“Anonymous” Revealed and Retained: CNN Keeps Contributor Who Lied On The Air To Anderson Cooper

Miles Taylor, the former chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, came forward this week to confirm that he is “Anonymous,” the author of the bombshell opinion column published in The New York Times two years ago and the subsequent book “A Warning.” What is most notable is that Taylor is now a CNN contributor who will remain in that role despite lying to Anderson Cooper and CNN viewers on the air. CNN sees no problem or conflict in a contributor who knowingly lied on the air while others were being hammered as the suspected source. Indeed, this is fast becoming a curious credential for CNN contributors.

In August, Taylor appeared with Cooper in an interview slamming Trump. Cooper asked him point blank if he was the author.

Taylor responded with a repeated denial:  “I’m not. Look, that was a parlor game that happened in Washington, DC, of a lot of folks trying to think of who might that be. I’ve got my own thoughts about who that might be.”

Cooper asked again: “You’re not ‘anonymous.'”

“I wear a mask for two things, Anderson. Halloweens and pandemics. So, no.”

Well, three things, Halloweens, pandemics, and lying to my future employer.

What is incredible is that Taylor insists in the interview that he wants to focus on Trump “and his character” while knowingly and repeatedly lying to Cooper and viewers:

As Taylor was holding forth on good character and making huge amounts of money from his book, others were being investigated as the possible source including longtime national security aide Victoria Coates, who was  reassigned to the Department of Energy. On Twitter, Taylor acknowledged that he might owe Coates an apology. Not the viewers however.

CNN however distinguishes between lies that undermine Trump and those other lies. It will keep Taylor as a contributor. That leaves the network with a rogue’s gallery of accused liars.  CNN hired former intelligence chief James Clapper after he lied under oath.  It hired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe after he alleged lied to federal investigators.  Now it has retained Taylor who not only lied but lied to CNN and its viewers. The only common denominator is that they may be liars but they are anti-Trump liars. It is like a media version of being a “made man,” where you earn your bones by showing a willingness to do anything to protect a narrative — whether it is true or not.

It is worth noting Anderson Cooper has repeatedly denounced Trump and his aides for lying and CNN maintains that “facts matter.” Indeed, it was Copper who stated in one prior show: “What kind of person hires someone who promises never to lie to us, as Kayleigh McEnany did on her first day on the job, and then breaks that promise repeatedly?”


It was a good question then and it is a good question now: “What kind of [network] hires someone who promises never to lie to us… and then breaks that promise repeatedly?”

275 thoughts on ““Anonymous” Revealed and Retained: CNN Keeps Contributor Who Lied On The Air To Anderson Cooper”

  1. Isn’t Trump the quintessential fake news source? Calling into reporters and saying his name is John Barron and let me tell you about that Trump fellow! That is, he did not just claim he was anonymous, he affirmatively lied about who was calling.

    Hard for such a person to complain about someone who is trying to maintain their anonymity.

  2. CNN has a reputation for hiring liars. Clapper is probably the most egregious.

    Yet they gasp and clutch their pearls at the very idea that they have a credibility and bias problem.

  3. Didn’t Anonymous say that he would deny he was Anonymous if asked?

    I do not think Turley understands how being an anonymous source works. If you tell people when asked, then you are not anonymous.

  4. Anonymous is synonymous with alleged reported and purported in the world of BIASED media who are allowed to get away with if they are caught what otherwise is criminal activities. THey have have nothing to do with Bil of Rights.




    My Resignation From The Intercept
    The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles.

    Today I sent my intention to resign from The Intercept, the news outlet I co-founded in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, as well as from its parent company First Look Media.

    The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.

    The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

    I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

    The censored article will be published on this page shortly. My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

    As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.

    This was not an easy choice: I am voluntarily sacrificing the support of a large institution and guaranteed salary in exchange for nothing other than a belief that there are enough people who believe in the virtues of independent journalism and the need for free discourse who will be willing to support my work by subscribing.

    Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice. I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.

    But the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept. These are the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom. I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates.

    Type your email…
    From the time I began writing about politics in 2005, journalistic freedom and editorial independence have been sacrosanct to me. Fifteen years ago, I created a blog on the free Blogspot software when I was still working as a lawyer: not with any hopes or plans of starting a new career as a journalist, but just as a citizen concerned about what I was seeing with the War on Terror and civil liberties, and wanting to express what I believed needed to be heard. It was a labor of love, based in an ethos of cause and conviction, dependent upon a guarantee of complete editorial freedom.

