Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Fox Spent Years Urging Republicans To Default On The National Debt To Hurt President Obama
Since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Fox News personalities have urged them to use the threat of defaulting on the sovereign debt obligations of the United States government as a means of winning political concessions. With Republicans now in full control of Congress, will the talking heads at Fox finally come to terms with this monumental threat to the global economy and urge the GOP to raise the debt ceiling?
Judges Highlight Senior Trump Advisor Stephen Miller's Statement On Fox As A Reason “Muslim Ban 2.0” Could Be Just As Unconstitutional As The Original
Senior presidential advisor Stephen Miller’s February 21 admission of intent on Fox News has ensnared President Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban in its second attempted rollout.
The Trump administration’s first version of the likely unconstitutional Muslim ban was previously blocked by multiple federal judges, and one of the decisions was already unanimously upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit court noted that Trump and his supporters’ previous statements expressing their intent to discriminate on the basis of religion and ban Muslim immigration can “be used in proceedings” to prove the policy’s unconstitutionality.
For example, Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani admitted to Fox News that after Trump announced the original “Muslim ban” the then-presidential candidate asked Giuliani to show him “the right way to do it legally.”
On March 6, Trump enacted a slightly altered version of the first Muslim ban, hoping to avoid judicial concerns with the possible unconstitutionality of the original. This new “Muslim Ban 2.0” was also immediately challenged and on March 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued a temporary restraining order on the ban.
In addition to referencing Giuliani’s admission of the unconstitutional religious discrimination behind the original ban, the district court’s decision also cites Miller’s February 21 appearance on Fox News. In that interview, while defending the second version of the Muslim ban currently under challenge, Miller argued that “nothing was wrong with the first executive order” and admitted to host Martha MacCallum that this redraft of Trump’s executive order would be designed to “have the same basic policy outcome” as Trump’s original rejected Muslim ban.
As the court explained, "These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose. Any reasonable, objective observer would conclude, as does the Court for purposes of the instant Motion for TRO, that the stated secular purpose of the Executive Order is, at the very least, 'secondary to a religious objective' of temporarily suspending the entry of Muslims."
From the February 21 edition of Fox News’ The First 100 Days:
MARTHA MACCALLUM (HOST): So, everybody is anticipating the next rollout of the next executive order, which is supposed to clarify some of the issues that were perhaps wrong with the first one and then got too caught up in the courts. So how is it going to be different this time?
STEPHEN MILLER: Well, nothing was wrong with the first executive order. However, there was a flawed judicial ruling that was erroneous. The president recently read the statute from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which clearly states, he has the power as president to impose any restrictions he deems necessary when it's in the national interest.
However, because of the exigency of the situation and the need to protect our country, and to protect our citizens, the president is going to be issuing a new executive action based off of the judicial ruling, flawed though it may be, to protect our country and to keep our people safe, and that is going to be coming very soon.
MACCALLUM: Alright. Grant Burschet is 18 years old, but he wants to know specifically how the second order is going to be different.
MILLER: Well, one of the big differences that you're going to see in the executive order is that it's going to be responsive to the judicial ruling, which didn't exist previously. And so these are mostly minor technical differences. Fundamentally, you're still going to have the same basic policy outcome for the country, but you're going to be responsive to a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court and those will be addressed. But in terms of protecting the country, those basic policies are still going to be in effect.
UPDATE: A March 16 decision from a federal court in Maryland, which blocked the revised Muslim ban as well, also cited Miller’s quote that the revised ban would keep the “basic policies … in effect.” The ruling noted, “The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban. The Trump Administration acknowledged that the core substance of the First Executive Order remained intact. ... These statements thus continue to explain the religious purpose behind the travel ban in the Second Executive Order. Under these circumstances, the fact that the Second Executive Order is facially neutral in terms of religion is not dispositive.”
