United States and committed no crime. That is how hateful the left has become.

    1. Alan, we have no idea who “American Bridge” is. For all we know, they’re a bunch of Trumpers posing as ‘leftists’ for the purpose of discrediting leftists.

      1. “Alan, we have no idea who “American Bridge” is.”

        Peter, you have no idea, not we and when one doesn’t have an idea there is always Google. Instead with knee jerk alacrity you blame it on Trump. Why don’t you use the gift man has that animals lack.

      2. ?

        “American Bridge 21st Century”

        “American Bridge 21st Century is a liberal American Super PAC that supports Democratic candidates and opposes Republican candidates. It was founded by David Brock in 2010 and is associated with Media Matters for America. It is an opposition research hub for the Democratic Party.[2] The group physically tracks and monitors Republican candidates and officials and uses social media to deploy its findings.”

        1. Alan didn’t say “American Bridge, 21st Century”. Alan just said “American Bridge”. When I googled that it took me to a number of engineering sites concerned with actual bridges.

              1. Again:

                American Bridge 21st Century = American Bridge, as I was guessing in the first place.

                From the following excerpt:

                “Senior officials with American Bridge 21st Century – the group’s full legal name…”

                “American Bridge watching GOP”

                By ALEXANDER BURNS 07/28/2013 07:04 AM EDT



                If you want a picture of the future of politics, imagine an American Bridge tracker filming a likely Republican presidential candidate — forever.

                That’s only a slight exaggeration of what the group has planned for the 2014 and 2016 election cycles. The organization that left a mark on Republican candidates throughout the 2012 election, busting GOP nominees in off-message moments and pushing research on their policy records, is in the midst of a major expansion ahead of the midterm campaign.

                Senior officials with American Bridge 21st Century – the group’s full legal name — told POLITICO that the oppo-slinging outfit’s staff will grow to about 90 people, including 50 trackers deployed to monitor GOP candidates throughout the country. That’s more than double the number of camera-wielding operatives it employed last year.

                1. Anonymous, I don’t know ‘who’ the hell you are. But one has to ask, “So what??”

                  Groups like that are just a reality of the digital age where political events can be monitored by anyone with a smart phone.

                  1. The Current P.H. said, “When I googled that it took me to a number of engineering sites concerned with actual bridges.”

                    That’s all we need to know, genius.

                    1. Anonymous, how should I know what Alan is talking about??

                      One can’t tell if Alan is writing original thoughts, or pasting from unknown sites. I think he does a little of both on any given day. But Alan is secretive about his sources.

                      And Alan tends to generalize. When he says ‘Leftists’, I honestly don’t know ‘who’ Alan means. Few if any Democrats refer to themselves as ‘Leftists’.

                      Tonight Alan asserts that Turley is a ‘liberal’. Alan claims respect for the professor because Turley tells fellow liberals ‘things we don’t want to hear’. This comes as news to me.

                      I have followed this blog almost daily since January of last year. In these 18 months I have been one few liberals posting on this thread. The majority of commenters are uncritical admires of Donald Trump.

                      Each day several Trumpers post comments revealing fantastic conspiracies. Nonsense that Trump himself has more than likely promoted. It strains the imagination to think all these Trumpers would be commenting on a ‘liberal’s blog’.

                      Yet Alan would have me believe that ‘he’ is here because Jonathan Turley is that unique liberal telling liberals ‘things we don’t want to here’. And presumably that accounts for the lack of liberals on these threads: ‘We don’t want Turley telling us those things’.

                      But does Alan want Turely telling him Donald Trump is nuts?

                    2. Peter, your reading skills are not up to par. You are too accustomed to others telling you what to believe and what to say. Quotation marks tell one that something is being quoted. But if one doesn’t provide any of his own dialogue and is quoting directly from a source one may not do anything. The source can always be found if it is on the free Internet, but to you if the information isn’t from the WaPo or a leftist approved source the information is considered valueless. If the source is deemed valueless why should anyone quote the name of such a source?

                      You don’t even recognize some of the best written sources that exist. Moreover, you can’t seem to make it through a well written article because the sentence structure might be too complex for you. You also seem to have a problem understanding the meaning of many words along with the ideas those words are shouting at you. Sometimes those ideas take time to explain but you can’t handle that either and we see you asking for shorter versions or summaries of what is being said. That doesn’t say much for your intellect but you blame others when the blame lands directly on you.