    It thrived because the readership I built knew that, even when they disagreed with particular views I was expressing, I was a free and independent voice, unwedded to any faction, controlled by nobody, endeavoring to be as honest as possible about what I was seeing, and always curious about the wisdom of seeing things differently. The title I chose for that blog, “Unclaimed Territory,” reflected that spirit of liberation from captivity to any fixed political or intellectual dogma or institutional constraints.

    When Salon offered me a job as a columnist in 2007, and then again when the Guardian did the same in 2012, I accepted their offers on the condition that I would have the right, except in narrowly defined situations (such as articles that could create legal liability for the news outlet), to publish my articles and columns directly to the internet without censorship, advanced editorial interference, or any other intervention permitted or approval needed. Both outlets revamped their publication system to accommodate this condition, and over the many years I worked with them, they always honored those commitments.

    When I left the Guardian at the height of the Snowden reporting in 2013 in order to create a new media outlet, I did not do so, needless to say, in order to impose upon myself more constraints and restrictions on my journalistic independence. The exact opposite was true: the intended core innovation of The Intercept, above all else, was to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself. As I told former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a 2013 exchange we had in The New York Times about my critiques of mainstream journalism and the idea behind The Intercept: “editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.”

    When the three of us as co-founders made the decision early on that we would not attempt to manage the day-to-day operations of the new outlet, so that we could instead focus on our journalism, we negotiated the right of approval for senior editors and, especially the editor-in-chief. The central responsibility of the person holding that title was to implement, in close consultation with us, the unique journalistic vision and journalistic values on which we founded this new media outlet.

    Chief among those values was editorial freedom, the protection of a journalist’s right to speak in an honest voice, and the airing rather than suppression of dissent from mainstream orthodoxies and even collegial disagreements with one another. That would be accomplished, above all else, by ensuring that journalists, once they fulfilled the first duty of factual accuracy and journalistic ethics, would be not just permitted but encouraged to express political and ideological views that deviated from mainstream orthodoxy and those of their own editors; to express themselves in their own voice of passion and conviction rather stuffed into the corporatized, contrived tone of artificial objectivity, above-it-all omnipotence; and to be completely free of anyone else’s dogmatic beliefs or ideological agenda — including those of the three co-founders.

    The current iteration of The Intercept is completely unrecognizable when compared to that original vision. Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party), a deep fear of offending hegemonic cultural liberalism and center-left Twitter luminaries, and an overarching need to secure the approval and admiration of the very mainstream media outlets we created The Intercept to oppose, critique and subvert.

    As a result, it is a rare event indeed when a radical freelance voice unwelcome in mainstream precincts is published in The Intercept. Outisde reporters or writers with no claim to mainstream acceptability — exactly the people we set out to amplify — have almost no chance of being published. It is even rarer for The Intercept to publish content that would not fit very comfortably in at least a dozen or more center-left publications of similar size which pre-dated its founding, from Mother Jones to Vox and even MSNBC.

    Courage is required to step out of line, to question and poke at those pieties most sacred in one’s own milieu, but fear of alienating the guardians of liberal orthodoxy, especially on Twitter, is the predominant attribute of The Intercept’s New-York based editorial leadership team. As a result, The Intercept has all but abandoned its core mission of challenging and poking at, rather than appeasing and comforting, the institutions and guardians most powerful in its cultural and political circles.

    Making all of this worse, The Intercept — while gradually excluding the co-founders from any role in its editorial mission or direction, and making one choice after the next to which I vocally objected as a betrayal of our core mission — continued publicly to trade on my name in order to raise funds for journalism it knew I did not support. It purposely allowed the perception to fester that I was the person responsible for its journalistic mistakes in order to ensure that blame for those mistakes was heaped on me rather than the editors who were consolidating control and were responsible for them.

    The most egregious, but by no means only, example of exploiting my name to evade responsibility was the Reality Winner debacle. As The New York Times recently reported, that was a story in which I had no involvement whatsoever. While based in Brazil, I was never asked to work on the documents which Winner sent to our New York newsroom with no request that any specific journalist work on them. I did not even learn of the existence of that document until very shortly prior to its publication. The person who oversaw, edited and controlled that story was Betsy Reed, which was how it should be given the magnitude and complexity of that reporting and her position as editor-in-chief.

