Tag Archives: the Kelly File

Megyn Kelly Preys on Trump, Fights Newt



Newt Gingrich called out Megyn Kelly for inflammatory and untruthful reporting during a Fox News interview on her show Tuesday, Oct. 25.

A video of the heated exchange can be found at the link below:


Kelly, unable to get past Trump’s put-downs of her during the primaries, zeroed in – again – on the statements the business mogul made during a secret taping prior to an Access Hollywood episode 11 years ago.

She incorrectly stated – as she and others have in the past – that Trump said on the recording that he liked to grope women in their private areas “and kiss them against their will.”

That is false. Megyn Kelly lied. She spoke untruthfully. Trump absolutely never says that on the recording. Yet Kelly relayed as fact something that was and has always been fiction to continue to claw at Trump and to avoid losing a war of words to Newt Gingrich, which she did lose.

What does the recording say? What does The New York Times transcript of the recording say?

And when you’re a star, they LET you do it. You can do anything.”

Does everyone see the word “let”? Does everyone know what the word “let” means?

In other words, the women to whom Trump refers allowed, permitted, gave consent to him to do that – much in the same way groupies consent to have sex with the groups they follow – if, in fact, he actually ever tried to grope and kiss anyone and was not simply sticking his male chest out and thumping on it.

What’s more, what actually happens in the recording? What actually happens when the Access Hollywood bus arrives and Trump and Billy Bush are greeted by the beautiful Arianne Zucker? After just boasting about his actions with women, does Trump try it with beautiful Arianne in front of his friend to whom he boasted?

No. He doesn’t.

In fact, Trump only gives a verbal greeting to Zucker at first. He hugs her only after Bush suggests Arianne give Trump a hug. Then, with his own beautiful wife on his mind, Trump gives the hug saying, it’s okay with Melania! He was telling Arianne the only reason he is hugging her is because it’s okay with Melania!

The mendacity of mendacious Megyn Kelly would be astounding in any other context if it were not for the fact that she is just one of many of the mendacious, such as lying, cowardly, won’t-stand-up-for-gays Anderson Cooper.

She wanted to stand out as the filthiest of the filth, so Kelly went further by suggesting that Donald Trump might be “a sexual predator”. Below lie her exact, dissembling words:

What I said was, if Trump is a sexual predator, then it’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will.”

Do a DuckDuckGo search for The New York Times Access Hollywood transcript and read the whole thing. Nowhere does Trump speak about doing anything to women against their will.

You are a liar, Megyn Kelly, a vicious prevaricator, deceiver, and dissembler who deliberately lied so people would think Trump said it and you would appear to be a relevant, incisive journalist. Like your words, your are utterly lacking in substance.

Further, Megyn Kelly supposedly has legal training. Yet she employed the term “sexual predator”, one of the gravest of designations a court, and only a court, can impose on a convicted defendant. It is a worse designation than “sexual offender”, which itself is a serious designation.

The designation “sexual predator” is usually, if not entirely, applied to those cunning men and women who stalk and violently molest or rape much younger victims, often torturing or killing them. Kelly used the term deliberately to shock voters and viewers, and her unfounded use of it, even in a conditional statement, represents a most grave, ethical breach for a journalist.

Fortunately, she subverted her own “logic” when, just prior to repeating the sexual predator term, she admitted she did not know if Trump was, in fact, a sexual predator.

We can go further. We don’t know that Trump did anything with anyone with their consent, much less against their consent.

Then why was she using the term???

I don’t know that Megyn Kelly is a pervert, but if she is, or if she is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story. Since she keeps using the word, sexual predator, maybe she has sexual predation on her mind. So if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story that must be covered, just like we’re covering it right now by talking about it over and over again.

Please, make sure you tweet and post on Facebook and on any other social media that IF Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator – I don’t know that she is, and I’m not saying that she is, but maybe she is getting defensive if she denies it or takes issue with any talking about it – but if Megyn Kelly is a sexual predator, it’s a huge story, and we will cover it from now until Kingdom Come!