Spread By Infowars, Reddit, Breitbart, And Other Conspiracy Sites, The Wiretap Claim Goes Back To The Person Who Said There Was An Obama "Whitey" Tape
Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, claimed that former President Barack Obama asked a British intelligence agency to spy on President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and the transition period and to provide the former president with transcripts of Trump's conversations. Napolitano’s claim can be traced in part back to an interview on the state-sponsored Russian network RT with a former CIA official who has accused John Kerry of war crimes, spread the 2008 rumor about a supposed recording of former first lady Michelle Obama “railing against ‘whitey,’” and now is floating "sedition" charges against former Obama officials.
Brigitte Gabriel Is The Founder Of An Anti-Muslim Extremist Group
On February 9, Fox News hosted Brigitte Gabriel to give commentary on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ refusal to reinstate President Trump’s Muslim. Gabriel, the founder of an anti-Muslim extremist organization, used the opportunity to propagate Islamophobic lies.
Gabriel is the founder of ACT! for America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says has "eagerly tapped into a groundswell of anti-Muslim rage and done what it could to fan the flames." She appeared on Fox several times after the Charlie Hebdo attack, despite her history of extreme Islamophobia. Gabriel was a guest on the January 7, 2015, edition of Hannity, where she said that Muslims in Europe "started multiplying" after World War II and did not assimilate and that Europe is "paying the price" because it "ignored the cancer growing within its body when it was at Stage Two." In her appearance on the January 8, 2015, edition of The Kelly File, she argued that the "Islamic religion" forbids Muslims to assimilate.
In September 2014, Gabriel told an audience at the Values Voter Summit that "180 million to 300 million" Muslims are "radical Islamists who are willing to strap bombs on their bodies and walk into this room and blow us all up to smithereens." In June 2014, Gabriel berated a Muslim student who had criticized members of a Heritage Foundation panel on Islam, calling her a liar and saying, "Your loyalty is somewhere else. It's time we see more patriotism from the Muslim community and less terrorism." During the 2016 presidential campaign, Gabriel accused Hillary Clinton of trying to “appeal to the Islamic vote” because the father of a Muslim mass shooter was seen at one of her rallies. In July 2016, Gabriel also claimed that “the majority of Muslims around the world … do not believe in man-made law” and are thus “not compatible with our constitution.” A prominent Middle East expert and editor of The Oxford History of Islam called Gabriel "a professional Muslim basher." From the February 9 edition of Fox News’ The First 100 Days:
Loading the player reg...
On the February 3 edition of Fox News' The First 100 Days, host Martha MacCallum asked an audience member if it was "true" that Iraqis who helped US soldiers in the Iraq War "feel slighted" by the Muslim ban. The audience member, American former Navy SEAL and Trump supporter Carl Higbie, had previously defended the prospect of a Muslim registry by referencing World War II Japanese internment camps in America as "precedent," a defense he later blamed on Megyn Kelly.
MARTHA MACCALLUM (HOST): Carl, you also served, Carl Higbie, in Iraq. you lost friends there. You worked with interpreters, no doubt. You worked with people in Iraq who were there to help. The feeling is that they feel slighted by this. That they’re not sort of embraced in this, is that true? Or not?
CARL HIGBIE: No. And the thing is, there are many interpreters who do feel that way and there's many that don't, such as Johnny Walker, who's been out on this program with you. To the issue of the fact that we are finally beating back ISIS, we’re not. Geographically they are shrinking in Iraq and Syria places like that, but the problem is they’ve metastasized now down to 20 or 30 different countries and that’s the fundamental misunderstanding of people who worked with the Obama administration that think they're winning the war against ISIS. We are fundamentally not. Anyone who says that we are should obviously take a look at the global prospects of this thing. The Syrian refugee thing that we stopped along with six other countries, we have to acknowledge the fact that Iran and places like that, some of these attackers didn’t come from Iran, they are the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. This is a start, much like Obamacare, nothing was perfect when they rolled it out, it’s not perfect now anyway, they made changes as they go along. Same with this. This is a 120 day moratorium. Things will be changed down the line and they'll be added and taken off and improved. This is a start to protect the United States of America.