    It was Intercept editors who pressured the story’s reporters to quickly send those documents for authentication to the government — because they was eager to prove to mainstream media outlets and prominent liberals that The Intercept was willing to get on board the Russiagate train. They wanted to counter-act the perception, created by my articles expressing skepticism about the central claims of that scandal, that The Intercept had stepped out of line on a story of high importance to U.S. liberalism and even the left. That craving — to secure the approval of the very mainstream media outlets we set out to counteract — was the root cause for the speed and recklessness with which that document from Winner was handled.

    But The Intercept, to this very day, has refused to provide any public accounting of what happened in the Reality Winner story: to explain who the editors were who made mistakes and why any of it happened. As the New York Times article makes clear, that refusal persists to this very day notwithstanding vocal demands from myself, Scahill, Laura Poitras and others that The Intercept, as an institution that demands transparency from others, has the obligation to provide it for itself.

    The reason for this silence and this cover-up is obvious: accounting to the public about what happened with the Reality Winner story would reveal who the actual editors are who are responsible for that deeply embarrassing newsroom failure, and that would negate their ability to continue to hide behind me and let the public continue to assume that I was the person at fault for a reporting process from which I was completely excluded from the start. That is just one example illustrating the frustrating dilemma of having a newsroom exploit my name, work and credibility when it is convenient to do so, while increasingly denying me any opportunity to influence its journalistic mission and editorial direction, all while pursuing an editorial mission completely anathema to what I believe.

      1. He’s a legend just for Snowden and he’s been busy since then too.

        A true investigative journalist. Like Sy Hersh, a liberal but one who followed the news where it lead him, and didn’t spare sacred cows along the way

        They are still out there, hallelujah

    1. @Mr. Kurtz. That’s big news. Greenwald is far left on the conventional political axis but also a fair minded advocate for investigative reporting and views that threaten existing orthodoxies. His resignation is an example of how over reaching builds new alliances built on a different set of operative principles. A shifting of the old axes. Change that threatens the progressive political order. Another great example is James Kunstler. Maybe there’s hope for us yet.

        1. Read every single Kunstler update on the Clusterfu _ _ blog, they’re great, take a look at his architectural musings too, very smart

          also check out his twin books from two decades ago about New Urbanism, ie, making communities more livable with smart changes to zoning codes

          “Home From nowhere” and the other one, forget the title

          I also like his fiction books, very funny

          The Long Emergency his newest book and also excellent

          1. @Mr. Kurtz. I disagree strongly with Kuntsler’s views on peak oil and have long thought that new urbanism is the next generation’s reaction to their father’s Oldsmobile. Sometimes I have a hard time reading Kuntler’s site, and the Long Emergency would likely be wretch inducing. But seriously, airing and discussing these sorts of diverse viewpoints actually does lead to constructive change. Sheesh, I’m starting to sound like a Prog. What is super clear is that the willingness of Kuntsler, Greenwald and others to reject the Progressive orthodoxy, and people like us to at least read and think about the cover notes to the Long Emergency are how new alliances are formed. Good stuff. The Progs will find it very dangerous.

            BTW thanks again for recommending Storm of Steel. Quite the read.

            1. Oh, there’s a lot of interesting content in the Long Emergency. It has “case studies” in interesting people you might find worth reading

              Peak oil is a geologic phenomenon. It is true that we can discover new reserves, and new technologies like fracking can extend our ability to extract oil from deeper and more tapped out reserves, but the finitude of those reserves is not in dispute among geologists., Not in America or in the oil industry at least! I realize some Russians claim abiotic replenishment but i have never seen proof of the concept at all. That book actually has a lot of keen observations relevant to the “green new deal” farce like the necessity of using fossil fuels just to create the “green economy” and “green infrastructure” in the first place. So the book was a little off target, considering fracking, but still has a lot of good content

              New Urbanism is sound. It sometimes gets sidetracked by fanatical greens, but the basic ideas are sound., Like, simple stuff. A grid pattern is better than meandering cul de sacs. Massive lawns are useless. Porches are swell and mcmansions are not. These are detail oriented policies that provide tons of opportunity for local bipartisan actions to make living more tolerable.