And even if we don’t know that it’s true, we are going to keep doing stories about if it is true. We’re going to keep driving it through your ear holes like a spike into Dracula’s heart!

Gingrich said it best in his righteous reply: “You are fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

Well, if Megyn Kelly is fascinated with sex… .

Uh, never mind!


Trump Ejects Rude Reporter; Megyn Kelly Still Hurting


After turning off the O’Reilly Factor because Blathering Bill would not stop talking over and answering the questions he posed to his guests, I flipped on The Kelly File at the conclusion of NCIS, and there was Megyn spotlighting a Univision reporter getting kicked out of a Trump Q & A in Iowa. The Univision reporter, anchor Jorge Ramos, just like the rude talking heads at Fox, and at MSNBC for that matter, decided not to wait his turn but to speak over Trump and another reporter so he could “ask” his question.

More and more “reporters” aren’t asking questions, they are telling the people they are talking to what the deal is, instructing them in reality. That’s what Ramos was doing, arguing with Trump about immigration. Don’t call yourself a reporter if you want to push your position in a public forum. He wasn’t a reporter. He was just a partisan heckler who abused his press pass. He was an ass with a pass.

If anything, the rudeness of Univision’s Ramos spurs on the strong, negative feelings many Americans hold about illegal immigration and those who want to look the other way. What an assclown!

Ramos doesn’t represent Hispanics. That might be his audience, but as a journalist, he should be asking tough questions both ways. His job is to look out for American citizens. Clearly, he comes at the issue from only one angle.

So Kelly tries to pin the wrong on Trump. Lame, and shameless. Get over it, Megyn. Find something of substance to report.

I’m part Hispanic, and I don’t have a herd mentality. Hispanics in Latin American countries enforce tough immigration policies, so Hispanics here should not decry Americans for doing the same. It’s gross hypocrisy.

The Axe-Grinders at Fox News


It is Wednesday morning, and I am watching the midnight replay of Tuesday’s edition of the Kelly File with the beautiful Martha MacCallum filling in for Megyn Kelly.

Alas, beauty does not guarantee intellectual acuity or independence, though I believe, in spite of her performance, that Ms. MacCallum does or can possess both. Yet it is difficult for her to avoid the negative appearance when she and other Fox commentators or hosts continue to besiege only one Republican candidate, Donald Trump.

Is there no other Republican candidate to whom they can ask challenging questions? It seems everyone at Fox has made it his or her job to eliminate the candidacy of Trump so that the path is clear for the same ole same ole Republican “prospects” by lashing his reputation – business and political – over and over.

It pains me to decry Ms. MacCallum – she absolutely dazzles – but it probably isn’t her fault, at least not fully. It is the fault of her scriptwriters. And last night, er, this morning, the script they provided for her made her look bad.

Here is how she opened one part of the Trump segment:

“The announcement comes as some Republican candidates are making the Iran negotiations a top sticking point in this election,” she reported, adding, “Senator Ted Cruz and Governor Scott Walker even going so far as to say they would rip up the deal on Day One, if they were elected, but some candidates have taken a less strident view of that agreement. Take a look.”

First, was it accurate to characterize Cruz and Walker’s position as “strident”? Why would one not use “forceful” or “determined” or just phrase it neutrally by saying, “Some candidates propose a different course of action.” The scriptwriters probably believe “strident” gives the program more sizzle, even if it is patently incorrect.

Second, with that lead-in given to Ms. MacCallum, you would think that A. you will hear many Republican candidates comment on the deal in its present form and B. that they will differ distinctly from Cruz and Walker’s position, i.e., they won’t rip it up.

So what do we actually see?

We see footage of Chuck Todd’s Meet the Press interview with one candidate, Donald Trump. Does Trump contradict Cruz or Walker’s stance? No, because he is answering a different question, namely, what provisions should a deal with Iran contain that would make it better than the existing deal the president and John Kerry have fashioned. Trump tells Todd that he would require Iran to return the four American hostages before any negotiations would even begin. Then he says he would tell Iran up front they would never get the $150 billion dollars of Iranian assets the U.S. has frozen. In an apparent stream of consciousness, Trump proceeds to say that Iran would be getting wealthy anyway and would acquire a nuclear bomb, which would lead to a nuclear holocaust, which he has stated he is against, and which would happen if the Obama – Kerry deal receives official approval.