                      I understand that you do not know what a leftist is. You probably think you are a centrist or even a right of center individual and that is where your problem begins. In earlier posts I tried to explain to you what a Fascist was but you seemed to get lost because many of the ideas of the left are Fascistic. You don’t recognize the difference between small government and large government, individual rights vs collective rights. You rely on the WaPo to tell you what to believe. You have no firm principles of your own.

                      I will clear up one item. I am here because of Turley’s knowledge of the law and his understanding of what free speech means. Democrats in this nation used to recognize the importance of free speech but no longer. Turley’s opinion of Trump is irrelevant to the ideas behind free speech. You don’t seem to recognize the difference when that is what differentiates a learned mind to one unprepared for debate on such issues.

            1. Peter, consider your quagmire proof that you don’t know how to research.

    2. Gee, that’s terrible that someone is upset that she’s a f….g liar and drew a federal salary doing it.

    3. “Targetting an individual so that individual won’t be able to find a job is reprehensible. She worked for the President of the United States and committed no crime. That is how hateful the left has become.”

      I agree, but it isn’t only “the left” that engages in this. This kind of targeting has been going on for a long, long time.

      1. Go ahead and name an individual that worked for government and did nothing illegal where this happened.

        1. As noted specifically in the Mueller report Sanders admitted she lied when she said in a press briefing in the WH that she had received feedback from FBI agents about how unpopular Comey was and how glad they were he was fired. While not directly a an attempt to make Comey unemployable, it would have that effect and of course was nonsense. Comey was very popular with agents.

          1. Blacklisting is unAmerican. Period.

            And let’s not forget the history of the FBI.

            Having said this, Sanders lied and there should be some sort of penalty for that, but blacklisting? Come on. As for Comey being unemployable. Now that’s just funny. There are jobs galore for guys like Comey.

            1. Anon, you miss the point. Sara Sanders will get a job. What was highlighted was the hate the left has for anyone not on the left’s plantation. The distinction is hitting a nail on the head or screwing one in.

              1. Allam ignores the murders by right wing assassins motivated by hate, and the hateful comments made by his leader virtually every day. There are jerks and a.sholes on all sides, but only oneside in America has multiple assassins and a president.

                1. There are some crazies on the far right and some of those are actually on the left. However, the body of the left are preaching hate every day. Trump is not hateful though he is described as such by the leftwing MSM. They even went as far as calling him an anti-Semite even though his daughter is an orthodox Jew and he has Jewish grandchildren.

                  Yes, there are jerks on both sides but antifa that has caused mayhem has actually shut down universities as has parts of Black Lives Matter. You really ought to study up on what Fascism really is.

                2. Allen ignores the derogatory remarks made everyday by the president and some aimed at entire groups, his retweeting of memes and lies from far right and neo-Nazi sources, excuses he makes for neo-Nazis and other racists, appearances on shows like Alex Jones, and the admiration his actions have generated from neo-Nazis and other racists which may be accidental, but is probably not..

          2. Wow, Sara Sanders exaggerated, but former FBI agents have expressed their concern that parallels what Sara Sanders said. She didn’t say she lied, did she? I think she said something like exaggerated in the heat of the moment but I think her admission was more political than real. Is this the example any normal person would use to prove the opposite of what I said? No. No normal person would think this type of rhetoric was adequate as an intelligent response. Anon is far from intelligent and even further from normality.

            1. Take a deep breath, Allan. Get out and enjoy the day. There’s life beyond this blog. Really.

              1. Brainless, thank you for worrying about my well being but I am perfectly content as I am. Your life is obviously a dead one. Mine is full of joy and fun.

  5. Fox polls haven’t been worth much since they moved to take the place of the lame stream that moved over to the far left and dumped their regular polling people. For one they seem to have dumped polling the largest voting group from 2016 but that is a plus as The Stupid Party and the RINOs will think they have a chance now. Maybe Fox is doing as political raid on it’s own?

    1. John Dean, what a disgusting weasel. A paid liar, a convicted liar, a betrayer of his boss and comrades, a coward and a snitch.

      GAETZ: Do you have personal knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of a single material fact in the Mueller Report?