              New Urbanism does fall on its face in one respect and Kunstler is suspiciously quiet on the topic. The surburbanization trend was not just a function of federal mortgage policy in the postwar period it was also a matter of flight from urban crime and chaos. This factor treads on certain toes however so it is usually left out of the conversation.

              1. Sheesh, how did you write that all so quickly making the fair points that you did? Reasonable people can have a conversation on all of those points as long as they don’t go the full theocratic Greta Gunberg on each other. Then if they can get used to the fact that it isn’t all about Trump or Biden, but instead around some larger principles like the role of the media, government and the law, there is a foundation for something cool. Heck, even Professor Turley, the host of our blog, is becoming a catalyst for real change with posts like this one. Is it too optimistic that we are starting to see the destruction of the old order and the beginning of something new?

    2. Kurtz, this demonstrates how dangerous Joe Biden and the powers surrounding him are to our civil liberties. They will stop at nothing to destroy decent. The fascists are here and the dummies like anonymous don’t have the slightest idea of what that means.

      1. which president are these riots happening under?

        Civics 101: which executive is responsible for law and order in Philadelphia? Which executive is responsible for law and order in Pennsylvania?

        1. Olly: “‘which president are these riots happening under?'”

          “Civics 101: which executive is responsible for law and order in Philadelphia? Which executive is responsible for law and order in Pennsylvania?”

          There you go, again — spoiling a good narrative with facts.

        2. Olly, Anonymous and civics don’t mix. In fact I don’t see many places in civil society where Anonymous mixes.

      2. @Anonymous: There is a document that forbids the Federal Government to take the rights of local government that it does not have pacifically granted. So the President cannot intervene in local issues unless asked. Check it out: it s called The Constitution of the United States.

      3. Again, see Kurt Schlicter (who has done this sort of work in uniform) on the logistical problems which attend the occupation of a city without the co-operation of state and local government. It is expensive and requires a great deal of manpower. The problems in Philadelphia are the responsibility of the Mayor and DA in that burg, one of whom is ineffectual and the other of whom is appalling. Then you have the Governor, another star performer. Take it good and hard, Philly.

      4. Trump, so what? Riots because of criminal running amuck in Democrat cities

        Why, Democrat mayors are so jealous of their turf, the mayor of Portland scolded him for sending deputies in to protect the federal courthouse from besieging ANTIFA!

        So, he’s adopted a federalist approach to this– let the Democrat run cities handle their own riots. And my how poorly they have done!
        Of course the governors have a better claim to correcting those situations once the Mayors fail than the POTUS

        we have to let local law enforcement always be shown proper deference from the federal executive, to allow local matters to be handled locally if possible.

        you should be praising him for his restraint. The party leaders you cheerlead for are dismal failures at keeping “law and order” in the streets.

  6. JT, speaking of Kayleigh McEnany, you might write a column about how she and many other Trump Admin employees are audaciously breaking the law with repeat Hatch Act violations. She’s even showing up at Trump Campaign rallies.

      1. The purpose of the Hatch Act was to inhibit politicians from making use of the civil service as a political machine. It’s meant to protect civil servants. McEnany is a patronage employee and her book is public relations. Invoking the Hatch Act is another exercise in lawfare, like the inane ’emoluments clause’ complaints. Does anyone honestly think that Bill Clinton’s press secretary didn’t travel with him?

        1. I’d have that Kayleigh with me constantly if I could, what a looker

          I like Obama’ lady Jen Psaki too, the redhead. Not as pretty as Kayleigh but the kind of look that grows on you

        2. Do you have a photo of Bill Clinton’s press secretary on stage with Clinton at a campaign rally, waving to the crowd?

          Here’s one of Kayleigh onstage with Trump at one of his campaign rallies -https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1321842056126468100

              1. Hatch Act? Wow! In the meantime, evidence proves Biden has been selling his political office to foreign governments for years and you’re concerned about a possible Hatch Act violation?

                You and your ilk are the domestic enemies our system warns against.

                1. I look forward to a complete analysis of the evidence against both Biden AND Trump, don’t you, Olly?

                  1. Let’s test your objectivity regarding analyzing evidence. Given the evidence currently available, which of the two candidates is more likely to have sold out their public office to foreign entities hostile to the United States? Which of the two candidates has proven a commitment to putting all citizens of our country first? These are questions related to facts and evidence not feelings.

                    Ready. Go.

