Confirmed: Rupert Murdoch Instructed Fox News To Take Down Donald Trump August 2015…

Conservative Treehouse ^ | Posted on September 3, 2016 | sundance

[drewh]

In an extensive article within New York Magazine, mostly outlining the rather sordid details of Roger Ailes, readers may also note specific confirmation of something we outlined in August of last year (2015). Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch instructed Fox News executives to take down Donald Trump.

(NY MAG) […] Murdoch was not a fan of Trump’s and especially did not like his stance on immigration. (The antipathy was mutual: “Murdoch’s been very bad to me,” Trump told me in March.) A few days before the first GOP debate on Fox in August 2015, Murdoch called Ailes at home. “This has gone on long enough,” Murdoch said, according to a person briefed on the conversation.

Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox’s debate moderators — Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace — to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes, understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely thought it was a bad idea. “Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,” Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn’t fight Murdoch on the debate directive.

On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions. But it was Kelly’s question regarding Trump’s history of crude comments about women that created a media sensation. He seemed personally wounded by her suggestion that this spoke to a temperament that might not be suited for the presidency. “I’ve been very nice to you, though I could probably maybe not be based on the way you have treated me,” he said pointedly. (read more)

This is interesting on many levels, but more importantly for a few very specific confirmational aspects.

Last year many people were struggling to understand what was going on within Fox News. Many people saw the bias; even more people grew outraged at what they were witnessing; but unfortunately many people would not (or could not) accept what was brutally obvious.

Additionally, when CTH outlined the specifics of the factional alignment that was coming from this directive, multiple entities within the “conservative blog-o-sphere” claimed we were advancing some form of ridiculous conspiratorial analysis.

The last third of an earlier CTH outline, during this event timeline (July/August ’15), specifically warned Trump –in advance of the first debate– that Fox News had this intention. (Scroll down to the part of Megyn Kelly HERE).

Additionally, within the cited New York Magazine article you’ll note that Lachlan Murdoch personally instructed Harper Collins Publications, another Murdoch business, to give Megyn Kelly a $6,000,000 advance on a $10 million book deal. In 2015 when we found out who Kelly’s publisher was, we presented that specific prediction – again, in the face of much antagonism. However, we were correct.

Why is this confirmation important?

If you go through the timeline, and look at the confirmation in the NY Mag, you’ll note the specific group within Fox News who formed the internal Pro-Murdoch/Anti-Trump Fox coalition. They are: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace.

Not coincidentally these key Fox hosts were the ones specifically directed to take down Trump –AND– the three anti-Trump amigos on the Fox Debate Panel.

Rubio debate 2

Wallace, Baier, Kelly and (circled) Fox News VP Political Executive Bill Sammon – during debate preparations. Bill Sammon is the father of Marco Rubio’s National Campaign Spox, Brooke Sammon. Senator Marco Rubio was also the preferred candidate of Rupert Murdoch because of his immigration position.

Secondly, if you think about Baier, Kelly and Wallace beyond the scope of the debate itself, you might also begin to remind yourself –and cross reference in your mind– which Fox shows consistently highlight (what later became known as) ‘the #NeverTrump punditry‘.

Thinking specifically about Fox News and Brett Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. Now think about which shows give continual voice to: Brit Hume, Stephen Hayes, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Ben Shapiro, Rich Lowry, Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich, Chris Stirewalt and Guy Benson.

Never trump crowd

What you realize is the 2015 #NeverTrumper’s (pictured above) were/are almost exclusively booked for appearances on Rupert’s Three Amigo’s: Bret Baier (Special Report), Megyn Kelly (Kelly File), and Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday and Special Report).

These three Fox Hosts are the primary voices behind the Rupert Murdoch anti-Trump faction within Fox News. Remember when Donald Trump pulled out of the second Fox News debate:

Megyn Kelly tweet Stirewalt

Another key aspect to keep in mind is that Rupert Murdoch doesn’t operate alone. There are other media entities, not as big but still influential, that follow the exact same set of directives. The Salem Media Communications group is one example (Hot Air, Human Events, Twitchy, Red State, Hugh Hewitt et al), and iHeart Radio is another.

Just like Murdoch at Fox News, Salem Media Communications and iHeart Radio hold the same ideological objectives. Every entity within those enterprises is part of the same synergistic networking group. Politically, Club 4 Growth and a host of other PAC’s and political enterprises are funding mechanisms aligned in ideology and providing financial support to the aforementioned political media sales force.

As more and more people awaken to the reality they become increasingly self-aware. With that awareness comes a realization that conspiracy theories are quite often not just theory.

patriot

ps. Do you still think Chris Wallace should moderate the third presidential debate? …Knowing full well that the person who determines his income, Rupert Murdoch, has been specifically identified as giving instructions to Chris Wallace to take down Donald Trump?

[itsahoot]

Again, the bottom line is: there is no other similar network even remotely as Trump-friendly as Fox.

Ahh the old lessor of two evils defense. Cool.

[RipSawyer]

“One of them came back down after a meeting, and the makeup on her nose and chin was gone.”

How on Earth could something like that happen in a meeting between a man and a woman in a private office? I just don’t have a clue about such a thing but then I guess I ain’t too smart.

[BroJoeK]

"The straight news shows content is anti trump and moved hard that way as soon as Ailes was out."

I disagree on both points.

[BroJoeK]

"Ahh the old lessor of two evils defense. Cool."

Fox News will never be a propaganda outlet for Trump in the same way, say, the Clinton News Network works for Hillary.
But it is overwhelmingly Trump-friendly.
And I don't think he needs more than that.

[BroJoeK]

grey_whiskers: "You must not have fueled up with your Bowl of Stupid for breakfast this morning."

So, you are a master-troll?