      DEAN: I think if you recall the first thing I said I’m not here as a fact witness.
      GAETZ: You’re here to provide historical context.
      DEAN: Exactly.
      GAETZ: And throughout history, you accuse presidents of acting like Richard Nixon and you make money off of it.
      DEAN: Not all presidents, no.
      GAETZ: But, a few. More than one.
      DEAN: Those who do act like him I point it out.

      1. Kurtz, the Democrats seek out those of their own kind. Dean and Cohen both liars to the core and they were thinking of Avenatti as a candidate.

        I just now realized that there has always been a debate as to which part of the aisle Turley was on. He is on the center left even though leftists on the blog argue otherwise. I think two these three names, Dean and Avenatti, add proof to Turley being more on the left. He liked both of them.

    2. I would have asked Dean if he cut a deal to avoid prison, or other consequences, and if so, what it was.

      1. Dean pleaded guilty to a single felony of obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to one-to-four years. His sentence was reduced to time served, amounting to about four months, due to his cooperation and testimony against others. He lost his law license due to the felony conviction.

        1. “His sentence was reduced to time served, amounting to about four months, due to his cooperation and testimony against others.”

          That was the concern. He was found guilty of a crime, but got his sentence reduced by testifying against bigger fish.

          How can you ever trust that what he said then, or now, was the truth, since it reduced his sentence? How can you tell whether it was testify or compose? I would value physical evidence over the word of any criminal induced to testify with a lower sentence. And if that evidence passed through his hands, check it for tampering.

          I know this is how the court system works, by turning people, but it has always seemed like an untrustworthy source of information.

      2. Dean was convicted and sent to jail. Like is done all the time the sentence was reduced and he went to a half-way house for 4 months. That is a legal equivalent of jail though not as harsh. Dean intentionally did not tell the full truth when he lied saying he didn’t go to jail. Typical answer from an unreformed dirtbag.

        Hero’s of the left and star witnesses: The liar Michael Cohen and the dirtbag liar John Dean who made sure that he could wiggle his way out of a long term jail sentence while setting others up for longer sentences. Avenatti who was considered Democrat Presidential material. Add to that the Clintons and one can easily see the Democratic Party stands behind criminals rather than legitimate politicians.

        All of this brings us to the title of a very good book written by a good and quite accurate author: ” Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party”

        1. Allan, of course: ‘All of this brings us to the title of a very good book written by a good and quite accurate author: ” Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party”’

          Dinesh D’Souza and the Decline of Conservatism

          Under President Trump, the most outrageous and aggrieved polemicists are thriving.

          AUG 12, 2018

          David Frum

          From the article:

          ‘It’s stunning to those of us who came of age during the last phase of the Cold War to watch fellow members of our political generation enthuse over the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Yet in 2015, D’Souza retweeted a beefcake image of a bare-chested Putin over the caption, “REAL MAN CONTEST: Putin rides bareback, while Obama fishes with gloves.” A year later, D’Souza added: “What @realDonaldTrump admires about Putin is the way Putin—unlike someone else we know—LOVES his country & FIGHTS for its interests.”’

          1. “Under President Trump, the most outrageous and aggrieved polemicists are thriving.”

            It’s easy to say such a thing and I will admit there is a bit of hyperbole in the book but essentially its points are well taken but not well received by Democrats and never Trumpers. Just listen to the most recent video of Glaude posted by Turley. Hyperbole is in scholarship is out.

            Remove the hyperbole from the book. The book is opinion that is based on fact so why don’t you say something of value by telling us what facts presented in the book didn’t exist.

        2. Avenatti considered himself presidential material. I’m not sure the party did.

  6. Trump’s con game is getting old and even FOX knows it. He will always have his bootlickers at “FOX NEWS” Trump has said many times not to believe your eyes or ears about anything that has been exposed, so him throwing crap at FOX is his MO. Watch FOX give Trump a big wet kiss in the next 24 hrs.

  7. On the one hand, some of Trump’s actions, such as Tweets, are alienating. On the other hand, the mainstream media does not report any achievements of the Trump presidency. Voters are not informed accurately on how his Administration’s polices affect the nation. When there is a negative occurrence, it is not reported accurately, either.

    Fox News, and any other outlet, should accurately report the facts.

    The leaks from the WH are unprofessional. Such internal polls are supposed to be privately done to help guide campaign strategy.

