Tag: bret baier
Donald Trump

Fox Glosses Over Millions Paid To Trump By Foreign Regimes

Fox News anchor Bret Baier provided one of the network’s few acknowledgements of a House Democratic report documenting millions of dollars in payments by foreign governments to former President Donald Trump’s businesses while he was in office. In a headline report taking up less than 40 seconds — the first mention of the story at all Thursday on Fox News — Baier focused primarily on the Trump Organization’s rebuttal, which attempted to change the subject to Fox’s shared obsession with Hunter Biden.

Fox News has spent years claiming that President Joe Biden was compromised by foreign governments — especially China — only to have a congressional report point the finger at Trump instead. Media Matters found that Fox’s dayside programming failed to mention this story at all, even though it had received extensive coverage Thursday morning in both The New York Timesand The Washington Post, as well as in Fox’s corporate cousin The Wall Street Journal.

Baier’s brief headline report featured two arguments from the Trump Organization: that Trump supposedly donated profits derived from foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury while in office; and that one of the highlighted business transactions involved a Trump Tower lease that was first signed in 2008, before Trump ran for president.

The Trump Organization stated in 2018 that it had donated over $150,000 to the U.S. Treasury, followed by more payments in 2019 and 2020, supposedly representing the profits derived from foreign governments doing business at Trump hotels. Even at the time, experts pointed out that the company provided no transparency into how this figure was calculated. (The House Democratic report revealed that the Chinese government and state-controlled entities spent $5.5 million at Trump properties throughout his time in office, and other foreign governments paid $2.3 million to his businesses.)

And the money spent at Trump’s properties is just one of many potential conflicts of interest highlighted in the House Democrats’ report. The report also mentions a story that ran years ago regarding Ivanka Trump’s apparent ability to fast-track trademark approvals in China after her father was elected. One such occasion, in which then-President Trump publicly supported the Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE, drew criticism at the time for creating at least the appearance of a serious conflict of interest.

Additionally, the argument that some of these arrangements may have predated Trump’s presidency underscores the vacuity of Fox’s ongoing coverage of Republican-led investigations into the Biden family — all of which are meant to provide a pretext to impeach Biden. Many of these supposed bombshell reports have focused on business deals by either the president’s son Hunter or the president’s brother James. Many of these supposed smoking guns have involved events that took place in 2017 and 2018, when Joe Biden didn’t hold any public office and seemed unlikely to ever do so again. And nobody has ever demonstrated actual involvement of Joe Biden.

Baier is set to host Trump on Fox next week, co-moderating a town hall event that Trump is holding with the network instead of participating in a Republican primary debate on CNN.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

How Trump's Interview With Baier Became  A Self-Incriminating Classic (VIDEO)

How Trump's Interview With Baier Became  A Self-Incriminating Classic (VIDEO)

Who knew that the name of a two-bit spray-tanned Fox News hack would be destined to be mentioned alongside the David Frost interview of Richard Nixon as a classic of the genre, but it appears that is where Monday’s Bret Baier Special Report interview with Donald Trump is headed. Well known celebrity interviewer Frost asked Nixon whether the president could do something illegal, such as taking action against certain anti-war groups “if he decides it’s in the best interest of the country or something,” to which Nixon infamously responded, “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Forty-five million television viewers watched that night, a record for the largest audience for a political interview in history.

A much, much smaller audience was watching Fox when Trump claimed, for what must have been at least the thousandth time, “First of all, I won in 2020 by a lot, okay? Let’s get that straight.” Baier, holding a sheaf of paper that appeared to have lists not only of questions, but of facts, pushed back by reciting a long list of evidence to the contrary: “There were recounts in all the swing states. There was not significant evidence of fraud,” to which Trump replied, “We were trying to get recounts, real recounts, not just numbers of votes cast.”

Baier forged ahead: “There were lawsuits, more than 50 of them, in front of judges you appointed, that came up with no evidence, no evidence, and they looked at every potential case of voter fraud in six battleground states, and they found fewer than 475 cases.” Trump, babbling over Baier the whole time: “You know why? They weren’t looking at the right things. They were counting ballots, not the authenticity of ballots. The ballots were fake ballots. This was a very rigged election.”

