That's at the very beginning of this clip:
They go on to talk about whether the U.S. would be better off with "a royal family of America," a concept that causes Chris Wallace to gasp "Oh, my God." Who would be the royal family? Maher says the Kardashians.
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats said Chris Wallace was one of the “good Republicans.” There is no such thing. Democrats need to stop buddying up with every Republican that occasionally says something bad about other Republicans. https://t.co/yCsZHXc0Tz
— nick (@ncknvme) June 10, 2022
Here's the piece at The Hill, with this, from 7:22 last night:
"... from an aggressive nationwide marketing campaign to hiring hundreds of new employees to recruiting big, high-priced media stars, including the former 'Fox News Sunday' anchor Chris Wallace and the former NPR co-host Audie Cornish."
I don't think "tens of millions of dollars" sounds like such a big investment. It seems to me they didn't do enough. The biggest thing they did was entice Chris Wallace. That's a tiny thing to do. Let's not overdo what a failure it was. I wouldn't say "a stunning and ignominious end." I'd say a predictable and dumb fizzle.
What's tens of millions when Elon Musk is offering $45.5 billion to buy Twitter?
ADDED: Here's the top-rated comment: "Speaking as a retiree on a fixed income, how many streaming services is it possible to afford? Ordinary people with modest incomes are being shut out of good content due to affordability. For 40 years I paid for delivery of The Boston Globe and watched TV using an antenna. That was fine. Now everyone wants their money to read or watch anything. It is unsustainable."
Yesterday, we talked about the news that CNN's new streaming service had only picked up 10,000 subscribers, and I wrote: "$5.99 a month for CNN is pretty ridiculous. 10,000 subscribers... hilarious."
But — curious about what was actually on CNN+ — I looked at its webpage and was surprised to see that you can subscribe for only $2.99 a month — and "save 50% for life" — if you sign up by April 26. So there has been pressure to sign up before that offer ends. That makes the 10,000 number look much worse.
Anyway, what is on CNN+?
"I want to try something new to go beyond politics, to all the things I’m interested in. I’m ready for a new adventure."... He noted that when he joined the network, he was promised by Fox News executives that they would not interfere with his work and that they have "kept that promise."...Jeff Zucker, CNN chairman, described it as a rare opportunity to bring someone of Wallace's "caliber" to such a new project....
I heard the NYT reporter Adam Liptak make that assertion (on yesterday's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast), and I wondered if that was strictly accurate.
Writing every day, I've followed Trump very closely, and I believe if he said anything like that, I would have blogged about it, and the key words to search my archive are so clear — Trump... Supreme Court... abortion — that I'm going to believe the answer is "no" if I am unable to find it.
***
I needed to read through about 20 old posts to find what is relevant to my question — only 3 posts, which I'll present in chronological order, with boldface added:
I asked, "Why hasn't Trump said anything about the Supreme Court's new abortion case?" Answering my own question: "Gender politics isn't his thing. He only talks about abortion when pushed or when attacked."
Chris Wallace, moderating a debate, asked where the Supreme Court should take the country and what's the right approach to constitutional interpretation. Trump blathered a bit, seized on the Second Amendment, and threw in "The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life." You can be pro-life and still decide reaffirm the long-standing precedent, so his answer is an evasion. Wallace was smart to follow up:
That's oddly clever. Asked "are you willing," he says "I'm willing." That's very literal, but the question invited him to do it, not to say he's willing to do it. Why not forthrightly take the cue to do it? Say "White supremacists and militia groups: You need to stand down." Just do it. What holds him back? Wallace has to re-prompt:Chris Wallace: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.
President Donald J. Trump: Sure, I’m willing to do that.