Nowhere does Trump say he is fine with the deal as it is or that he won’t rip it up. His answer to Todd’s question indicates he would have crafted a different, better deal for the U.S., which is what other Republicans have been saying the president should have done!

But the news writers at Fox made it worse for Ms. MacCallum. They then had her interview the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, for his take on Trump’s comments. He then destroys the Fox premise based on Cruz and Walker’s comments, and affirms what Trump said in his reply to Ms. MacCallum’s first, scripted question:

Well, instead of ripping up a bad deal, why don’t we prevent a bad deal, and hopefully, people in Congress on both sides of the aisle – you saw Senator Menendez come out today – hopefully, they will reject this deal and prevent it from happening, because it does many of those things, ah, that you just heard; uh, it actually paves Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. It doesn’t block it, and it also frees up a lot of money for Iran.”   (Italics and bolding are mine.)

So Dermer affirms Trump’s position and would prefer that the next president, whoever it might be, not have to tear up the Iran agreement but rather that Congress do something now to prevent the current deal and, by implication, hold out for one that is better for America and Israel, which is what Trump was saying to Todd: what he would do to make a better deal.

Shockingly, Ms. McCallum then asks Dermer: “When you look at Donald Trump – and I know you know Mr. Trump, you’ve met Mr. Trump – um, is he somebody that you want to deal with as president of the United States?”

Who gives a dog doo!? The Israeli ambassador will deal with whomever we elect and live with it. As a voter, I don’t care whether he likes Trump or Clinton or whomever. Whoever is our president is our president. It was just another salvo to get Republicans to be afraid of casting a vote for Trump.

After Ms. MacCallum took a quick swipe at Obama, which Dermer wisely rejected – he discerned what Fox was up to – saying the motives of either side should not be deprecated and debased, she went to another piece, a CNN poll, which showed Trump in the lead but, she quickly added, “it’s not all good news for Mr. Trump out there when you look at the numbers.” She then detailed that 58% of voters who are or who lean Republican think the party would have a better chance to win the presidency with someone other than Trump.

A Trump supporter, interviewed for that last portion of the Trump segment, had to point out that a poll of a broader spectrum of the electorate showed Trump’s 30-point disadvantage to Mrs. Clinton in a head-to-head questionnaire two months ago had eroded to a five point advantage today. Why didn’t Ms. MacCallum, or her Fox News producers, “look at” those numbers?

So that’s how Rupert Murdoch and his marionettes manipulated the entirety of the Trump segment, leeching leading questions and suggestions to facts and words isolated and withdrawn from their factual context to convey a sense of wariness:

  1. Trump wouldn’t rip up the current proposed agreement like Cruz and Walker would, ergo, he’s not towing the Republican line and isn’t as firmly against the Obama-Kerry agreement as Cruz and Walker; ergo, you shouldn’t vote for him.
  2. Our Middle East ally, Israel, may not want to deal with Trump; ergo, you shouldn’t vote for him.
  3. If Trump is the Republican candidate for president, Republicans will not win the White House; ergo, you better not vote for him.

Even Ms. MacCallum’s hotness cannot mask her enforced apostasy toward journalistic fairness and accuracy. She needs to exorcise herself of her demon. That would probably mean she would have to leave Fox and its false god, Rupert Murdoch.

Decisions, decisions, and with Hell to pay!

This post was last updated Thursday, Aug. 20, at 11:15 p.m. It corrects the spelling of Ms. MacCallum’s last name and fixes the use of “Miss” with “Ms.”. Though I have kept that it was the midnight Wednesday replay of the Tuesday Kelly File, it may have been the midnight Thursday replay of the Wednesday Kelly File. I can’t remember. It was late; I had come in from a six-hour drive; I was tired.