    Journalistic integrity is rare nowadays. Most of the media is just a Democrat Propaganda machine, donating their services to Democratic candidates. There are few media sources that really take an effort to produce genuine opposing viewpoints. A few shows on Fox do so, and I rather like a couple of their Democrats. It is important to ask hard questions on all sides of an issue. That is why I dislike most of the mainstream media. It’s like an echo chamber, and worse, selective editing to defraud their viewers.

    I wish we returned to the days of a clear line of demarcation between a majority of straight news, and a few opinion editorial shows.

    And for God’s sake, if avowed Socialist and Russiaphile Bernie Sanders is ahead in the polls, then we need to dismantle the Department of Education, go for a full voucher system, open up the field to private competition, and improve our education. An entire generation enamored of socialism is a condemnation on the public education system. Government makes a poor father, and apparently, a poor educater, too.

    1. The push for impeachment is getting steam from TDIP, a firm controlled by Fusion GPS. So, the same people who perpetrated the Russia hoax are still trying to destabilize the presidency and impact the election.

      “Key Democratic operatives and private investigators who tried to derail Donald Trump’s campaign by claiming he was a tool of the Kremlin have rebooted their operation since his election with a multimillion-dollar stealth campaign to persuade major media outlets and lawmakers that the president should be impeached.”

      Perhaps media outlets should stop playing election campaign committees for the DNC.

      Link below to how the media colluded with the Clinton campaign, as well as how early Steele used opposition research to penetrate the FBI.

      “The memo from Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) team claimed that Ohr’s contacts with the FBI only began “weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application.”

      But Ohr’s testimony now debunks that claim, making clear he started talking to FBI and DOJ officials well before the FISA warrant or election had occurred.

      And his detailed answers provide a damning rebuttal to the FBI’s portrayal of the Steele material.”

      1. There is a trend.

        When a Leftist is unable to answer facts, he or she resorts to attacking the integrity of the speaker, using libel, ad hominem, or character assassination. What they do not do, however, is address any of the actual points.

        This differs from anyone along the political spectrum who may agree or disagree, and explain why.

        When called upon the libel of claiming I was getting paid, because she could not answer my facts, a troll backed off, coyly demurring that she was asserting no such thing. Days later, she’s obsessively repeating the same lie. Can’t answer the facts? Then in desperation make up something about the speaker.

        Typical Alinsky nonsense. However, judge someone on the content of what they say. Is it facts and a clear argument, or is it often just ad hominem? Those who resort to ad hominem have lost the argument and have nothing of value to contribute, or a different point of view, but rather feel a compulsion to degrade to make up for their own lack.

    2. Karen, you’re right about education. Polls show the ‘less’ educated were more likely to vote for Trump. And you can see that on these threads. The less educated are more likely to post comments supportive of Trump.

      1. One should take note of the many articles penned by Professor Turley on the politicization, hard Left, of academia.

        What I have personally experienced on the blog is ad hominem, rather than a clear analysis of an issue and an interesting, opposing viewpoint. It’s not erudite. However, given the fact that universities have become like madrassas for the Democrat Party, I rather agree with you that an academic is statistically more likely to vote Democrat. That is no badge of virtue.

        However, you are missing my point. I blamed the public education system for turning out a generation that is enamored of socialism, and unable to critically reason. You said you agreed with me, but went on to say that the more educated tended to vote Democrat. But, if you agree with me, that means you agree with my point that the quality of education is low, meaning your comment about the educated voting Democrat to mean they are foolish. I don’t think that was the point you meant to convey.

        Ever notice how Leftists, as opposed to moderate Democrats, are often mean? The leve of personal attacks, and even violence, in some cases, is very concerning.

          1. Anonymous, if you are the same Anonymous that posted on the book The Stealing of America then you must have two personalities, one quite stupid and the other yet to be determined.

          2. The banned L4D called me honey, and then used a variety of sock puppets to get around the ban.

    3. “I wish we returned to the days of a clear line of demarcation between a majority of straight news, and a few opinion editorial shows.”

      Factual news would quickly inform the masses that left wing ideas are dreams that belong in a garbage heap. That is one reason the left depends on editorializing the news because then facts don’t count. Listen to Peter Shill. That is what he attempts to provide and he even adds headlines that never existed.

      1. Yeah, Alan, it would be nice if we could go back to the days when Big 3 network newscasts, Time, Newsweek and local papers were the main sources of news. Cable TV and the internet have allowed numerous crackpots to put their spin on events.

