Tag Archives: Bret Baier

When Your Interviewer Won’t Let You Change The Subject

Posted on by

Last night, Just the News posted an article about Vice-President Kamala Harris’ interview with Fox News host Bret Baier. The article described the interview as contentious.

The article reports:

Vice President Kamala Harris declined on Wednesday to answer why the majority of the country believes the United States is on the “wrong track” after three and a half years of the Biden administration. 

The question was posed by Fox News host Bret Baier during the vice president’s first sit-down interview with the network. The interview aired during Baier’s “Special Report” and was conducted in Pennsylvania. It focused on top voter concerns heading into the general election in November, such as immigration and the economy. 

“More than 70% of people [say] the country is on the wrong track,” Baier said. “If it’s on the wrong track, that track follows three and a half years of you being vice president and President [Joe] Biden being president … Why are they saying that if you’re turning the page, you’ve been in office for three and a half years.”

Harris pushed back that former President Donald Trump has been “running for a decade,” to which Baier questioned what she meant.

“What I’m talking about is that over the last decade … it is clear to me and certainly the Republicans who are on same stage with me, the former Chief of Staff to the President Donald Trump, former Defense Secretaries, national security adviser and his vice president, one, that he is unfit to serve, that he is unstable, that he is dangerous, and that people are exhausted with someone who professes to be a leader who spends full time demeaning and engaging in personal grievances and it being about him instead of the American people. People are tired of that.”

When Baier pushed about more than half the country supporting Trump, despite Harris’ claims about people being tired of him, she merely stated that elections are “not supposed to be easy.”

The nearly 30-minute interview featured other moments where Harris and Baier spoke over each other, including on the more controversial topics like Biden’s mental acuity. They also kept interrupting each other on the first question, regarding border security and immigration.

There are various clips of the interview all over the internet. The bottom line is that Kamala Harris did not do well and her handlers are claiming that she was ambushed. The interview was so bad that President Trump has posted the full interview on his X account. This ‘lady’ clearly is not qualified to be President.

This Was Election Interference; No Penalties Were Paid

Posted on by

On Saturday, Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line Blog about a recent television interview with former CIA Director Leon Panetta. Leon Panetta was one of the 51 people who signed the letter declaring information about Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation. It should be noted that the FBI and other government agencies knew at the time that the laptop was real. It should also be noted that no one has been held accountable either for the information on the laptop or for lying about the laptop.

The article notes:

If you need a refresher, review Natasha Bertrand’s October 19, 2020 Politico story on the letter. Politico posted the letter here. (Bertrand now works as a “National Security Reporter” for CNN.)

The letter an information operation, but it was a Biden campaign information operation assisted by the campaign’s press adjunct. Appearing on Fox News’ Special Report yesterday to discuss the Hamas/Israel war, Bret Baier asked Panetta if he stands by the letter (video below). Of course he does. The man has no shame. He’s still dirty after all these years.

So you were part of a deliberate lie that influenced an election, and you have no regrets. How sad for you.

If You Watch The Mainstream Media, You Are Uninformed

Posted on by

Newsbusters posted an article today about some recent economic news reported by the major networks.

The article reports:

Another astounding market rally, another big chunk of good market news ABC’s, CBS’s and NBC’s evening news shows censor because it isn’t anti-Trump.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 27,000 Wednesday, “extending a market rally and returning the index to a level it first hit a year ago and last touched in early June,” according to The Hill. The new figure (27,006) put “the Dow within striking distance of erasing its losses for the year.” ABC World News Tonight with David Muir, CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt all censored the news last night.

By contrast, consider when the Dow dropped 1,000 points beneath 25,000 before rallying a bit later Feb. 28 to cap off Wall Street’s “worst week since the [2008] financial crisis.” On that day, the Big Three gave the negative market news a whopping 313 seconds of coverage collectively — or more than five minutes.

That’s 313 seconds for negative news versus 0 seconds for positive news. Seems like a pretty massive bias. 

Fox News’s Bret Baier did report the stock market news Wednesday during his 6:00 pm broadcast of Special Report. Maybe the Big Three should take notes from Baier.

The article also notes:

Both CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in particular did find the time to boost presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s flat-out lie that President Donald Trump was a racist president.

But the Dow’s performance isn’t all the good market news yesterday had to offer last night. “Sales of previously owned homes rose 20.7% in June over the prior month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.72 million,” according to The Wall Street Journal July 22. This, according to The Journal, was “the biggest monthly increase on record going back to 1968.” [Emphasis added.]

It’s difficult to have a fair election when the news sources that many Americans depend on refuse to report the news in an unbiased manner. Hopefully, most Americans have learned to look beyond the propaganda and search for the facts.