Chris Wallace: Are you prepared specifically to do it?He doesn't even say the equivalent of "I'm willing" this time. He could be cleverly literal again and say, "I am prepared" (instead of doing it). But this time he changes the subject to the other side is worse:
This month, your administration directed federal agencies to end racial sensitivity training that addresses white privilege or critical race theory. Why did you decide to do that, to end racial sensitivity training? And do you believe that there is systemic racism in this country, sir?Trump began well:
I ended it because it’s racist.But he should have said clearly why he regards it as racist! Why would "racial sensitivity training" be racist? I know the argument, but not everyone does, and whether we know it or not, Trump should have capsulized the reason for regarding the kind of training that's been going on as racist. What he said next was:
I ended it because a lot of people were complaining that they were asked to do things that were absolutely insane.What things?! It's just a weird assertion, "things that were absolutely insane."
“The fact is, the president is out there. He's out there in this broiling heat with me for an hour, he took all the questions. You can like his answers or dislike them but he had answers and Joe Biden hasn’t faced that kind of scrutiny, hasn’t faced that kind of exposure,” Wallace told Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday.Then Baier asked a question that tracks what Thiessen said in his column:
“You’ve got to feel at some point he’s going to come out from the basement ... he’s gonna have to be more exposed and take questions just as tough as the ones I asked this president,” Wallace said. “He’s gonna have to do it with a bunch of people and, of course, he’s going to have those three debates with the president and you know that the president can handle himself in these debates... I think there is an open question there, can Joe Biden do the same?”
“Just from a political analysis standpoint, is there a danger here, going down this road?" Baier asked. “In other words, all Biden has to do is show up and the bar is very low for him to have a success.”Wallace reveals this is the conventional opinion among Republicans:
Wallace responded, “That’s what a lot of Republican strategists are worrying about. If you set that bar, and the expectation so low for Biden... three presidential debates, if he shows up and doesn’t drool his supporters can say, ‘Well he had a good debate.’”I'm suspicious of this line of reasoning, because Trump shutting up on this topic — his opponent's mental weakness — is also consistent with the massive collusion to protect Joe Biden. If Trump doesn't keep this subject going, it might allow the people to become complacent about the topic. Oh, Joe Biden, he's just, you know, the thing, you know the thing, the guy, the guy, you know, the guy that's not... you know... not Trump!
WALLACE: But -- but this isn't burning embers, sir? This is a forest fire.Ugh. They're debating about the metaphor — the ember/flame distinction.
TRUMP: No, no. But I don't say -- I say flames, we'll put out the flames. And we'll put out in some cases just burning embers. We also have burning embers. We have embers and we do have flames. Florida became more flame like....
They don't talk about Mexico.... But you take a look, why don't they talk about Mexico? Which is not helping us. And all I can say is thank God I built most of the wall, because if I didn't have the wall up we would have a much bigger problem with Mexico....He wants to tell you about this wall he built "most of."
BIDEN: "I can hardly wait to debate [Trump] on stage. I want people to see me standing next to him and him standing next to me. Heh heh heh. We'll see who's sleepy."So... we saw who's sleepy. Or just an irreparable gaffe machine.
WALLACE: "Mr. Vice President, thank you. Thanks for your time. Please come back in less than 13 years, sir."
BIDEN: "All right, Chuck. Thank you very much."
WALLACE: "Uh. All right. Uh, it's Chris. But anyway."
BIDEN: "I just did Chris. No, no, I just did Chuck. I tell you what, man. These were back to back. Anyway.
WALLACE: No, it's okay.
BIDEN: I don't know how you do it, early in the morning, too. Thank you, Chris.
“I have resigned as an advisor to Harvey Weinstein,” Bloom, 56, wrote on Twitter Saturday. “My understanding is that Mr. Weinstein and his board are moving toward an agreement.”ADDED: The NYT writes that board members of the company, Harvey's brother Bob and Lance Maerov, confronted Bloom after Bloom said she was going to put out “photos of several of the accusers in very friendly poses with Harvey after his alleged misconduct," which Maerov said would "backfire as it suggests they are exculpatory or negate any harm done to them through alleged action."
She did not say whether she plans to continue working with Weinstein on adapting her book about Trayvon Martin into a television show, which Bloom had planned to do through his company.