But it was when Baier got into the meat of last week’s indictment of Trump for improperly removing and then mishandling top secret government documents, that the interview really went off the rails for Trump. Baier asked him when he was subpoenaed by the Department of Justice for the documents he held at Mar-a-Lago, “Why not just hand them over then?” It’s a simple question, and it would receive a simple, if legally incriminating and confounding response, but Trump’s answer shouldn’t be seen in print without this screenshot of his face when he heard Baier’s question:

I wish you could hear Trump’s tone, which resembled nothing more than the voice of a little boy who had been caught with a rock in his hand standing on the lawn of a house with a broken window: “Because I had boxes! I wanted to go through the boxes, and get all my personal things out…(sputters)…I don’t want to hand that over to NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] yet, and I was very busy, as you have sort have seen.” A B-roll of the indictment appears on the screen as Baier tirelessly presses on: “But according to the indictment, you then tell this aide to move [boxes] to other locations, after telling your lawyers to say that you had fully complied with the subpoena when you hadn’t.” Trump looks frantic: “Before I send boxes over, I have to take all of my things out. These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things…uh…golf shirts, clothing, pants, shoes…there were many things…”

Baier manages to intersperse a short question, “Iran war plans?” Here's Trump’s face as he hears the question: “Not that I know of! Not that I know of!”


Baier then turns to the Iran war plan document referred to in the indictment in the transcript of a recording of an interview with ghost writers for Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, made at Trump’s Bedminster golf club in 2021. “The Iran attack plan. You remember that. You were recorded.” Baier continues, reading from his typed notes: “The indictment says, the recording and the testimony from people in the room say you showed it to people in the room there, that day. You say on tape, that you can’t declassify it, so why have it?”

“There was no document,” Trump asserts. “That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn’t have a document per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories, and articles.”

“I’m just saying what the indictment says, there were people in the room, who testified…”

“These people are very dishonest people. They’re thugs. They’re thugs. If you look at what they’ve done to other people…”

Tobias Barrington Wolff, the Jefferson Barnes Fordham Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, Carey School of Law, posted on his Facebook page a primer in the law, describing exactly what happened in Trump’s interview with Baier. Helpfully referring to Trump as “the grifter,” Wolff explained:

“The only way the grifter's own spoken words could be forcibly used against him at trial is if he chose to do exactly what he is now doing: Talk obsessively about the charges against him on camera at rallies and in interviews, hoping that his weaponized narcissistic bluster would once again allow him to escape accountability. Your Fifth Amendment right protects you against being ‘compelled’ to incriminate yourself; it poses no barrier if you want to bull your way in front of a camera and insist on doing so. And one of the main exceptions to the hearsay rule is a statement made by the party himself, which is helpfully referred to as an ‘admission’. The category of admissions is a broad exception to the hearsay rule. It means that other witnesses, like his former lawyers or Walt Nauta, could testify at trial to the things the grifter said to them while executing the conspiracy to obstruct justice. And it means recordings of the grifter's own out-of-court statements can be used to establish the elements of his offenses. It is just that, in a normal criminal trial, the prosecution does not have video of the defendant's own incriminating statements. But the grifter is helpfully providing those video admissions with every campaign speech and every interview he gives to a right-wing news outlet.”

The Florida magistrate in the case against Trump issued an order earlier on the same day of Trump’s interview with Baier forbidding him from disclosing “the Discovery Materials or their contents directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than persons employed to assist in the defense, persons who are interviewed as potential witnesses, counsel for potential witnesses, and other persons to whom the Court may authorize disclosure.” The magistrate went on to warn that disclosure of discovery material “may result in contempt of court or other civil or criminal sanctions.”

It is unknown at the time of this writing if any of Trump’s interview, particularly the part involving the Iran attack plans, amounted to disclosure of “discovery materials.” It is known, however, that pretty much the entire interview, from beginning to end, may one day end up as evidence in trials of Donald Trump in the classified documents case as well as any potential case the special counsel files against him for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

I will continue to watch for developments. Stay tuned.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Bret Baier

What Fox's Bret Baier Revealed About Himself In Texting With Carlson

On May 5, The Daily Beastreported on texts between Fox News anchor Bret Baier and the recently fired former face of the network, Tucker Carlson. The texts highlight Baier’s fixation on ratings above honest reporting and illustrate, yet again, that Fox News is a toxic brand for advertisers.

Baier is a supposed “straight news” anchor who is sometimes misleadingly held up as a more earnest, fact-based reporter as compared to his opinion-side counterparts despite his own history of shoddy, partisan hackery. In the texts, Carlson expressed concern over Fox News’ decision to call the 2020 presidential race in Arizona — an accurate call that was controversial only among right-wing election deniers — saying that they “could really fuck up a lot of what we’ve built” and Baier replied, “I totally agree.”