I Wondered When I Heard This

Posted on by

Last night Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was interviewed by Bret Baier on Special Report. During the interview, Representative Ocasio-Cortez accused Republicans of loading up the relief package for the coronavirus with anti-abortion restrictions. Bret Baier did not challenger her statement, and I wondered what was actually going on. The statement on its face makes no sense–the Republicans want to get an economic package through Congress as soon as possible. Why would the Republicans add things to a bill that would make it difficult to pass? Well, I now have the answer–they didn’t. Representative Ocasio-Cortez was lying and Bret Baier chose not to challenger her statement.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article that explains what Representative Ocasio-Cortez was talking about.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to include a potential way to guarantee federal funding for abortion into the coronavirus economic stimulus plan, according to multiple senior White House officials.

Speaking to the Daily Caller, those officials alleged that while negotiating the stimulus with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Pelosi tried to lobby for “several” provisions that stalled bipartisan commitment to the effort. One was a mandate for up to $1 billion to reimburse laboratory claims, which White House officials say would set a precedent of health spending without protections outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment blocks clinics that perform abortions from receiving federal funding, and Democrats have pushed the Trump administration to end it since he was elected in 2016.

“A new mandatory funding stream that does not have Hyde protections would be unprecedented,” one White House official explained. “Under the guise of protecting people, Speaker Pelosi is working to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent covering abortion — which is not only backwards, but goes against historical norms.”

A second White House official referred to the provision as a “slush fund” and yet another questioned “what the Hyde Amendment and abortion have to do with protecting Americans from coronavirus?”

I wonder how many Americans were mislead when Bret Baier did not challenge the statement by Representative Ocasio-Cortez. This is an example of the reason Americans have to question everything they hear–even if it comes from a generally accurate source.

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Posted on by

Mediaite posted an article this morning about the ongoing impeachment hearings. Before I continue, I need to share the following from a website called Media Bias/Fact Check:

True to form, this is the Mediaite headline, “Fox’s Bret Baier: Trump Gave Schiff a New ‘Article of Impeachment in Real Time’ With Twitter Attack on Yovanovitch.” I guess Harry Truman would not be able to be President in today’s politically correct world.

The article reports:

The dramatic moment during Friday’s House Impeachment hearing in which Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) read out President Donald Trump’s tweet blasting former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch in real time — with Yovanovitch saying she finds the tweet “very intimidating” — may have amounted to an on-the-spot article of impeachment, according to one Fox News anchor.

Weighing in immediately after the hearing went to recess, Fox anchor Bret Baier said that the president gave Schiff ammunition in real time on Friday morning with the attack.

“That enabled Schiff to then characterize that tweet as intimidating the witness, or tampering with the witness, which is a crime, adding essentially an article of impeachment in real-time as this hearing is going on,” Baier said.

If a tweet is grounds for impeachment, no elected official who disagrees with the ‘powers that be’ is safe. This is scary.

These are the tweets:

Draw your own opinion.

A Wall For Thee But Not For Me

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some recent comments by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. It seems that walls work in other places, but they don’t work in America when President Trump wants them.

The article reports:

Baier (Bret Baier of Fox News)pressed on this point, asking Hoyer about border barriers that have already been built: “Would you remove those existing barriers because you say they don’t work?”

“No, no,” Hoyer replied.

“So they work there?” Baier asked. Hoyer rambled for a bit about people living along the Rio Grande and eventually, Baier asked him again, “So they work some places.”

“Obviously they work some places,” Hoyer said as if it hadn’t taken three minutes of concerted effort to get him to admit the obvious.

Not only do they work in some places, America has helped finance them in some places.

Some places in the world where border walls are used for security:

India and Pakistan

Morocco and Algeria

Israel and the West Bank

Cyprus

Northern Ireland

Saudi Arabia and Yemen

Saudi Arabia and Iraq

Turkey and Syria

Kenya and Somalia

The list is courtesy of The Washington Examiner.

So even some Democrats know that walls work, and the amount of money requested to build a wall is a totally insignificant part of the budget, so what is this about? Do not be fooled. The establishment Republicans do not want the wall any more than the Democrats do. To the Democrats, open borders represent future voters. To the Republicans, open borders represent cheap labor for their corporate sponsors who belong to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. There is also the added aspect of the Washington establishment finally getting a victory over President Trump. The only way Americans are going to ever have a voice in Washington is if they clear out ALL of the establishment politicians in both parties. Term limits might be a really good place to start.

This Is Disturbing

Posted on by

Below is the video posted at Fox News of a U.S. security team stationed in Benghazi in September 2012 telling their story of what happened the night of the attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi.

As you will see in the video, all three men claim that had they been allowed to go to the annex when the attack started, they believe the outcome of the battle would have been different. The men claim to have been told to ‘stand down’ by the top CIA officer in Benghazi. After waiting for thirty minutes, the men went to the annex without orders. They asked their CIA superiors to call for air support, but that support never came.

I have no idea why these men were delayed and not given the necessary support, but it seems to me that almost two years after the event, the American public should have those answers. I hope the Congressional Committee investigating this can provide those answers. I feel very strongly that the American public has been routinely lied to by the Obama Administration about Benghazi and that we are entitled to know the truth about what was going on in the annex and why the American military did not properly respond to the attack.

_