Joe Scarborough

Tags ››› Joe Scarborough
  • The Four Ways Right-Wing Media Reacted To Trump’s Alleged Immigration Shift

    ››› ››› CAT DUFFY

    The right-wing media reactions to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s claim that he is considering softening his position on immigration, varied wildly, including criticizing his shift as a mistake, slamming his lack of policy consistency, praising him for “seeing the light on immigration reform,” and simply ignoring his latest comments entirely.

  • Media Hype “Optics” In AP Report On Clinton Foundation, While Admitting There Is No Evidence Of Ethics Breaches

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ & JARED HOLT

    Media are attempting to scandalize a report from The Associated Press that revealed that “[m]ore than half the people outside the government who met with now-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money ... to the Clinton Foundation,” calling the report “breathtaking” and “disturbing,” because it “looks bad,” and the “optics” and “perceptions” are problematic, despite the fact that their programs also note that “it wasn’t illegal,” and there was no quid pro quo. The focus on the “optics” of the situation rather than the facts has led some in media to criticize the reporting, and explain that “consumers of the media [should] think twice about whether or not the narrative” media are pushing “fits ALL of the facts.”

  • Despite Conspiracies, Gossip, And Race-Baiting, Fox News Says The Trump Campaign Is "Very Much On Message"

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Fox News is hyping an “on message,” less-fringy Donald Trump, claiming that “we haven’t had a pop-off” from the Republican presidential nominee “for a few days now.” But over the past few days,Trump has cited “misleading” statistics to make the point that “everything is bad” in black communities and has gone on a Twitter tirade against MSNBC hosts, while those close to his campaign have continued to push conspiracy theories about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s health.

  • Trump's Non-Apology Is Being Spun As His Latest Presidential Pivot

    ››› ››› NINA MAST

    Media again hyped a “pivot” and a “new tone” for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump after he said in a speech read off of a teleprompter that he “regret[ed]” “sometimes … say[ing] the wrong thing” and using rhetoric that “may have caused personal pain.” Trump gave the speech hours after his spokesperson suggested that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton might have a language disorder caused by brain damage.

  • Media Blast Trump For Criticizing Policies He Once Supported

    Trump's ISIS Speech Ridiculed: He "Supported Every Single Foreign Policy Decision He Now Decries”

    ››› ››› CHRISTOPHER LEWIS

    Numerous media outlets criticized and fact-checked the “contradictions” in Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent foreign policy speech, pointing out that he once supported several foreign policy decisions that he now claims he opposed. 

  • Running With Judicial Watch’s Storyline, Media Manufacture Another False Clinton Email Scandal

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Media are rushing to promote a new email dump from the conservative group Judicial Watch that they suggest, in the words of The New York Times, shows that the Clinton Foundation “worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department” under Hillary Clinton. But a closer look at the Judicial Watch emails suggests there is far less to the story than it appears and brings into question the conclusions the Times and other outlets have inferred from the newly released emails. Indeed, the very details that undermine those conclusions are frequently included in the reports themselves.

    Judicial Watch’s press release framed the emails as showing “Clinton Foundation Donor Demands on State Department,” and focused on two email exchanges in particular:

    The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.

    Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

    Media outlets across the spectrum immediately ran with the story, speculating the emails may, as the Times put it, raise “questions about whether [the Clinton Foundation] worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department.” The Wall Street Journal ran the headline “Newly Released Emails Highlight Clinton Foundation’s Ties to State Department.” A CNN.com article stated, “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.”

    On New Day, CNN’s Brianna Keilar called the Times’ allegations “unseemly at best,” suggesting the emails may have been inappropriate. Co-host Chris Cuomo said the Times’ report “show[s] pretty clear overlapping between what was going on at the Clinton Global Initiative and what was going on with Secretary Clinton.”

    Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, called the emails “fairly significant” and said they show at least “one example of the Clinton Foundation getting probably millions of dollars … and then having the foundation pick up the phone and say ‘help our donor over here.’”

