The United States of Trump

by Bill O'Reilly

  Megyn Kelly chose my path.

  The behind-the-scenes prep for any debate is intense. The moderators usually do much more homework than the candidates. With three people asking questions, there has to be a division of labor. All hands have to know what’s on deck to avoid redundancy and confusion.

  So, you have a battery of producers dividing up questions among the moderators and deciding to whom each question will be directed. At this point, things can get testy. When you have three ambitious journalists, everyone wants significant airtime and to ask questions of specific candidates. Baier, Wallace, and Kelly knew that all eyes would be on Trump—that was the zone where news would be made.

  Fox News Channel debate prep had been a three-week process. From the beginning, there was tension between Kelly and the men. She knew she was a prime-time queen, and was in no mood to be a team player. Baier, Wallace, and the producers were tentative around Megyn, knowing how much power she had within the organization.

  Shortly before the debate began, a decision was made to have each moderator quiz the candidates on their “vulnerabilities”—that is, their weak points.

  Kelly wanted Trump.

  Kelly got Trump.

  That decision was not political in any way. The consensus about Kelly was that she did not care much about ideology. She was not a political party person. Her focus was primarily on herself.

  And, by extension, on Donald Trump.

  * * *

  THE DEBATE OPENED with a few questions of little consequence, the candidates and moderators feeling each other out.

  Then, in what would become one of the most famous political debate moments of all time, Megyn Kelly suddenly morphed from a journalist into a prosecutor. Her voice firm, her eyes locked on candidate Trump, she commanded the room.

  KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is that you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals.” Your Twitter account—

  TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.

  KELLY: No, it wasn’t. For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

  TRUMP: (sarcastically) Yes, I’m sure it was.

  KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

  TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time, either. The country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico, both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. And frankly, what I say—and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding; we have a good time. What I say is what I say, and honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you’ve treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.

  * * *

  THE REST OF the debate unfolded with no candidate standing out. However, Donald Trump spoke the most, clocking in at ten minutes, thirty-two seconds. Jeb Bush was next, at eight minutes, thirty seconds. The other eight candidates barely had enough time to introduce themselves. It was clear that the Fox News crew believed Trump and Bush were the front-runners, with Cruz and Rubio second tier.

  Megyn Kelly whispers to Chris Wallace, her fellow Fox News moderator, during the first Republican presidential primary debate, at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, August 6, 2015. Looking on from the stage are candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida.

  That first showdown in Cleveland was the most discussed of the twelve debates, and by far the most dramatic with the Trump-woman component.

  * * *

  IF YOU WATCH the video of the Kelly-Trump interaction, a few things emerge. Kelly’s tone is accusatory, not inquisitive. She had a perfect right to pose that kind of provocative question to a politician, but there was an advocacy to her query, and the words “war on women” are instructive.

  What war on women? That has not been established as fact—it’s an opinion. So, Kelly linking Donald Trump to a subjective point of view he might not agree with could be considered unfair and biased against him.

  Megyn Kelly’s question was obviously deeply researched and painstakingly written out. It was clearly not designed to have Trump explain anything. Rather, the question was the classic “gotcha” query, a journalistic hand grenade that could not be challenged because Mr. Trump had, indeed, used pejorative language toward some women. But under what circumstances? The potential voter could not possibly know.

  In her multifaceted question, Kelly did not provide any context for her litany of verbal accusations against Trump; nor did she frame her words in any other way but as condemnation.

  It might be argued that Kelly wanted to be perceived as holding a brutish man responsible for verbally assaulting a number of unidentified females, rather than trying to elicit an important response from a presidential candidate. Her tone starkly implied that women were “victims” of candidate Trump and that she, in virtue, was calling him on it.

  Subsequently, Megyn Kelly advanced that “protector of women” theme on many occasions against many men, in effect, becoming a one-person media judge and jury.

  Because of Kelly’s challenge and her insinuation that Donald Trump was irresponsible toward women, the candidate faced the issue throughout the campaign. His enemies, often militant anti-Trump lawyers, besieged him with accusations, which the press then gleefully exploited.

  Even when it was proved that some women were paid to accuse Donald Trump of wrongdoing, the theme continued; Trump was disrespectful to women, and no female should ever vote for him.

  It is worth noting that a few weeks later, Mr. Trump would actually increase the gender pressure on himself by making fun of candidate Carly Fiorina’s face. Months after that, a video was made public in which Donald Trump was caught describing his awful conduct toward women. Later, we will chronicle that story in these pages.

  On this debate night, Megyn Kelly’s question could, of course, have been much shorter and delivered in a far more objective way.

  For example: “Mr. Trump, in the past you have publicly insulted some women by mocking their appearances. Do you regret doing that, especially because you are now seeking the highest of office in the land?”

  Very tough question but not nearly as provocative as the one Megyn Kelly put forth. Also, depending on how Trump answered, follow-up questions could have more clearly exposed his attitude toward civil discourse when discussing women.

  For his part, Donald Trump stayed cool on the debate stage, but he was angered. He attempted to deflect the question as a trifle compared to the big problems facing the country. But then he got personal, his annoyance toward Kelly becoming obvious.

  As a high-profile anchor at Fox News, I instantly knew that the media would be asking me about the debate controversy, as it was the story emerging from the telecast.

  Although I thought Megyn’s tone was harsh and calculated to bring attention to herself, in my opinion, the woman question was a legitimate one. However, nuance would never be reported by the press, which basically wanted to create trouble for Fox News and Donald Trump. Anything I opined would be used in a harmful way, no matter how well thought-out it was.

  So, I decided to say nothing, a rarity for me, until I told candidate Trump on the air that Kelly’s question was within journalistic bounds. Apparently, Megyn took offense that I did not use my program to immediately support her, and she was not shy
about stating that on many occasions.