        1. Peter, that is the dream of the Fascists and all leftist and totalitarian groups, to have total control over the media. You are trying to force people to listen to what you want them to hear. That is anti-American and anti free speech. Frankly I believe the newsmedia you read lies too frequently along with spinning news in the news section.

          Why are you unable to debate those that you call crackpots? Why are you unable to prove your case? Listen to Professor Turley who is on the left side of the aisle. Fight crackpot speech with more speech. It might turnout that the crackpot was right.

          1. Alan, if you think Turley is on the ‘left side of aisle’, you are indeed a crackpot.

            You didn’t start following this blog because you thought Turley was liberal. ..No way..! You saw Turley on Fox News and figured he was you’re kind of legal scholar. But lately the professor isn’t giving you the spin Trumpers crave. So now you’re asserting that Turley is on ‘the left side of the aisle’. ..What a joke..!

            1. Actually, Peter, I saw Turley elsewhere and read what he had to say. Not everyone pray’s to their ideology and acts without use of their intellect. I knew him as a Liberal and saw him defend ideas that Liberals hated. That is the mark of a man with principles though he remains center left. The same can be said for Alan Dershowitz who is now on Fox quite a bit so you might accuse me of following Dershowitz for the same reason. That demonstrates the limitations your mind has in trying to figure out cause and effect.

              1. Alan, If you respected Turley for telling liberals things they didn’t want to hear, you should respect him for telling ‘you’ that Trump is out of his mind.

                1. I respect Turley’s intellect and abilities within the area of law. I have no problem with Turley disagreeing with Trump because he can defend his position something you seem unable to do. That doesn’t change the political position he holds, center left. Turley has principles something the left doesn’t seem to be able to find.

    4. Karen’s ignorance about media coverage may be explained by her seeming preference for right wing opinion pieces.

      Of course the facts about our economy, legislation, executive actions, and foreign affaurs are as vigorously covered as always by the better sources, like the NYTs, WSJ, WaPo, LA Times. So are the lies, incompetence, lack of coherent policy, and never endin staff shakeups with declining results.

      Beyond the obvious fact that those of us who prefer more authoritative sources than Karen read every day about Clinton emails on their front pages, a Harvard study I linked from after the 2016 election showed that both major candidates received largely negative coverage from the MSM, with Trump receiving slightly worse coverage in the general election, but over all, combining that with the primaries, Hillary’s coverage was worse..

      Add to these facts the recently discussed here reality that the MSM was largely aware of the investigation into Trump’s campaign before the election but did not report it without reliable or official confirmation.

      Long story short, the right has been working the refs going back to Reagan and it’s getting old and is BS. If you want better press, how about nominating somebody competent and decent?

      1. “vigorously covered as always by the better sources, like the NYTs, WSJ, WaPo, LA Times. ”

        The ignorant don’t recognize that much of the information used by the above comes from data sources but they do not report the data rather they conflate data with other things to produce news that is spun in the desired direction. They also use anonymous sources to further spin the argument. The dumb become dumber by the day and when actual data is presented they become arrogant and insulting.

        1. “The dumb become dumber by the day and when actual data is presented they become arrogant and insulting.”

          Allan is talking about himself again.

      1. They say they like Kasich. That tells me what I need to know about them. Not bright.
        Does anybody care who the papers endorse?

        1. “They say they like Kasich. … Not bright.”

          I have to agree with you there

          “Does anybody care who the papers endorse?”

          I don’t, but — for better or worse – some people do.

  8. “Julian Assange Indictment “Criminalizes the News Gathering Process,” Says Pentagon Papers Lawyer”

    AMY GOODMAN: —go to Mike Pompeo—now he’s secretary of state, but when he was director of the Central Intelligence Agency—about Julian Assange in 2017. This was his comment as CIA director.

    MIKE POMPEO: Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom. They have pretended America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice. They may have believed that, but they’re wrong. Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value. He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He’s a fraud, a coward hiding behind a screen.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Pompeo. Assange later responded to his comments while speaking on the Intercepted podcast.