    Co-host of Fox News’ Fox & Friends Steve Doocy said, “when you look at these particular email that you have released, it's pretty clear, if you want access to the State Department officials, big top government people, or even jobs, just give the Clinton family foundation a lot of money.”

    These accounts adopt Judicial Watch’s frame that Band, acting as an agent of the Clinton Foundation on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors, was wielding influence in the State Department. But Band was also a personal aide to President Clinton during this time period, and, as the Times noted, the Clinton campaign says he was acting in that capacity in these emails, which they say do not “involve the secretary or relate to the foundation’s work.” A fact sheet distributed to surrogates by the Clinton campaign and obtained by Media Matters states that Band sent the emails “on behalf of President Clinton from his presidentclinton.org email, not on behalf of the Foundation.”

    Moreover, neither the emails nor the news reports provide any evidence that Clinton Foundation donors impacted decisions Clinton made at the State Department. According to the Times, Band attempted to “connect” Chagoury with someone at the State Department to discuss “his interests in Lebanon.” But the actual email exchange provides no support for this claim -- Band gives no explanation for why Chagoury wants to speak to a “substance person re Lebanon.” The Clinton surrogates fact sheet states that Chagoury, who is of Lebanese descent, “was simply seeking to share his insights on the upcoming Lebanese election with the right person at the Department of State for whom this information might be helpful. In seeking to provide information, he was not seeking action by the Department.”

    Nor does the Times explain what Chagoury’s “interests in Lebanon” are -- while the language suggests he has business interests in the country, the paper provides no evidence that is the case. Chagoury has engaged in philanthropic ventures in Lebanon. In 2008, Chagoury made a $10 million donation “to fund the medical school” at the Lebanese American University and has been involved with a charity called In Defense Of Christians, which, according to its mission statement, seeks “to ensure the protection and preservation of Christianity and Christian culture in the Middle East.”

    Likewise, the Times report and other similar accounts also allege that “the foundation” attempted to influence Clinton aides to “help find a job for a foundation associate,” based on a Band email highlighted by Judicial Watch. But the email exchange these reports are pointing to clearly shows the “foundation associate” the Times refers to was never employed by the Clinton Foundation, according to the Clinton campaign, and the email exchanges themselves indicate that the State Department aides were already intending to offer the candidate a position. In comments to ABC News, State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau also noted that the State Department “hires political appointees through a ‘variety of avenues’ and suggested there was nothing unusual about this exchange,” adding “State Department officials are regularly in touch with a range of outside individuals and organizations including non-profits, NGOs, think tanks, and others.”

    Judicial Watch is a right-wing organization with a history of duping the press on Clinton email stories. The media should not be so quick to adopt their framing as the truth.

  • After Months Legitimizing Trump's Campaign, Joe Scarborough Demands GOP Remove Him As Nominee

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough -- who has a history of praising Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and who once said he would not rule out serving as his vice president -- penned an opinion article in The Washington Post demanding Republican leaders “examin[e] quickly their options for removing” Trump as the nominee.

    During much of Trump’s presidential campaign, Scarborough has praised and defended Trump, given him softball interviews, and bragged that Morning Joe’s supposedly accurate coverage of Trump “humiliated” others in the media. Scarborough has even said he'd be open to serving as Trump’s running mate, saying, “I would do just about anything to try to get the White House back.”

    But in an August 9 piece, Scarborough criticized Trump’s widely condemned remark that “maybe there is” something that “Second Amendment people” can do if Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “gets to pick her judges” as president. Scarborough wrote that the “Secret Service should interview Donald Trump and ask him to explain his threatening comments,” and that Paul Ryan and Republican leaders “should denounce in the strongest terms” Trump’s remark. He also urged the GOP “to start examining quickly their options for removing the Republican nominee,” calling Trump a “political train wreck.” From the piece:

    The Muslim ban, the David Duke denial, the “Mexican” judge flap, the draft dodger denigrating John McCain’s military service, the son of privilege attacking an immigrant Gold Star mother and the constant revisionism and lying about past political positions taken are but a few of the lowlights that have punctuated Donald Trump’s chaotic chase for the presidency.