President-elect Donald Trump agreed to pay $25 million to settle lawsuits alleging his for-profit business Trump University used aggressive sales tactics and unqualified instructors to scam students. Throughout the lawsuit’s litigation, right-wing news outlets helped shield Trump University from criticism by enabling Trump to lie about the institution and aiding his racist attacks on the judge overseeing the case.
Loading the player reg...
Fox News reported that crowds at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s polling place were “cheering him on” as he went to vote, even though multiple reporters from other outlets noted that he was booed.
As Trump exited his motorcade, Fox anchor Martha MacCallum reported that “you can hear crowds cheering him on as he goes in to vote.” From the November 8 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom:
MARTHA MACCALLUM (CO-HOST): There he is, waving to the crowd. But he has been a committed campaigner throughout the course of this journey. You hear the crowds cheering him on as he goes in to vote, extraordinary moment for Donald Trump. Melania, his wife, by his side.
Despite MacCallum’s account, several journalists on Twitter reported that Trump was booed, not cheered, at his polling place:
Scene outside PS 59 as Donald Trump arrives to vote for himself for the second time ever pic.twitter.com/u2ut5yjDss
— Noah Gray (@NoahGrayCNN) November 8, 2016
Trump gets heckled and boo'd as he votes in NYC.
— Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) November 8, 2016
Trump is being loudly booed at his polling place
— E McMorris-Santoro (@EvanMcS) November 8, 2016
— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) November 8, 2016
VIDEO: Donald Trump gets booed as he arrives at his polling place. pic.twitter.com/CJcmBIt9Zl
— Anup Kaphle (@AnupKaphle) November 8, 2016
I was saying Boo-urns
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 8, 2016
Loading the player reg...
Both Fox News Channel and Fox Business dedicated significant portions of their morning programing to misleadingly portraying the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) employment report for October 2016 as an "underwhelming" and "lukewarm" sign for the health of the American economy. While Fox was portraying this supposed economic weakness as a boon for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's election hopes, credible media outlets and economic experts were reporting that the jobs report actually showed a national economy that has been steadily improving over the past seven years.
Fox News’ Bret Baier walked back his November 2 claim, which was based on two unnamed sources, that FBI investigations relating to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will “continue to likely an indictment.” On the November 3 edition of Fox’s Happening Now, Baier described his comments as “inartful,” acknowledging that “that’s not the process.” Baier’s uncritical reporting of anonymous, unvetted sources has been parroted by a stream of Fox hosts and correspondents, as well as right-wing blogs.
The Daily Beast has reported on a pipeline between conservative FBI agents (both active and retired) -- angered by FBI Director James Comey’s conclusion in July that there was insufficient evidence to recommend any indictment in the review of Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state -- and Fox News. According to The Daily Beast, “Trump supporters with strong ties to the agency kept talking about surprises and leaks to come -- and come they did.” From the November 3 edition of Fox News’ Happening Now:
MARTHA MACCALLUM (CO-HOST): The FBI sources that you spoke with suggest that an indictment is likely. That would prove -- go ahead.
BRET BAIER: I want to be clear -- I want to be clear about this, and this was -- came from a Q and A that I did with Brit Hume after my show and after we went through everything. He asked me if, after the election, if Hillary Clinton wins, will this investigation continue, and I said, “yes absolutely.” I pressed the sources again and again what would happen. I got to the end of that and said, “they have a lot of evidence that would, likely lead to an indictment.” But that’s not, that’s inartfully answered. That’s not the process. That’s not how you do it. You have to have a prosecutor. If they don't move forward with a prosecutor with the DOJ, there would be, I'm told, a very public call for an independent prosecutor to move forward. There is confidence in the evidence, but for me to phrase it like I did, of course that got picked up everywhere, but the process is different than that.