  7. it’s amazing that this article which is an embarrassment to CNN has attracted so many adoring sycophants of CNN to apologize, deny, and distract

    the fellow is a liar, he lied to a CNN top draw interviewer, and CNN like the clueless operation that it is, gives him a paycheck

    well one can only ask, why?

    because it is a reward from the plutocracy that pulls strings at CNN and other mass media, they reward the backstabbing liar, and that is more important to the plutocratic agenda than the credibility of a news organization (supposedly) which few believe anyhow.

    they are doing their number one job at CNN, serving the plutocratic interests aligned against Trump. That explains this with perfect clarity

    big news outfits are like intel agencies for billionaires. they generate propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and occasionally outright lies.
    they omit the relevant, daily
    above all, they continuously implement the billionaire agenda, above all other objectives, they are hirelings working for their billionaire pimps
    they serve their controlling interests and money masters, and when the agenda is “GET TRUMP” then everything else is subordinate to that. everything.

    I see some liberterians chiming in here about emotionalism. right well what’s the liberterian answer? let billionaires gobble up nation states like candy, that’s what, because the dogmatism of liberterians requires them to toss aside what few tools there are for the people to reign them in. because, Ayn Rand wrote good books! that’s why. so let them run amuck

    wake up liberterians, at the level of national policy we are not dealing with rational markets we are dealing with the ebb and flow of global power in which mega-billionaires are as significant actors as nations themselves.

    1. @Mr. Kurtz- Apologize, Deny, Distract. The ADD strategy. Has a nice ring to it.

    1. and yet the national news media has nary a peep to say about rioting in Philly, New York and LA the past few days, but most of all Philly

      where the protesters apparently had a van filled with explosives lined up ready for something


      the big lie of 2020 was that riots are actually peaceful protests. with that kind of lying, Trump’s inconsequential fibs pale by comparison

  8. Ha. Trump’s lips move and it means he’s lying. You regularly trot out the’collusion was clearly disproven by the Mueller report’ lie, JT. Me thinks you’ve gotten your travel directions from your bosses about who to deflect to next.

  9. Fox Owner Rupert Murdoch Resigned To A Trump Loss

    Company Well-Positioned To Sustain

    Rupert Murdoch, the 89-year-old billionaire whose family controls Fox News’s parent company, has told associates that he is resigned to a Trump loss in November. And he has complained that the president’s current low polling numbers are due to repeated “unforced errors” that could have been avoided if he had followed Murdoch’s advice about how to weather the coronavirus pandemic, according to associates who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

    A political conservative, Murdoch has always been a pragmatist when it comes to his relationships with politicians, backing liberal candidates, such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when it suits him. He had known Trump for decades as a frequent source and subject for his New York Post tabloid, and he was not initially thrilled with the idea of a Trump presidency. “When is Donald Trump going to stop embarrassing his friends, let alone the whole country?” he tweeted in July 2015. Murdoch even flirted with endorsing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 candidacy and invited her to meet. She declined, according to two people familiar with the exchange.

    What was Trump talking about? How the language of Fox News invaded the final debate.

    When Trump’s candidacy surged, Murdoch followed and was rewarded with a direct line to the White House. Last year, the mogul sold most of his company to Disney for $71 billion, a deal that ended up facing few federal regulatory hurdles despite its size. Trump called Murdoch the day the deal was announced to congratulate him. (Murdoch still retains a controlling interest in Fox Corp., which owns Fox News, Fox Television Stations, and Fox Sports; as well as News Corp., which owns Murdoch’s newspapers and other digital properties.)

    But the coronavirus pandemic altered the relationship. Murdoch watched with concern as Trump downplayed the crisis and dispatched one of his closest aides, News Corp. CEO Robert Thomson, to speak to the president about the risks of the virus back in March, in a previously undisclosed meeting. Tucker Carlson, a prominent Fox News host who had sounded the alarm on the virus back in late January, visited Mar-a-Lago in early March to urge the president to take the virus more seriously, also at Murdoch’s encouragement.

    But around the same time, Ingraham made two trips to the Oval Office — one to promote hydroxychloroquine, a controversial and unproven treatment for the virus that enraptured the president, and another to urge him to reopen businesses across the country, in both cases echoing arguments she would make during her hour of prime-time punditry. Hannity likened the novel coronavirus to a “new hoax” that the Democrats and the media could use to attack the president. And Carlson, after a period of urging viewers to take the virus seriously, soon pivoted to skepticism, comparing those worried about it to “the many ghouls in Washington who forced our military to wage pointless wars.”

