Discussion: Megyn Kelly Shuts Down Ammon Bundy: 'I Don't Answer The Questions'

Discussion for article #244286

Kinda thinking she didn’t know the answer.


It doesn’t have an answer.

1 Like

“You know the argument on the other side, which is, these ranchers — whom you support but are not directly involved — had their day in court. And they were found guilty, and it went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied their appeal. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work in our country when it comes to the rule of law?” she asked. (Megyn Kelly)

Kelly is smart … and shows it once in awhile. I wish she’d do this all the time – I might consider tuning in.


Jail the seditious asshats. All of them.


“If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Lyndon Johnson, February 27, 1968.

Typical Megyn interview. Ask the obvious question most people are thinking about to appear tough … then, let the subject ramble on with their bullshit talking points, unchallenged. TPM and other media wet themselves because Megyn asked an obvious question and consequently gives Megyn and her guest more exposure to spout off with their BS by embedding the clip. Fox’s true target listens to the guest’s talking points while most progressives gush over Megyn’s toughness and ignore that the talking points are smoothly delivered, unchallenged.


#Megyn Kelly: “So, you have taken over a bird sanctuary. You’re camping out…essentially.”

It’s FOX Noise that is promoting a lot of this crap, most notably with their coverage using Rightie loon Pete Santilli as the go to spokesman for the “militia” woowoos. So…to hell with FOX and news reader Kelly.

Which is exactly why I won’t tune in – I know her game, and find it nauseating. Don’t ever want to give these idiots more ratings. Great GIF, btw.


Why are camera crews allowed into this “occupied” space? This is ridiculous, they should have the electricity cut off and their phones as well. I can’t believe that these criminals are allowed to get interviews on TV!

Maybe if we heard the POV of those still at Gitmo the whole world would see what they were fighting for too.


So if the plantiff is the government it’s not a legitimate lawsuit? Huh.


Whole subject in itself, and intriguing. BBC had an interesting report from the site. Purely guessing it seems like the plan is to be minimally invasive, as medical folks say, not even seal the site up, just let them sit there until they start to feel silly enough to trail off home. Then the county or whoever can send the summonses at their leisure.


'Course; now; legitimately; it can be considered a “Turd Sanctuary”.


No, it has an answer. Its the Federal Government acting on behalf of the American people, as it is in all federal crimes.

He is trying to make some argument that nobody was hurt, that there is nobody that can “sue” because the land belongs to “them”. But this isn’t a civil case, its a criminal case…that is why they are going to jail.

The proper redress is to present a defense for their actions, which they did. If they feel they weren’t given the opportunity to do that in the trial case, they can appeal, which they did.

And I am pretty sure Kelly knows this, she did attend and graduate law school…even worked for a law firm briefly upon graduation. She simply doesn’t want to engage him in his argument,because it makes it appear he actually has a valid argument. And he doesn’t.

The irony is, he is doing the same thing that Fox does day in, day out, for years…essentially. Present a bizarre, nutso theory and claim “its valid!” because its opposite.


I fer one am pleased a peacock in a peahen den that this fine upstandin’ feller’s given his word that there ain’t nobody gonna git kilt er laid up in no way during this here gub’mint invasion of Orygone. ‘Cause y’know if the word ain’t bond with these Bundy-folk then ah’m a tick on the hairy rump of an ol’ heffer. They’s good God fearin’ folk. Jes’ trying to take what’s thars.


The answer? There is not a plaintiff in a criminal matter. There’s a prosecutor who is always the government. There’s nothing worse than morons who think they are being clever. If, as an attorney, Megyn didn’t know the answer to that question, she’s even dumber than I thought. My suspicion? She knew the answer, but wanted to make sure she didn’t make one of the mouth breather Bundys look like the complete inbred idiots they are. Better question: why are you defending the Hammonds, who by the way don’t actually want your support, arsonists that started a fire on Federal land to cover up their other crime of poaching? Further, did you know that one of the Hammonds is also a child abuser? Do you support child abuse, Mr. Bundy? Not in any way shape or form a noble cause or noble people to be supporting.


This interview shows the Catch-22 Fox has gotten itself into. They’ve been praising anti-government violence in the abstract for years, but when someone engages in specific anti-government violence they have to be “tough” on them because otherwise they’d lose market share.

1 Like

They’ll chalk that up as another victory, just like the standoff at the Bundy ranch, and then it will keep happening until there are serious consequences. I’m not sure a summons from the county is enough to compel anything out of these lawless assholes. But I do get that the feds really don’t want to turn this into a bloodbath. I honestly think starving them out is the way to go.

1 Like

What’s the matter with TPM? This silly woman simply didn’t know the answer to the guy’s question. She was stuck. Confused. She didn’t shut anyone down; she was hoping the guy would clarify the point he was trying to make. In TPM’s rush to dump on this yahoo, it incorrectly enlisted Ms. Kelly. A suggestion for the New Year: Hire an adult.

1 Like

How do you take “his brother Ryan Bundy said that he was willing to kill or be killed at the wildlife refuge in Oregon”…which the idiot did say…‘out of context’? What context do you wrap that in to make it a benign statement? Perhaps Ms. Kelly could have asked the asshole that?