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]

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

I recognize propaganda when I see it, apparently you are better at spreading it than revealing it.

[Windflier]

“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.”

That closely mirrors my own shift of viewpoint during the primary, with one slight difference.

I believe it was just prior to Trump’s entry into the race, that Cruz voted for cloture on TPA. Up until that moment, I was 100% behind Ted. I’d even donated to his campaign, which is something I’ve never done for any politician.

But that one Senate vote shocked me so bad that I froze. For several days I didn’t know what to think or feel. I could not believe that Ted had just voted to open the door to giving Obama the power of trade promotion authority, also called ‘fast track’.

Waiting in the wings was the nation killing TPP, which would be stillborn without passage of TPA, which Ted had just given the breath of life. To compound his transgression, Ted co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed with Paul Ryan, extolling the virtues of TPP!

That should have been the end of Ted’s presidential campaign, but amazingly, few conservatives had any reaction at all to this blatant, overt, collusion with the globalist treason lobby.

I, and a handful of others, sounded the alarm about Ted’s TPA betrayal, but we were drowned out by the pro-Cruz contingent on FR, who wouldn’t hear a word of it.

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse wrote what is probably the best expose on this, that you can find. I don’t have a link to hand for that article, but it can easily be found on his website.

[Windflier]

...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.

So quit re-litigating it.

It's true that Ted won several primary contests, but most of them were caucuses, which were controlled by party insiders and apparatchiks. He struggled, and mostly lost, in states that held true primaries.

Ted lost the primary to Trump because he revealed himself to be something far different from his carefully crafted image. Week by week, his words and deeds showed voters that, not only was he not the conservative icon we'd been led to believe, he was also deeply flawed as a person.

Since peeling the onion layers off this guy, we now have a much better idea of what to expect from him, and Ted has played true to those expectations with flying colors.

[itsahoot]

Greta Van Susteren to leave Fox News after 14 years; Brit Hume named new anchor of 'On the Record'

A sample from this thread, I am not alone, in my opinion of FNC.

To: ObozoMustGo2012 Brit is a poisonous old snake ..... lots of viewers still doing their best to hang on by their fingernails to FOX as a somewhat conservative news outlet are going to give up the ghost .... and Hume is old enough to be one.

As an example: my 83 year old mother has given up on FOX - now gets her news from the internet ... she struggles with the computer, but she cannot stand listening to the anti-Trumpers polluting the airways on FOX any more.

56 posted on September 6, 2016 at 7:41:40 AM PDT by Qiviut (In Islam you have to die for Allah. The God I worship died for me. [Franklin Graham])

[Lakeshark]

but most of the polls still show Hillary in more-or-less a cake-walk.

"Most" polls are either tied with Trump surging, or with Trump ahead. It's what I thought would happen, and why I switched to Trump. He was the stronger candidate, the only candidate capable of beating this shrew and her paid for media. I'm sorry that offends you.

You received flack because you tried to claim you voted for the "most conservative candidate" Ted Cruz.

Which is demonstrably false, he's been outed (all by himself). That you didn't see that, after all the crap he's pulled, is why you're being a bit castigated.

Okay, so can we move on and defeat the most corrupt, greediest, untruthful candidate since Barky the great? We do this by electing Donald Trump, yes?

[BroJoeK]

Windflier: "It's true that Ted won several primary contests, but most of them were caucuses, which were controlled by party insiders and apparatchiks."

Thanks, I can confirm what you've said with the following maps.
The first shows those states which held primaries (purple) and those with caucuses (green).
The second map shows who won which states.
Note that of the eleven states Cruz won, only four were primaries -- his home state of Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho and Wisconsin.
The other seven were caucuses.

Windflier: "Ted lost the primary to Trump because he revealed himself to be something far different from his carefully crafted image."

That's the part I seriously doubt, because it does not correlate to my own experience, here in PA.
In PA, the minority who voted for Cruz expected him to be the more conservative candidate.
The majority who voted for Trump expected him to be, far from the "true conservative", rather a New Yorker along the lines of Rudi Giuliani, pro-US workers, a moderate and most important, a winner.