    JULIAN ASSANGE: Pompeo said explicitly that he was going to redefine the legal parameters of the First Amendment to define publishers like WikiLeaks in such a manner that the First Amendment would not apply to them. What the hell is going on? This is the head of the largest intelligence service in the world, the intelligence service of the United States. He doesn’t get to make proclamations on interpretation of the law. That’s a responsibility for the courts, it’s a responsibility for Congress, and perhaps it’s a responsibility for the attorney general. It’s way out of line to usurp the roles of those entities that are formally engaged in defining the interpretations of the First Amendment. For any—frankly, any other group to pronounce themselves, but for the head of the CIA to pronounce what the boundaries are of reporting and not reporting is a very disturbing precedent.

    AMY GOODMAN: That was Julian Assange, speaking on Intercepted. Jim Goodale?

    JAMES GOODALE: Well, I agree with what Assange said about Pompeo. And I think what Pompeo said about Assange could be applied to Pompeo. But it’s interesting the CIA chief is so interested in this. It’s because the CIA has been trying for half a century to cut back the First Amendment to stop leaks. That’s what this case is all about. First, following the Pentagon Papers, the Justice Department was able to convict sources of leaking to reporters, but they couldn’t get reporters, so they got half of the equation, so to speak. For 50 years, they’ve been trying to get the other half of the equation, to get reporters and put them in jail and limit the First Amendment protection of reporters in that regard. So, I think Assange is right. I also think, tell the truth, Pompeo’s got the right to say it. But you think about what he said. He’s just trying to cut back the First Amendment.

    (I know this: There’s plenty that Pompeo want to keep hidden.)

        1. Anonymous, promise us this is ‘last attempt’. No one cares about Julian Assange. Assange did his best to give us Donald Trump. For that reason alone he deserves years of grief.

          1. Your ignorance is showing, Peter/”The Current P.H.”

            If anyone deserves “years of grief”… — it’s you.

          2. The Dems (including DWS and her ilk) gave us the super-delegate system — and Hillary Clinton. As such, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Julian Assange didn’t write the emails (and other documents) that were released. Hillary was the wrong candidate.

            Don’t blame Julian Assange for your own failures.

            “Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died”


            It was her arrogance — among other things (like her lies) — that cost Democrats the election.

            1. That was her most despicable moment. Libya was less of an enemy to the US than it had been in decades, and it was far more orderly and prosperous than its neighbors. The US spooks apparently turned loose the Saudi paid mercenary jihaadists on autocrat Qadaffi and with air cover from NATO for the rebels, a horrible mess is the result. To some extent this was tried in Syria too. And invasion of Europe the mutual result. What deplorable awful mess. Let’s not repeat this stupidity with Iran for our own selfish sakes! Iran is not a small country. Be careful!

              We can push them back if they are trying to impede navigation in the Persian gulf and we should. But give up the notion of “regime change” as that would include turning lose nutjobs far worse than the mullahs, if recent history is any indication.

            2. It appears that Anonymous is either Jill or Estovir; neither of whom merits serious attention.

              1. Nor does kurtz or karen. Both liars with no regard for posting factual information.

              2. Sure, Peter. Kinda like you don’t “merit serious attention”? If you were only half as smart as you think you are.

        2. that’s some good history there. Democracy Now, very far Left orientation, but a lot of good content. I watch it regularly.

    1. Assange was right about that. the extent of the First Amendment gets defined by the courts or in terms of the executive branch, the AG. Certainly not the head of CIA.

      But, the courts will get their chance to define it as it applied or not to Assange. We’re going to find out since they filed the superseding indictment.

      CIA has a big institutional grudge against Assange since he aired their “Vault” secret hacking tools. The scary thing about those hacking tools btw is that they can use them on us too.

      The idea that the dirty deeds which CIA is supposed to do on foreigners, in service of this country, is not anything they would do on us, is naive. They have overstepped their mandate and spied and interfered and done mischief on Americans too. Assange is not an American but, are we now going to try and exclude foreign news publications circulating in America from the First Amendment? That would be impossible under our existing system.

      The Chinese Communists do that, but do we want to be like them? Not in that way, at least, I hope not.

      1. Mr. Kurtz correctly states:

        “The idea that the dirty deeds which CIA is supposed to do on foreigners, in service of this country, is not anything they would do on us, is naive. They have overstepped their mandate and spied and interfered and done mischief on Americans too.”

        Many Americans are beyond naive. Peter Hill (“The Current P.H.”) is one of them.