    Their on-air rhetoric stood in contrast to the company’s reaction, as Fox News executives implemented serious protocols to protect employees from a growing pandemic. But the incongruent reactions did not hurt ratings. In April, a month when the coronavirus killed about 60,000 Americans, Fox News recorded the then-largest prime-time audience in network history, according to Nielsen Media Research. The threat of advertiser boycotts — driven by activists furious about the pandemic-dismissive punditry — led some analysts to anticipate a revenue drop for Fox. But in an election year with blockbuster ratings, the channel has rebounded; S&P Global Market Intelligence projects that Fox ad revenue could reach $1.15 billion, an increase over last year. Murdoch’s son Lachlan, the CEO of Fox Corp., told investors in May that Fox had nearly doubled its audience with the younger viewers who appeal to advertisers. In October, Fox News’s prime-time audience was bigger than any other program on cable, and had more viewers than ABC’s “The Bachelorette” and “Celebrity Family Feud” and NBC’s “The Weakest Link.”

    Edited from: “What Happens To Fox News If Trump Loses? Rupert Murdoch Is Prepared”

    Today’s Washington Post

    Key Passage: “Their on-air rhetoric stood in contrast to the company’s reaction, as Fox News executives implemented serious protocols to protect employees from a growing pandemic”.

      1. We are gonna see about that!


        get out and vote and drag your friends and family. the scalps we save may be our own!

      2. Squeeky: Compare a Trump rally to a Biden rally and tell me again how Trump is going to lose. The only vote you are responsible for is yours.

  10. Giuliani should have melted down when FOXPerson ” Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, suggested the stories emanating from the “found” laptop and reported by the New York Post were similar to the kind of broad smear that the famed Christopher Steele dossier made about Donald Trump.”

    Because the BIG FRIGGING DIFFERENCE is, that Hunter’s emails and text were not made up and created out of whole cloth by some. Hunter Biden hinself said and wrote these things, and had these emails on his laptop.

    That is why you have pictures of Hunter in a jockstrap and tennis shoes and an underage chick, and all the other stuff. That is why you DO NOT HAVE a picture of Trump wee-weeing on a bed. Because that was all made up stuff, paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    There is a difference between a SMEAR and the TRUTH. SMEARS are false. TRUTH is true.

    So no, there is no similarity between Giuliani and Steele, outside of both of them relating bad things about a candidate, which is a pretty shallow comparison.

    Funny how pretty obvious stuff like this flies right over the head of mentally ill Democrats.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeaky, remember Lev Parnas and Igor Furhman? They were those Soviet-born mystery men who became best of friends with Giuliani. Parnas and Furhman accompanied Giuliani on a trip to Ukraine in the spring of last year. Parnas now claims Giuliani paid over a million for the Hunter Biden material; obtaining said documents from a shadowy source. Yet we’re supposed to believe there are ‘no comparisons’ here to the Steele Dossier..???

      If indeed Giuliani obtained the Hunter Biden material in Ukraine, then the Delaware computer repair shop story is absolute bullsh_t. And everyone outside the rightwing bubble thinks that story is bullsh_t.

      1. PaintChips, you always have your eyes in the wrong direction. The computer doesn’t count. The materials on the computer are what is important. The materials have been verified to be real by multiple people that received or sent the emails addressed to multiple people. The tapes are in people’s own voices including Hunter, Walker and a couple of others. The material is what is damning. You focus on Giuliani to run away from the fact that the Biden Family are corrupt and it is proven in the materials with or without Giuliani.

        1. Diaper Man, you seem to admit that the computer repair shop story is contrived. ‘Yes’, it is!

          1. No. The computer is real and has been proven so. What is important are the documents on the computer that have been proven true as well. You can’t handle the fact that Joe Biden is a crook.

          1. I’ve had that happen.Sometimes I rewrote the response completely and changed my name and address for that one post. Sometimes I just let it go.

      2. “And everyone outside the rightwing bubble thinks that story is bullsh_t.”