Your suggestion that Cruz is really a fraud and Trump the "true conservative" was no part of the conversation here, at the time.

[BroJoeK]

Lakeshark: "He was the stronger candidate, the only candidate capable of beating this shrew and her paid for media.
I'm sorry that offends you."

But that offends me not at all!!
Why do you think it would?
I'm totally happy with Trump as our candidate and agree with you that he is uniquely capable of slicing & dicing up Queen of the Hill in debates and other campaign activities.

Indeed, my concern has been that if Trump comes on too strong too soon, Hillary will bow out and they'll replace her with somebody else, God knows who... Biden?

I merely dispute your suggestions that somehow Trump was perceived as "more conservative" and Cruz as a fraud during the primaries.
Possibly in some states, here not so much that I ever saw.

Lakeshark: "Okay, so can we move on and defeat the most corrupt, greediest, untruthful candidate since Barky the great?
We do this by electing Donald Trump, yes?"

Of course.
You understand, I have never in my long life voted for a Democrat for any office.
Nor have I ever failed to vote in this country (one year, long ago, I couldn't get an absentee ballot while stationed in Germany).
So that's not the issue.
But it is a little amusing to see Trump portrayed as the "real conservative" when his biggest appeal in "blue states" like Pennsylvania is precisely that he's not.

But I sincerely hope you're right, and will not be soon disappointed.

[BroJoeK]

itsahoot: "A sample from this thread, I am not alone, in my opinion of FNC."

I "get" that, and thanks for your link, I had not seen it.

Fox news is still the most (really, the only) conservative network of its kind out there.
But if I'm driving in the morning and have the satellite choice of Fox & Friends vs. Breitbart, especially with Steve Bannon, I chose Breitbart every time.
If nothing else, the IQ level there is much higher.

[Windflier]

“Your suggestion that Cruz is really a fraud and Trump the “true conservative” was no part of the conversation here, at the time.”

Nonsense.

Although it’s a fact that most in this community believed he was a genuine constitutional conservative, many Freepers began discussing Cruz’s alleged conservative bona fides almost from the day he annonced.

Granted, such discussions were muted and somewhat sparse in early summer 2015, but they grew increasingly louder and more frequent as the weeks passed. I was here every day, and actively participated in those discussions.

Who can ever forget the Cruzer vs Trumpist wars of the last year? They practically caused a complete meltdown of Free Republic - and they started even before the voting began.

Ted started the race being the clear favorite of this community, and of conservative voters at large. By the time of the Iowa Caucus, he’d clearly lost the lead to Donald Trump, which was soon proven by the win/lose column of both candidates.

[Thank You Rush]

“”You can’t see what everyone else plainly sees.””

Horse hockey! You don’t speak for everyone. I have absolutely no problem with FOX nor do countless friends around the nation. FOX has the irritating liberals on for balance occasionally but so what? What on earth does anyone get out of watching only those whose opinions you agree with? Isn’t that what the liberals do that we all complain about?

[TTFlyer]

You’re right. I don’t speak for everyone. And neither does Limbaugh. Or you. Enjoy your Fox News garbage.

[itsahoot]

Fox news is still the most (really, the only) conservative network of its kind out there.

It isn't conservative by any stretch, it is just that the others are so bad, it appears ultra conservative. I have been a FOX fan since they first brought it to my provider. I had noticed the left tilt quite a while back because every field reporter was an apologist for Obama. The debate confirmed what I thought I was seeing. You are not my enemy but just because FOX is less left than the alphabets does not make them conservative or pro Trump which they are decidedly not.

Bolling and Hannity do not a majority make. Notice that in a 4 way race Trump waxes Hillary so FOX chose to use the head to head poll, all weekend.

I have FOX on now but I am not in love with them anymore and after his kids take over I will probably hate them like the alphabets.

[BroJoeK]

itsahoot: "Bolling and Hannity do not a majority make.
Notice that in a 4 way race Trump waxes Hillary so FOX chose to use the head to head poll, all weekend."

I've seen both polls on Fox, many times.
And Bolling + Hannity are far from the only Trump-friendly people on Fox.
The entire morning & daytime lineup, excepting Shepherd Smith, is Trump-friendly.
Some like Cavuto have their doubts, but they will never recommend Hillary over Trump.