[itsahoot]

But it is overwhelmingly Trump-friendly.

Just because you keep saying that does not make it true. I didn't see one friendly comment about Trump today on FNC, but I saw plenty of digs on Trump, even Ben Carson was asked if he was dumb.

[servantboy777]

This would make Fox no different than CNN, MSNBC, CBS...

[nopardons]

I bet that you believe every single thing found in THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OS ZION; don't you.

This is FREEREPUBLIC...NOT STORMFRONT!

The vast majority of people you named are NOT "Jews" at all; they are stinking LIBERALS and THAT and THAT ALONE is their religion. They are SECULAR JEWS, who don't practice the fiath of their ancestors.

And your anti-Semetic screeds are not only disgusting, but untrue, akin to blood libel and you should run away and join ISIS or HAMMAS, since you have more in common with THEM, than you do with the beliefs that this site stands for.

[Thank You Rush]

“”Never watch the Wallace, Kelly and Baier garbage and they spin everything.””

NEVER? So your opinions are based on what?

For years I’ve heard people say, “I can’t stand Rush Limbaugh.”

Question: “Have you ever listened to him?”
Answer: “NO!”

[Lakeshark]

Ted Cruz has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he is neither genuine, nor conservative. Please don’t make me explain the evidence for the umpteenth time.

Good answer Windy, I was going there until I saw your post.

[Windflier]

Apparently we’ve got a few Rip Van Winkles here. Some folks seem to have slept straight through the primary.

[PMAS]

*

[EDINVA]

Is there not something odd that Murdoch and Soros, both from other ends of the planet, are so influential in choosing who can/should run for POTUS?

[MinuteGal]

To answer your question, Money is Power anywhere on this planet...and both Rupert Morlock and Gorgon Soros know how to wield it for their own agendas and ideologies.

Leni

[BroJoeK]

itsahoot: "Just because you keep saying that does not make it true.
I didn't see one friendly comment about Trump today on FNC, but I saw plenty of digs on Trump, even Ben Carson was asked if he was dumb."

Obviously must be two Fox News channels.
The one I watch is totally Trump-friendly, aside from some "Fair & Balanced" commentators.

In this particular example, I'd call asking Dr. Carson about Trump's IQ (even if that really happened!) is a total softball, since nobody is better qualified to speak of Trump's high IQ than a recognized genius brain surgeon.

Seriously, what the h*ll is your real problem, FRiend?

[BroJoeK]

Windflier: "Ted Cruz has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he is neither genuine, nor conservative"

Lakeshark: "Good answer Windy, I was going there until I saw your post."

Sorry, FRiends, but Cruz won eleven deeply red-state primaries from Texas, Idaho & Alaska to Maine, based on the idea that he was the real, genuine conservative in the race.
In November those ten states will almost certainly vote for Trump over Hillary because Trump is the most conservative candidate left in the race.

So your ideas, that "lyin' Ted" is a fraud, were not generally accepted by many red-state conservatives at the time, and certainly does not need to be re-litigated now.

Trump is our man, for God's sake, so it's time for you people to get over Ted Cruz.

[generally]

I think it’s more likely that Murdoch is afraid that Trump might be elected, so he is trying to make nice in an effort to stay off Trump’s #!*% list.

[Lakeshark]

Well, brojo, you started this nonsense with your past dated idea that Cruz was actually some kind of conservative.

I once believed that too. When I originally changed from preferring Cruz to preferring Trump it was because I thought Trump was the better candidate for our time, not because I was upset at Cruz.

Then I saw him shed his principles, starting in Chicago when he ran to the cameras and blamed Trump for the violence perpetrated by the left. I watched as he curried favor with the very people he claimed to oppose, those who had worked against him, shedding skin after skin in order to gain some mythical edge he would never have.

Last, and most important, IF he were a genuine conservative, he would NOT have pulled his pouty, destructive, disunification stunt at the convention. Anyone who would do that thinks it's about himself, if he cared a whit for his "conservative principles" he would have unified and gone all in to give a beat down to the person and party that will destroy anything conservative if they win.

Frankly, I think he made a back deal with the Clinton/Soros machine, they fed his ego concerning his greatness, and they've promised him lots of crumbs in their kingdom.

He's become a sick shadow of a conservative, and has simply ruined his own career. Screw him and his pettiness, he's a fraud.

[BroJoeK]

Lakeshark: "Well, brojo, you started this nonsense with your past dated idea that Cruz was actually some kind of conservative."

No, I posted to defend Fox News against ridiculous charges that it is somehow "anti-Trump".
It's not.

In the course of which I mentioned in passing that I had voted for Cruz as the most genuinely conservative candidate.
Well, that passing mention attracted a swarm of hornets the likes of which I've seldom seen.
Suddenly it's not just that "Lyin' Ted" is a fraud, but also that Trump himself is the most conservative candidate ever.

Well, I can't and won't defend Cruz for his recent behavior, especially refusing a full-throated endorsement of Trump, but the fact remains, as I pointed out above that Cruz won 11 primaries in solid-red states, based on the idea that he was the most conservative candidate with a chance to win.
Where Trump was strongest is precisely those states (such as my own Pennsylvania) which seldom, if ever, vote for Republican presidential candidates.

That alone should tell you something.

Bottom line: Trump will almost certainly carry in the general those 11 states which Cruz won in the primaries.
Whether Trump can carry in the general many states Trump won in primaries is yet to be determined.

I hope so, and a few pollsters (i.e., Patrick Caddell) are saying this will be a game-changing election.
I hope he's right, but most of the polls still show Hillary in more-or-less a cake-walk.
Further, I can't forget in 2012 a well known former Democrat who kept telling us the polls were wrong and Romney would win.

We'll see...