Monday Links and Open Thread

  • Friday’s numbers: Eric O’Bolling-Megyn Kelly-Chris Wallace 1-2-3.
  • Anon: Lewandowski nothing compared to everyday coverage of Trump.
  • Wemple: Is there really a ‘revolt’ at CNN. No, say (anonymous) sources.
  • TCG: Fareed ‘pulls a Shuster‘.  Zucker: CNN is more than a news network.
  • Moses: How Fox News became the ‘most engaged news site‘ on Facebook.
  • Bill O’Reilly on Israeli television.  Kiran Chetry resurfaces…doing back flips!
  • F&F videos: Behind the scenes at Fox Fan Weekend 2016,

46 thoughts on “Monday Links and Open Thread”

  1. “More than a news network” is basically the same as saying, “not quite a news network”.

  2. ONLY on CNN can you hear “over 50% of Sanders supports say they won’t vote for Clinton” and 20 seconds later hear “the Democratic party has come together”

    All from what passes for ST8 “journalists” on CNN.

    • to be fair there is a lot of contradictory cr#p everywhere in the media …oh … and in politics …… i guess in most people as well. that is the irony of it all. it is why Jon Waters made a movie whose cheered “to the end of Irony”.

  3. Hilarious TCG piece!

    Should you feel more insulted when your credibility is impugned by a plagiarist or should you take it as a compliment?

    BTW: if spelling bees want to immediately winnow down the competition by half, they should start with the word plagiarism and its derivitatives.

  4. This is how the New York Times began a report on a unananimous Supreme Court decision to vacate the conviction of Jim McDonnell:

    “WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to prosecute public officials for corruption…”

    I suppose they say the same thing about due process.


  5. The lame stream media seems universally repulsed by Great Britain’s vote to exit the EU. Reaction is like they voted to make Donald Trump their PM.

    • Yea Moe seems upset that Fox News mentioned that…….but the hypocrite failed to mention that CNN and MSNBC ALL talked about the Blue smurf suits. He forgets Rubio’s boots which made all 3 networks also.

      The stooges have to be the most uninformed people on the internet.


      • Trying. Getting some soil on her moccasins though walking the path with Wall Street’s favorite Democrat.

      • Tapper on CNN said over 50% say they won’t vote for her…..but I couldn’t find that poll.

        IMHO…..if you were a true Sanders supporter….there no way you could vote for Clinton……it’s like saying NEVER mind everything I’ve said for the last 6 months or more….I meant the complete opposite of what I’ve been saying.

        Lots of my friends love her…..but she spent her first 47 years as a registered republican……..don’t understand how she because such a liberal hero.

        The anti-Clinton ads write themselves if she picks Warren.

        • There is no way on God’s green earth that Moe was ever a Republican. It’s just another Stoogism, in other words, a lie.

        • “Lots of my friends love her…..but she spent her first 47 years as a
          registered republican……..don’t understand how she became such a
          liberal hero.”

          Sounds like you were referring to Clinton (who was last referred to by name in your revious paragraph) and not Warren. Presumably this is not the case.

          • Spreading Bull was a Republican until her mid 40’s. Claims to be against the “Fat Cats,” but made a fortune flipping teepees for big wampum.

            Madame Clinton has been a Democrat since her college years.

          • well since my comment was in a reply to this question:

            “Is Warren sanitizing Clinton enough for Sanders peeps?”

            I don’t see how anyone would think otherwise……….and I’ve never heard anyone claim Clinton to be a liberal hero………..but almost everyone on the left refers to her as one………I also think anyone who pays attention knows she was a republican thru most of Bill Clinton’s second term… I Guess I didnt see that it need to be spelled out.

            Maybe i’m just too much of a Democrat and news junkie and figure people know things they don’t….just because I know them….my bad

          • I still think in that context some could think you were referring to Clinton — and actual did apparently.

            Oh well. Small stuff. No biggie.

          • I don’t see HRC picking Warren.

            Do you?

            Looks like Tim Kaine is the early favorite at this point.

            Fun fact:
            He attended Harvard Law School, taking a year-long break during law school to work with the Jesuit order as a Catholic missionary in Honduras. Hmmm.

          • No I dont………I dont see America ready for an all woman ticket sadly………..of course I wasn’t so sure about a African American ticket in 2008… what do I know.

            I don’t see anybody she could pick who would change my mind……however ……….I see her looking for a latino or someone who has a reputation for complete honesty.

            Im old school……you pick a VP that makes up for a weakness you have…… Obama case he picked Biden for his experience……….I think Trump should do the same thing……….he probably won’t….but he should.

            I think Warren has to much baggage for Clinton to pick her……but I don’t have a problem with her personally….Id vote for her if she were the top of the ticket………..but frankly Clinton CAN’T pick anyone who has any question about their honesty….just as Trump can’t pick a hothead like Newt G.

            I still believe there are a ton of people like me who are NOT going to vote for either or not at all……I talked to many people on both sides who are skipping.

            Tim Kaine might help her since in the past he’s been pro coal…..but I think she burned that bridge beyond repair…..he could help her win VA but I think he only got about 51 or 52% of the vote when he ran for Gov there.

            Before this year I’ve only seen people vote for or against a nominee based on the VP pick once at least in mass numbers…..I think Clinton and Trumps picks could be the deciding factor.

          • has little to do with gender. a man with her resume, positions and previous statements would be even less likely.

        • Perhaps she became a hero because some of the things she says about Wall Street are true.

          Saying stuff, as opposed to living it, seems to be good enough anymore.

    • You owe the late Patty Duke an apology for associating her with Chairman Maoette and Liawatha.

  6. Today’s most popular links:
    5 Bill O’Reilly
    4 CNN is more
    3 most engaged news site
    2 pulls a Shuster
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Kiran Chetry resurfaces…doing back flips!

  7. i posted a plea yesterday to those that know more than i to tell me if there is a line and if so where between a DA lying and being ok and DA’s lies becoming criminal.
    i hear crickets
    now some 2nd stringer named martha something sitting in for kelly something says the Duke prosecuting district attorney spent time in jail.
    guess i got some googling to do.

    • They can’t intentionally lie in court or a legal document. Nifong was disbarred and spent exactly one day in jail, in solitary for his own safety.

      • so they can say any lie they want out of court about a defendant and it is never criminal? not being snide. i have no idea where the line is for a DA. i know where the line is if an FBI agent asks me a question on the street but it seems the DA’s lines for criminal speech are not clear to me. you would think like with depositions and evidence disclosure the lines would be known and clear.

        • As far as I understand it, the police and prosecutors can lie all they want, as long as it isn’t under oath in a deposition or in court.

          • well police and DAs are diff for sure and both have restrictions and liberties especially regarding evidence. i am interested if there are specific restraints on DAs knowingly speaking untruthfully to the public. i don’t mean to split hairs for no reason or look for technicalities. in regards to disclosure of evidence, misuse of witnesses etc laws are clear. i guess i am asking if DAs can lie to disparage defendants with no fear of criminal liability? is there even a body of decisions defining that? i am not a legal guy so maybe i am not wording it correctly, but what happened in Baltimore had the stink of illegal on the DAs part, i am wondering if there is a line that she did or could cross that would be illegal specific to her lies. not witness tampering, evidence withholding stuff. just the lying.

Comments are closed.