        No, that is not true, There are actually Democrats who believe the Laptop from Hell. Here;s one, J H Kunstler, a Democrat who has some integrity:

        “Twitter and Facebook may try to squelch the story, but the evidence is all over the Internet now, like blood on a crime scene, in verifiable emails, texts, Snapchats, memoranda, and bank records that Ol’ White Joe Biden is at the center of a decades-long influence-peddling spree, selling his personal services to China, Russia, Ukraine, and any other country seeking favors in US government policy, and that this slime-trail of grift disqualifies him from holding high office as much as the irreversible rot of his cognitive abilities.

        The “Laptop from Hell” affair has twelve more days to play out before the November 3 vote and the Democratic Party is in a terrible jam. Do they ask Mr. Biden to step aside, or do they keep running with him while the barrage of allegations and hard evidence pours down on them like so many mortar rounds on a besieged bunker? It’s obvious now that one way or another, voters are actually being asked to elect Kamala Harris president — but who asked for her? Only the disgraced and disabled head of the ticket, Joe Biden, desperate for a non-white running mate. Elsewise, she was so disliked by voters that she skulked out of the Iowa caucuses, ending her own run. Is Hillary ironing her purple pantsuit up in Chappaqua, awaiting the emergency call from her DNC?

        The early 2020 impeachment gambit has finally blown up in the Democrats’ faces, too, as it’s now obvious the phony furor over Mr. Trump’s phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky was ginned up to smother any inquiry into Hunter Biden’s $83,000-a-month services to the Burisma gas company and its crooked chief, Mykola Zlochevsky, with help from then US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and several of her staff, as well as then Secretary of State John Kerry.

        Interestingly, figures associated with Mr. Kerry (the 2004 Democratic party nominee), Devon Archer and Christopher Heinz (Mr. Kerry’s stepson) also happened to be business associates of Hunter Biden’s, and therefore the Biden family syndicate. Mr. Archer is currently under conviction, awaiting sentencing, on a federal securities fraud rap. If US attorneys out of the DOJ have any interest in talking to him, they have a lever to incentivize his testimony about many of the transactions involving Burisma in Ukraine and the Chinese companies that were funneling payments to the Bidens for “introductions” to US persons of influence.”

        Here is another, Matt Taibbi, who thinks the story should be getting air time instead of being squelched:


        Or Jimmy Dore,


        And, there is MUCH MORE to support the fact that the laptop is real, form Tony B and Bevan Cooney providing 26,000 emails to Schweitzer. These were partners of and people involved with Hunter and Joe. Not to mention that Joe/Hunter themselves are not even denying the emails are true.

        Sooo, you can shill away that there is nothing to see here, or if you are truly a deluded moron, then you can ignore them. But that stiff is real.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  11. Giuliani Melts-Down On Fox Business

    Goes Ballistic When Hostess Suggests Hunter Biden Scandal Smacks Of Steele Dossier

    Rudy Giuliani, the personal attorney to Donald Trump and former mayor of New York city, threatened to walk out of a tense interview on Fox Business.

    Recently embarrassed by his appearance in a compromising scene the new Borat movie, Giuliani was being pressed on the provenance of stories about what is claimed to be Hunter Biden’s laptop.

    The host, Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, suggested the stories emanating from the “found” laptop and reported by the New York Post were similar to the kind of broad smear that the famed Christopher Steele dossier made about Donald Trump.

    This angered Giuliani, who said: “You better apologise for that! I’ve been a United States attorney, associate attorney general, mayor of New York City and a member of the bar for 50 years.”

    Describing the suggestion as an “outrageous defamation” and accusing the host of “repeating lying propaganda”, he then angrily said: “I think our interview is now over. I don’t talk to people who accuse me.”

    Emails purporting to come from the laptop make the suggestion that a Ukrainian business partner contacted Hunter Biden about setting up a meeting with his father, the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden.

    The laptop and emails have not been independently verified, and the New York Post is yet to produce any evidence that Hunter Biden replied to the email, or that any meeting took place.

    During the interview Giuliani made the point that both Fox and the New York Post were owned by Rupert Murdoch, taunting his interviewer by saying: “Do you think Rupert Murdoch would let them print false material?”

    “Heavens, no,” came the rather dry reply.

    Giuliani was also asked about his unwitting contribution to Sacha Baron Cohen’s movie, in which it seemed that the 76-year-old was prepared to enter into sexual activity with an actor playing Borat’s daughter.

    Montgomery, who goes by the name of Kennedy on screen, said: “I have a 15-year-old daughter, I watched that, I was kinda grossed out by it.”