    One of the founding hosts of NBC’s Today Show was Dave Garroway whose on-air personality was easygoing. But off-camera Garroway was known as unpredictable and prone to depression. During his 9 years on The Today Show, 1952-1961, Garroway’s capricious nature led to the firing of many production staffers. Garroway finally left Today after his wife died from a prescription overdose. The joke at NBC was that Garroway had “fired his audience”.

    This column made me think of Dave Garroway and that joke about his firing the audience. Though unlike Dave Garroway, Trump has never been referred to as ‘easygoing’. Trump is, however, that type of celebrity who will eventually ‘fire the audience’. And like Dave Garroway, Trump was long-featured on NBC, a company he turned on after that ill-fated interview with anchor Lester Holt. Now Trump signals he will eventually turn on Fox. One can see this coming with the next recession in the not-too-distant future.

    This economic expansion, which began during Obama’s first term, celebrated its 10th anniversary this month. That’s about as long as economic expansions go. Since taking office Trump has bragged endlessly about ‘his great economy’. But the odds of this expansion lasting until November of next year are statistically remote. This brings us to those polls Professor Turley highlights in the column above.

    If polls show every potential Democrat beating Trump now, what will Trump’s chances be if a recession develops? And how can Fox News remain Trump’s official mouthpiece in the face of an economic downturn? Fox will ‘have’ to acknowledge a recession. And such an acknowledgement, of course, will alienate Donald Trump. Trump will try to claim the economy was upset by the ‘socialistic promises’ of Democratic candidates. But Fox might have trouble echoing that. Especially if financial journals report other factors.

    Therefore one can see a recession arriving just in time for the general election. It happened, in fact, to the last Republican president! When that happens Trump will have no choice but to turn completely on Fox News. Fast forward to Election Night 2020 when projections show Trump suffering a landslide defeat. At this point Trump will have an absolute and total meltdown; raging at his most loyal supporters. Symbolically Trump will do a Dave Garroway and fire his audience.

    1. When Trump is exposed inexorably for his fraud and con-manship, Hannity, Ingraham, Carlson and Levin will not be able to dissociate themselves from him. They have tied their ships to his. When he sinks, they go with him which explains why they are fighting like mad to keep him afloat as if their very lives depend upon it. I suspect that it has dawned upon them long ago that they made a bad bet on Trump. But there is no turning back now. They must play their hand as best they can. They must win at all costs because if Trumpism enters our political lexicon as vilified as McCarthyism, their careers and legacies will be excrement…

  10. JT: “I have a great respect for many people at Fox.” Funny, you didn’t mention the breadwinners: Hannity, Ingraham and Carlson! I have no respect for anyone who works at an organization that would employ the likes of those 3. None.

    You appear constantly perplexed by the unfathomable conduct of Trump. When will you cease trying to make sense of his irrational behavior? When will it dawn on you that he is a chronic and habitual liar?

    1. I have far more respect for Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson than I have for you, Mr. Silberman. What is your claim to fame? Why should anyone care what you have to say? To say you have no respect for those three individuals would indicate you have watched their shows on a long term basis, and thus have formed your opinion about each of them over time. Is this the case?

      1. Says a NOBODY. tRump doesn’t respect people like you, you are just a useful fool to be discarded when no longer needed.

      2. Admittedly, I am a nobody and will likely to remain that way. Still, I am giving my opinion on a forum which welcomes it. In fact, I do watch these 3 religiously as well as MSNBC. My prediction: Hannity, Ingragam, Carlson and Levin will be asked to leave Fox after the fall of Trump, and they will join forces on a new conservative network (BlazeTV?). When Trump goes down, they will fall with him because they have been his most vocal defenders on FOX, and FOX will want to clean house after Trumpism.

        1. Why would you watch people you loathe? that would be like me watching Madcow.

          I don’t even much like Hannity and these other two I barely recognize. You guys think people are sitting around watching tv all day? Geezers maybe. I’m old but I’m not that old. Young people barely watch tv at all.

  11. The president overall is doing a good job, but moderation in his constant bashing of opponents would go a long way. Teddy Roosevelt said “walk softly and carry a big stick”. My suggestion is to say very little and give the Democrats nothing to use as ammunition. Let you accomplishments speak for themselves and keep the American people safe. The Democrats have gone off the rail and Trump doesn’t need to give them anything to bring them back to life.