Lanny Davis, another adviser to Mr. Weinstein, is also no longer representing him, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Davis, a lawyer and crisis counselor who served as special counsel to President Bill Clinton, declined Saturday to discuss his departure. But he and Mr. Weinstein had disagreed over how to handle the sexual harassment allegations, with Mr. Davis advising a more conciliatory tone and approach than Mr. Weinstein seemed willing to adopt....Lanny Davis. Why did he drop Weinstein? Too much connection back to the Clintons? I was surprised that I already had a Lanny Davis tag, and clicking back to old posts, I see that he was acting chair of the Clinton Foundation in 2015 when he was grilled by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" over a $2.35 million contribution to the Clinton Foundation by the chairman of Uranium One, "that uranium company that the Russians wanted to buy," which Davis brushed off as "not major, even by any definition." Wallace asked Davis:
Do you think it was a coincidence all these Canadian mining executives are giving millions to the foundation, that a company with close ties to Vladimir Putin's government in Russia is giving half a million dollar speech? Do you think that's a coincidence that's happening while the Russian company that wants to buy Uranium One has business before the State Department? Do you think that's a coincidence?Sorry. I'm reminiscing about the 2016 presidential campaign... you know, the one about which there's been so much talk about "collusion" with the Russians.
WALLACE: When you appointed Mueller, and you were the one who did, you had to sign an order authorizing the appointment of a special counsel, and you said that he was authorized to investigate any coordination with Russia and -- I want to put these words on the screen -- any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. My question is, does that mean that there are no red lines that Mueller or any special counsel can investigate under the terms of your order, anything he finds?Watch the whole interview:
ROSENSTEIN: Chris, the special counsel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Justice, and we don’t engage in fishing expeditions. Now, that order that you read, that doesn’t detail specifically who may be the subject of the investigation... because we don’t reveal that publicly. But Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation and so, it’s not a fishing expedition.
WALLACE: I understand it’s not a fishing expedition, but you say any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. In the course of his investigation of the issues that he is looking at, if he finds evidence of a crime, can he look at that?
ROSENSTEIN: Well, Chris, if he finds evidence of a crime that’s within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of the investigation, then he can. If it’s something that’s outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time, me, for a permission to expand his investigation. But we don’t talk about that publicly. And so, the speculation you’ve seen in the news media, that’s not anything that I’ve said. It’s not anything Director Mueller said. We don’t know who’s saying it or how credible those sources are.
WALLACE: I mean, people ask about this, of course, because you had Ken Starr and Whitewater, and this began with a failed real estate deal in Arkansas and ended up with Monica Lewinsky. To expand, he would need to get approval from you to expand the investigation?
ROSENSTEIN: That’s correct. Just as did Ken Starr. You know, Ken Starr received an expansion we believe was initiated by the Department of Justice by Janet Reno that resulted in that investigation....
Well, look, why was Fusion GPS involved in putting together this dossier? I don't know, Chris. And I don't think too many people know why or how this meeting came about. However, what I can tell you is in my communication with our team on the subject, there was nothing to it, it was a 20 minute meeting, it ended after everyone was decidedly sitting there saying there's nothing happening here. They moved on. And I think, in the end, what you’re going to find in the story, if you read the Circa column, because I think there’s more questions on the Democrat side than anywhere else....
CHRIS WALLACE: Speaker Gingrich, I want... to start with the - your tweet... "Republicans need to focus on closing down independent counsel because it clearly isn't independent." What's your reasoning and wouldn't that really look like an obstruction of justice?Then, Karl Rove:
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, look at what Comey said. Comey said, I deliberately leaked, through an intermediary, to create this counsel, who happens to be one of his closest friends. Then look at who Mueller's starting to hire. I mean these are people that, frankly, look - look to me like they're - they're setting up to go after Trump. They've - including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. I think this - this is going to be a witch hunt. I think that Comey himself, by his own testimony, tainted this particular process. You have a director of the FBI deliberately leaking in order to create a special counsel, who we're now supposed to believe is going to be this neutral figure. I think that's just nonsense....
পোস্টগুলি