In the evenings, the Five (including Bolling), Greta & O'Reilly are certainly Trump-friendly, though O'Reilly's ego is so colossal he likes to roll-play as Trump's boss!
Nevertheless, it's clear O'Reilly considers Trump one of O'Reilly's better employees.
That leaves Baier, Hume & Kelly.

Last night they were all full of negative stories about Hillary and positive remarks on how Trump's polls were "tightening".
On other days we might learn that Trump somehow "shot himself in the foot" or Hillary's "convention bounce" was a bit larger than "expected", if that's the news.
So I'd call all that "fair & balanced".

In Baier's commentary blocks there are always at least one pro-Trumper, and I'm still a huge admirer of Charles Krauthammer, even though he is not in love with Trump.

On these threads, posters have blasted Brit Hume as if he were, to use Boehner's words, "Lucifer in the flesh".
It's so bad here that Hume himself apologized for taking Greta's show last night, and promised it's only until the election.
But the truth is that Hume, like most Fox people, is a good guy, solidly conservative in his opinions though not always in sync with Trump.

itsahoot: "I have FOX on now but I am not in love with them anymore..."

I've never "loved" them, and what I dislike is inane human interest stories obviously intended for people of a younger and more feminine mind-set than my own.
So on a busy news day, where Fox & Friends is showing us turtles & snakes or outdoor barbeque, you sometimes have to turn to unwatchable MSNBC Morning Joe, just to see what's going on.

But during the day, if I'm driving with satellite radio (which I do a lot), I chose Breitbart in the morning, skip over Beck, then chose Rush (on AM) at noon, Hannity in the afternoon and Levin evenings.
Once in a while check in on Fox to see if anything's new.

Finally, I want to repeat something I've posted before: if you remember Reagan's 1980 victory over President Carter, you may recall that until the very day of voting, polls were all over the place, most showing it a tight race.
Not one predicted a Reagan landslide blowout.
Why was that?

Because Reagan's team did their jobs exactly right.
They never let our side believe we were winning, doubtless out of fear of complacency.
But there's another factor, and that is: they didn't want Carter's side to know how badly Carter was losing, for fear he might change tactics and pull in more voters.

With Hillary there's an high probability that her health or her emails, or who knows what else, may force her to drop out of the race if it looks like she's losing too badly.
So polls ideally will show a "tight race" until the very end when Trump voters, like Reagan's in 1980, will surge to vote and bury the wicked witch under a landslide of popular and electoral votes.

That's the ideal -- a very risky strategy, but the genius Reagan pulled it off, and I suspect Trump operates at that same level.

[BroJoeK]

Windflier: "Who can ever forget the Cruzer vs Trumpist wars of the last year?
They practically caused a complete meltdown of Free Republic - and they started even before the voting began."

Sorry, but when it comes to bloody internecine, fratricidal wars I'm a total pacifist.
I figured I'd be happy with either one, or ideally a Cruz/Trump or Trump/Cruz ticket.
Today I "get" that Pence is a much better choice for VP than Cruz would have been, but that was not obvious at the time.

Pence is the "real thing" which I then thought Cruz could be.
Cruz only lost my good feelings when he refused to outright endorse Trump.
Of course, it's not yet too late.
Cruz could still have a political future.

[Windflier]

Cruz only lost my good feelings when he refused to outright endorse Trump.

Then you've got a lot higher tolerance for betrayal of principles than I do.

I came to a full stop on supporting Ted when he voted for cloture on the TPA bill early last summer. Voting to end debate was a necessary step towards getting TPA passed, which itself was necessary to get the TPP passed (thank God it hasn't been).

This isn't rocket science now, nor was it then. Ted sided with Obama and the globalist NWO elite with that vote, and lost me for good. His subsequent behavior during the campaign sealed his fate with millions of other voters. In my view, the guy's political career is over.

[KeyLargo]

Top Media Reporter Hints Murdochs Could Tap CNN’s Zucker to Run Fox News
Breitbart ^ | 25 Oct 2016 | Daniel Nussbaum

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3484642/posts