    [...]

    The presidential candidate that House Speaker Paul Ryan endorsed tried to explain away his suggestion of an assassination by telling Sean Hannity his comments were meant to unite supporters before the election. It’s too bad for Trump and his supporters that his comments related to what Hillary Clinton would do after being elected and nominating Supreme Court justices that gun owners would not like.

    We are in uncharted waters but that does not mean that the way forward is not clear. It is.

    1. The Secret Service should interview Donald Trump and ask him to explain his threatening comments.

    2. Paul Ryan and every Republican leader should denounce in the strongest terms their GOP nominee suggesting conservatives could find the Supreme Court more favorable to their desires if his political rival was assassinated.

    3. Paul Ryan and every Republican leader should revoke their endorsement of Donald Trump. At this point, what else could Trump do that would be worse than implying the positive impact of a political assassination?

    4. The Republican Party needs to start examining quickly their options for removing the Republican nominee.

    A bloody line has been crossed that cannot be ignored. At long last, Donald Trump has left the Republican Party few options but to act decisively and get this political train wreck off the tracks before something terrible happens.

  • Weekly Standard Writer Slams Trump Over Report That He Might Consider Nuclear First Strike

    John Noonan: “Does [Trump] Understand Just How F’ing Dangerous That Is?”

    Blog ››› ››› CRAIG HARRINGTON

    A conservative national security expert and Weekly Standard writer responded with horror to a report that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly asked his foreign policy advisers, “Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

    During an August 3 interview with former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough relayed how “a foreign policy expert” advising Trump told Scarborough that Trump had asked the adviser three times, “If we have [nuclear weapons], why can’t we use them?” According to the network, Scarborough only learned of Trump’s baffling approach to the United States’ nuclear arsenal “in the last few days” before reporting it. From Morning Joe:

    Conservative national security analyst John Noonan -- who periodically writes about national defense issues for The Weekly Standard and previously served as an adviser to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and to 2016 presidential hopeful Jeb Bush -- slammed Trump on Twitter. Noonan’s nuclear expertise stems from his U.S. Air Force service, including work as a missile-launch officer at a nuclear silo in Wyoming. Noonan wondered if Trump understands “how F’ing dangerous” his foreign policy stances are, hit the nominee for “undoing 6 decades of proven deterrence theory,” and lamented the position of officers down the chain of command who are “[w]ondering if they’ll soon answer to a madman”:

    Noonan was not alone in criticizing Trump’s reported interest in using nuclear weaponry. Steve Breen, an editorial cartoonist for the right-leaning San Diego Union-Tribune, mocked the nominee with a depiction of a hypothetical President Trump being physically restrained from launching a nuclear assault in response to criticism from a constituent in Wichita, Kansas:

  • How Long Has MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Sat On The Trump-Nuclear Weapons Story?

    Blog ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    UPDATE: Joe Scarborough reportedly "learned of the exchange 'in the last few days,' according to an MSNBC executive." 

    MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said that “several months ago,” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert “three times in an hour briefing, ‘Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?’” The scoop has media figures asking how long Scarborough has had this information and why he is just now making it public.

    On the August 3 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Scarborough said, “several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump” and “three times in an hour briefing,” Trump asked, “‘Why can't we use nuclear weapons?’”

    JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

    MIKE BARNICLE: Wow.

    SCARBOROUGH: That's one of the reasons why he has -- he just doesn't have foreign policy experts around him.

    BARNICLE: Trump? Trump asked three times whether we can use nuclear weapons?

    SCARBOROUGH: Three times in an hour briefing, "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"

    Media figures immediately questioned how long Scarborough knew about this story and if he had known for “several months,” why didn’t he report Trump’s comments when they happened:

    For months, Scarborough has oscillated between supporting and condemning Trump, and he along with Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski have been criticized for their cozy relationship with the presidential nominee.