        1. YNOT, I don’t use sock puppets so you can add Stuart to the list of smart people on the blog that you can look up to.

            1. I don’t know but a lot of people pop in and out both siding with the left and the right. I think the people on the left have utilized sock puppets more than the right. Look at the repetitive postings and why their old names disappeared. I don’t consider you one of them even though your name changed because it appears you had a problem.

              However, Peter, I don’t think you should overly concern yourself with the problem. Though Turley writes some interesting columns that require considerable knowledge the blog comment section means squat. The reason that is so is because some people refuse to have an actual debate and just list various things refusing to discuss them in depth. In that type of debate we could all learn something and sometimes it can bring people closer together. Remember on most things many of us agree on the end product. Where we disagree is on the means so the question is whether your ideology is more important or less important than the end product being sought.

  12. this morning on NPR they talked about movies. why the big films arent selling? Shaft, Dark Pheonix, MIB, Godzilla

    instead of saying they are inane and cater to politically correct tropes which bore people–

    the one goofy man-boy and the two chattering clucking hens, showed no insight whatever, just babbled



    If you want to see a fantastic action film that blends MMA and competitive tactical shooting techniques– yes, a lot of us white guys in flyover like MMA and competitive shooting– GO SEE JOHN WICK

    of course NPR would not know about such things. we don’t exist to them!

  13. I agree – Fox was just reporting. Trump has a sense of humor, and this would have been a good time to let it show. He likes a challenge and should take these polls as that.

  14. If you are a Republican and you are worried about the Poles then talk to the Pollacks whom you know and ask them if they truly want Biden or perhaps hand waiving Beto. The Poles do not make up a large percentage of voters.
    Trump would do better if he would quit commenting on Twitter. Fox is usually fair to him.
    Journalism has gone to Hell in the hand basket. Jerks like Chuckyboy Todd call Ferguson a Ghetto. NYC is a Shetto.

  15. Fox has been moving to the left. At one point even Hannity’s position was uncertain and more recently Judge Jeanine was in jeopardy perhaps having her job saved by a write in campaign.

    1. Alan, the number of liberals who think Fox News is moving to the left could be packed in a Mini Cooper with leg room to spare.

      1. Peter, that just demonstrates how insufficient your intellect really is.

  16. “Rather than acknowledge that Fox is the least hostile to Trump, these comments are deeply insulting to journalists who seek to inform their viewers on the current polling and trends in the election.”
    There are precious few journalists anymore. There are actors and “bubble-headed bleach blondes” who are fed provocative questions by wispy-bearded fresh-off-the-campus producers to trap elected officials with but few real informers of the public. Journalism died with Larry Spivak, whose pointed questions were always respectful, and gave way to the blustering Jim Acostas of the world whose day job seems to serve only their ravenous ego which, in turn, serves as prelude to their book tours. Declines in professional ethics are clear signs of societies in decay. It’s reversible but takes a lot of extracting and tough-minded decision making by the institutions themselves – a quality increasingly rare these days as everyone seeks “civility” instead of professionalism.

    Trump may be boorish but he’s not wrong about the rot he points out.

    1. There’s an element of Rip-Van-Winkle in some of the moderator’s commentary. Get it through your head Prof. Turley: James and Dorothy Kilgallan are dead, Ted Koppel is retired, and Sheryl Atkisson works freelance because no news organization of note employs reporters anymore.

    2. Absolutely correct, mespo! With all due respect to the professor, I laughed out loud when I read “these comments are deeply insulting to journalists” ………. I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time.

      1. I just peeled some “journalist” off the bottom of my shoe

        it’s funny isnt it, how there are no licenses for journalists– which is fine by me– due to the first amendment– but the journalists act like ONLY THEY can say what is true and false

        wait, I have to go hose off my shoe, I can smell that there is still some more journalists stuck on the sole

        1. Mr. kurtz……..😊
          Yes…….journalists indeed act like that. That’s perfectly fine with the Left, until Conservative “reporters” do it.
          Also, in 2008, a very Lefty friend of mine hated Sarah Palin, of course…….said she was dumber than dirt.
          When I defended Sarah, my friend yelled… “But she was a f***ing journalism major!!”

          1. Wow, Sarah Palin’s stock just went down. I didn’t know that about her.

        2. They aren’t journalists and probably not reporters just propagandists.

Comments are closed.