    Giuliani again claimed that during the moment that some people think shows him touching his genitals he was merely tucking in his shirt while lying down on a bed.

    The interview has not gone down brilliantly with all of Fox’s viewers, with Kennedy tweeting that it had led to viewers calling her a “traitor”, “loser” and “literally a piece of shiii”.

    Giuliani ended the segment by saying: “I have not loved this conversation. I find this conversation totally insulting.”

    Edited From: “Angry Rudy Giuliani Details Apology From Fox TV Interviews”

    The Guardian, 10/28/20


      The photo that accompanied this story is hilariously funny. Rudy’s expression is one of absolute horror. Horrified that a Fox Business host would question his integrity!

    2. PaintChips, Giuliani didn’t melt down and was rightfully angry at the way Kennedy worded the question. Kennedy was in the wrong and her none apology the next day was an attempt to bury her blame for her poor interviewing technique. She directed the questions and he responded appropriately. She did not and likely lost a lot of credibility with a portion of her followers.

      She acted in the fashion of the left wing news media.

      1. Rudy, the former mafia prosecutor is not messing around. Listen to his case against Joe Biden, especially his wrap-up starting at 28:00….he’s on fire.

          1. Real estate is a means of money laundering. Trump hasn’t even released his tax returns, despite promising to do it and then lying that he can’t.

            1. Real estate is a means of money laundering.

              But for stupid criminals like the Bidens, to get away with it requires an army of useful idiots. You were drafted and you’re not even proving yourself useful.

  12. Ouch!

    “Former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor, a recent CNN hire, has been branded a “two-faced liar” after coming out as Anonymous – the supposedly “senior official in the Trump administration” behind a damning New York Times opinion piece and best selling book.

    His 2018 article – promoted as if written by Mike Pence himself – claimed there was a resistance movement within the Trump administration which was actively working to undermine the president.

    After Taylor outed himself Wednesday afternoon before an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, critics on both sides slammed the former low-level staffer (who wasn’t yet DHS Chief of Staff when he wrote the anti-Trump screeds) – with liberals salty that a grifter got rich by masquerading as a high-level official, and conservatives both laughing and excoriating the MSM for participating in yet another failed scheme against the president.

    “How many other “senior officials” who we’ve been reading about for years are just mid-level douche bags who think they’re Spartacus?” tweeted Breitbart EIC Alex Marlow.

    Also hilarious is the full-throated defense of Anonymous’s surely impeccable credentials by CNN’s Chris Cillizza when the Op-Ed came out.

    “In short: If some midlevel bureaucrat in the Trump administration came to the Times — or has an intermediary reach out to the Times — asking to write a piece like that one without their name attached to it, the answer would be an immediate “no.” Contrary to what Trump says on his Twitter feed, media organizations are very wary of giving anyone and everyone anonymity to make attacks.” -Chris Cillizza

    CNN, meanwhile, is keeping Taylor on staff despite the fact that he repeatedly lied on air about being Anonymous.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. What do you expect from brain-dead Democrats. They even believed Christine “Crazy” Ford who was scairt of flying unless it was to New Zealand to go surfing, and had two front doors in her house because she was scairt, but come to find out there was like two addresses there. Yep, brain dead Democrats will believe anything that confirms their biases and outright delusions. Elizabeth Warren is still Michael Brown was “murdered” in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeaky, have you heard any of them talk about Joe Biden’s corruption with all the evidence that proves he lied when Joe said he didn’t know? Much of the worst we have heard about Joe’s corruption has been confirmed in more than one way.

    1. Lying and character flaws seem to be the ‘in thing’ in the Trump Admin., lead by the liar in chief, Trump.

      1. Anonymous, I have been going through the blog and the blog is littered with your nonsense to others and to me. Response after response without any of them having any content. Did drugs fry your brain?

          1. Look on the blog and take note of all your empty or unintelligent postings. By far, you and your pretend friends are the most prolific this blog has ever seen. One can tell which are yours by just looking at the empty responses sometimes with stupidity added. You must have done one heck of a job to your brain.

  13. It would be impossible to work for or even near CNN unless you are an accomplished liar. CNN reminds me of a number of people who post on this blog. Orange Man bad is the only guiding principle. Of course, the same holds true now for the NYT, WaPo and the networks. I don’t count MSNBC in the “news” and “opinion” category. They seem to be a better fit with Sesame Street.

Leave a Reply