Judge Nap clearly not on Trump’s Supreme Court list anylonger.
Will Trump or Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao call Murdoch to get the judge banned from appearing on Fox news anymore?
Everyone must know that McConnell’s wife Elaine Chao was on the Fox news board of directors for years and maintains close ties with Murdoch and Sean Hannity.
This guy wants to switch to MSNBC, for a big salary hike. You watch.
I’m afraid I don’t know what LBJ’s Walter Cronkite moment was. Can someone fill me in? Thank you.
Uh oh - somebody just got scratched from the Christmas card list.
When Cronkite went public with misgivings about the war in Vietnam LBJ said “if I’ve lost Cronkite I’ve lost the country.”
Fox headlines tomorrow:
“Renowned conservative jurist Andrew Napolitano reported missing”
Thank you for the info. We no longer have newscasters with the Cronkite’s public trust. I doubt we have current newscasters who have earned it.
Let them say what they want to say – but never count on them.
We do not.
“The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion — to prevent the government from finding the truth,” Napolitano argued.
I would say: to prevent the people from finding the truth. “The government” is only the people’s instrument.
Trump’s hair is a crime against scalps.
He’ll be declared un-mutual and banished to Jersey City.
I’m pretty sure Fox is okay with this. I’ve noticed with the town halls for Democrats and a few more things, they’re trying to appear more mainstream.
They never will be, but if they can change the minds of a few moderates, it can’t hurt.
That’s why they allow S. Smith to stay on despite not being mainstream Fox. All the right-wingers turn off his show anyway, the only widespread exposure he gets is when other media outlets play clips of his show. That only helps their fair and balanced BS.
Even when Chris Wallace appears to hold Giuliani accountable, he still lets him spew out what he wants to say while halfheartedly trying to get him to answer a question.If Wallace wanted to shut him down, he could very easily. It’s basically role playing.
Why is there always this unquestioned caveat that while the Russians TRIED to interfere, they probably DIDN’T alter the outcome? On what evidence does this rely? It seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that the amount of physical and digital mayhem they created, along with who knows what they did with the voter data they stole, that they definitely did change the outcome. Has any major media operation or anyone in Washington addressed this?
You got trouble my friend, right here in Fox City!
But Geraldo went to law school…
It will be interesting to see if this guy moves the needle with the 40%.
The US intelligence community concluded not that Russian efforts failed to alter the outcome but that there was no evidence to show that they did.
Not sure I’d call it a caveat.
Plus, we know nothing about what evidence they reviewed and how that conclusion was reached. And by whom. We do know that at about the same time, Donald Trump was pressuring and getting everyone to parrot that he was not under investigation.
Aforementioned USIC.