Quantcast
Connect with us

Host says Fox & Friends ‘only option’ for Trump because every other show calls him fat

Published

on

Brian Kilmeade said President Donald Trump has no other choice but to watch “Fox & Friends” because no other news shows treated him with respect.

The “Fox & Friends” co-host appeared on Wednesday’s “Breitbart News Tonight” to promote his new book and discuss why the president loyally watched and reacted on Twitter to the daily TV program, reported Right Wing Watch.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If you flip around, you understand why he watches us,” Kilmeade said. “I mean, we’re the only one that gives him a legitimate, fair shot. I mean, we’ll call him out when we think things are out of control, you know if those things that were said behind closed doors I think that’s ridiculous.”

Kilmeade was apparently referring to the president’s “sh*thole” insult against immigrants from African nations, which has been a top story on nearly every media outlet this week but Fox News.

“I’m not going to pretend that’s the No. 1 story in America every day,” Kilmeade said. “You know, we don’t get up every day and wonder if he’s really 239 pounds. We’re not going to spend two blocks talking about, ‘He has to lose 15 pounds,’ and, ‘Is his doctor competent?’ so that makes you the only option for him.”

Based on his Twitter reactions, Trump sometimes seemed to learn more from “Fox & Friends” than his presidential daily briefings — and Kilmeade said he and his co-hosts understood their influence with the nation’s chief executive.

“Absolutely, we take it seriously, but it’s kind of odd because we were the ones that had him on for eight years prior,” Kilmeade said. “He would call into our show every Monday or Tuesday.”

ADVERTISEMENT

That led to a personal relationship with the show’s team, who “started taking him out, thanking him for his contribution on Christmas, and next thing you know he’s president of the United States.”


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Here’s why Trump contradicted his own White House on the Supreme Court rulings

Published

on

Following the Supreme Court's pair of 7-2 decisions rejecting President Donald Trump's claim to have absolute immunity from subpoenas, he blasted the ruling on Twitter, claiming he being unfairly targeted and the victim of "prosecutorial misconduct." However, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany released a statement saying that "President Trump is gratified by today’s decision."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘They deserve it’: Republican strategist tells GOP it’s their own fault for going down with Trump because ‘they know better’

Published

on

Republican strategist Susan del Percio said that there is no excuse for GOP members who failed to do the right thing and fight back against President Donald Trump when they had the opportunity.

Speaking to MSNBC's Joy Reid Thursday, del Percio called Trump "the anchor" around the GOP's necks, "dragging them down."

"But, you know what, they deserve it," she continued. "There are Republicans out there that deserve this because they know better. They should have been better on impeachment. They should have been holding him accountable all along. Now they are scared and worried about themselves. Well, boohoo, you brought it on. there's no excuse."

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

‘The monarch has taken a body blow’: Ex-prosecutor explains why Court ruling is devastating for Trump

Published

on

On MSNBC Thursday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery broke down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling against President Donald Trump on immunity from subpoenas.

"I think what it says is that the monarch has taken a body blow as a result of what will be an historic decision, as we've indicated," said Flannery. "I think that the position of the DA in New York is very special, because he can speed this up in a way that the House can',t and has a specific strength, I think, in this case, that it is criminal."

"The most significant thing about it is this is the first Supreme Court case in which there's ever been agreed that a prosecutor could subpoena a president," added Flannery. "Prior prosecutions have been federal, that have been treated by the Supreme Court. So this is a big difference. The majority of the court, 7-2, basically said, from 1740 on, the public is entitled to the testimony, to the evidence of any person. They said that the documents — the question is the character documents, not the character of the person. In this case, what we have is a situation which I bet that the DA is going to go to the court as soon as possible, move to compel an appearance to their subpoena, and going to have the discussion as to what if anything may be limited or excluded and get production as quickly as possible."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image