Carlson reached out to Baier to complain that he felt the network wasn’t taking viewer concerns about the call “seriously enough” and said they need to “reassure our core audience. They’re our whole business model.” Baier affirmed Carlson’s concerns and said that he was “pushing for answers” and that he thought “they will slow walk” calling Nevada’s race. Baier and Carlson strategized options for alleviating audience concerns as Baier agreed with Tucker’s claim that he needs “to do whatever I can to keep our numbers up and our viewers happy.” Baier also noted that he was “taking major incoming” regarding the decision.

As The Daily Beast reported, the texts illustrate that while Baier tends to represent the supposedly serious “straight news” side of Fox News, network figures will prioritize ratings over fact-checking no matter when their shows air:

The texts between Carlson and Baier stand in contrast to the respective reputations they cultivated at the network—with the former as the network’s leading right-wing firebrand seemingly at odds with the “hard news” side anchored by the latter.

And though Baier is often viewed as a consummate newsman, his texts here suggest a commitment to preserving a highly partisan, fact-averse audience over responsible newsgathering.

Fox News has long maintained that there is a difference between its “straight news” reporters like Baier and its “opinion side” hosts like Carlson, and the network has leaned on this excuse to maintain credibility with advertisers. Media Matters has long reported on the myth of Fox’s supposed straight news side, and the texts between Baier and Carlson only further illustrate that the entire network has a toxic fixation on prioritizing partisan, damaging lies over legitimate reporting.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Martha MacCallum and  Bret Baier

Fox Anchors: Viewer Reaction, Not Accuracy, Should Dictate Election Calls

Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum argued in the weeks following the 2020 presidential election that the network should consider a “layer” beyond “statistics and numbers” when projecting the election results, and instead take into account how its conservative audience would react to the network’s calls.

The New York Timesreviewed a recording of a Zoom meeting held on November 16, 2020, over a week after the network’s decision desk had projected Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The article details discussions between Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and the two purported straight news anchors on the continued political fallout over the network’s correct projection on election night that Joe Biden had won the swing state of Arizona. (Fox News later fired two key news executives who had presided over the call, which was factually correct and never reversed by any real-life developments.)

Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the two main anchors, suggested it was not enough to call a state based on numerical calculations, the standard by which networks have made such determinations for generations, but that viewer reaction should be considered. “In a Trump environment,” Ms. MacCallum said, “the game is just very, very different.”

Ms. Scott invited Mr. Baier and Ms. MacCallum, “the face” of the network, as she called them, to describe the heat they were taking, according to the recording reviewed by The Times.

“We are still getting bombarded,” Mr. Baier said. “It became really hurtful.” He said projections were not enough to call a state when it would be so sensitive. “I know the statistics and the numbers, but there has to be, like, this other layer” so they could “think beyond, about the.”

Ms. MacCallum agreed: “There’s just obviously been a tremendous amount of backlash, which is, I think, more than any of us anticipated. And so there’s that layer between statistics and news judgment about timing that I think is a factor.” For “a loud faction of our viewership,” she said, the call was a blow.

Neither she nor Mr. Baier explained exactly what they meant by another “layer.” A person who was in the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions said on Saturday that Mr. Baier had been talking about process because he was upset the Decision Desk had made the Arizona call without letting the anchors know first.

New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker and The New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser reported last year in their book The Divider that Baier had attempted to convince the network to retract its call of Arizona for Biden and to “put it back” as Trump winning, even though Trump trailed at the time by more than 10,000 votes.

“The Trump campaign was really pissed,” he wrote in an email to Jay Wallace, the president and executive editor at Fox. “This situation is getting uncomfortable. Really uncomfortable. I keep having to defend this on air.” He accused the Decision Desk of “holding on for pride” and added: “It’s hurting us. The sooner we pull it—even if it gives us major egg [on our faces]—and we put it back in his column the better we are in my opinion.

By the time of the Zoom meeting on November 16, there could not have been any remaining doubt over the fundamental accuracy of the Arizona call. Baier and MacCallum, however, were still arguing that it had been a political mistake for the network to be first on the air with this truthful story.

This newest reporting further reveals the extent to which Fox does not have a “straight news” side, but instead is just another cog in a right-wing propaganda machine. This story must also be considered in the context of revelations from Dominion Voting Systems’ ongoing defamation lawsuit against Fox, which reveals that Fox Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and other key executives knew that the Trump campaign’s conspiracy theories about massive electoral fraud were indeed false, but that the network continued to push them in the pursuit of profit.

In the two-week period after the Fox News decision desk had declared Joe Biden the president-elect, the network’s coverage undermined that projection by questioning the results of the election or pushing conspiracy theories at least 774 times.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.