  Speaking for FNC, Roger Ailes publicly stood by Megyn Kelly, but the backstory is fascinating and did have a direct effect on the presidential campaign.

  The day after the debate, Kelly was lionized by the liberal media but condemned by many conservatives. Overnight, she became a polarizing figure. Trump supporters loudly criticized Megyn, and a good number of those folks watch Fox News. So, even as Megyn was being worshiped in the anti-Trump precincts, there was trouble in Fox News City.

  Later, the New York Times and others would speculate, using Kelly’s 2016 book Settle for More as a source, that there had been “collusion” before the debate between Megyn Kelly and Fox News management on the Trump question. That is false.

  On debate night, Roger Ailes and his wife, Beth, were watching the telecast in their Cresskill, New Jersey, home. According to Mrs. Ailes, as Megyn Kelly began reciting the list of offenses she assigned to Trump, the Fox News chairman bolted upright and said, “What the f*** is that? I can’t believe she’s doing that!”

  Ailes spent much of the night and all of the next day fielding calls about the situation. One of those calls was from Donald Trump.

  The Fox News boss also made some calls himself—one of them was to debate producer Bill Sammon. Ailes was furious over the Kelly question because it was making his life a living hell.

  * * *

  THERE HAS BEEN so much false stuff written about Fox News that it actually rivals the inaccuracies stated about Donald Trump. Agenda-driven writers rarely tell the truth, and it is important that Americans understand that.

  Maverick journalist Hunter S. Thompson did state the truth about journalism more than forty years ago: “There are a lot of ways to practice the art of journalism, and one of them is to use your art like a hammer to destroy the right people … who usually deserve to be crippled because they are wrong.”

  Thompson’s statement sums up the attitude of “advocacy” news agencies. They were small and rare when he was reporting in the 1970s and ’80s; now they are common. Corporations well understand that millions of Americans want their political and social opinions reinforced in the media. So, many folks choose to consume news from ideological operations, and there are vast amounts of money to be made from those slanted presentations.

  If an information outlet clearly defines its point of view, there should not be a beef. The consumer then knows what he or she is getting. But when a newspaper like the New York Times markets itself as an unbiased news provider, the entire industry is severely damaged. Nonliberals will not get a fair hearing in the Times. Or at CNN. Or at MSNBC. Or at the Washington Post—and there are plenty of others. In fact, all those agencies have used their power to “get” certain individuals, Donald Trump being one of them.

  When he began his quest for the presidency, Trump naïvely thought he could win over some media people to his cause. Fox News was among that group.

  But Roger Ailes, having a close relationship with the Bush family, initially favored Jeb Bush. Ailes, however, rarely imposed his belief system on his employees, understanding that is dangerous for any news executive to do.

  In my twenty-plus years at FNC, neither Ailes nor anyone else even suggested a political point of view to me.

  It was known within the organization that Roger Ailes did not believe President Obama’s policies had been successful, but while tough on Mr. Obama at times, FNC did not push any of the Republican candidates, allowing the GOP chips to fall where they might.

  * * *

  THE DAY AFTER the Kelly-Trump shootout, Friday, August 7, 2015, Roger Ailes was driving with his teenage son to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, for a tour of the Civil War battlefield.

  Ailes had spent the morning trying to figure out how to handle the Kelly controversy. First, he believed that no one in Fox News management knew in advance that Megyn was going to drop a verbal bomb on Donald Trump. Then the question becomes: Did Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, and their producers know in advance and not tell management?

  Within Fox News headquarters, the word was that Kelly’s question was discussed among the moderators, but no one called Roger Ailes about it. Apparently, there was also some discussion about the ramifications of Kelly confronting candidate Trump, but everyone knew that Megyn Kelly was not subject to the same rules that governed most FNC employees. So, in effect, she was on her own if she tossed the Molotov cocktail.

  As chairman of Fox News, Ailes knew he had to support Megyn Kelly, or the press, hostile to FNC in general, would crush the organization. A news agency simply cannot side with a political candidate over a handpicked debate moderator because it would lose all credibility.

  So, when candidate Trump’s call came in to Roger Ailes as he sat in the backseat of a car with his son, the conversation was strained. Ailes had known Donald Trump for years, and the two men went at it. Trump’s position was that Megyn Kelly had purposely embarrassed him, and that Ailes should scold her publicly.

  Ailes replied that this was not possible but that he would speak with her in private. Donald Trump said that that was not acceptable and that he would no longer deal with FNC.

  That scenario was related to me by Roger himself, who was agitated by the entire situation. I told him that Trump needed Fox News and that he would eventually cool down.

  I was half right, as we will see.

  After the first debate, few political analysts really knew how the American public would react, including me. We had to wait for polling to indicate how much, if any, damage had been done to Donald Trump by Megyn Kelly.

  We didn’t have to wait long.

  CHAPTER TWENTY

  NEW YORK CITY

  AUGUST 18, 2015

  EARLY EVENING

  Donald Trump is back. Eleven days after threatening to declare war on Fox News over the Megyn Kelly incident, the candidate sits in his Trump Tower office feeling very confident before his interview with me on the Fox News Channel.

  That’s because a number of post-debate polls have rolled in showing Mr. Trump with a commanding lead among likely Republican voters, even after the Kelly question and some controversial comments by the candidate afterward.

  The consensus polling has Trump at 24 percent, Jeb Bush at just 13 percent, and Ben Carson rising to 9 percent.

  It looks like the Kelly thing actually helped candidate Trump in the polls.

  It is clear Governor Bush is in trouble, even though there is no single reason that his campaign has not caught on. Bush has plenty of money, but, inexplicably, he avoids TV programs like mine, where he could get free airtime and mix it up a little.

  But he’s Dr. No, almost every time we call.

  In contrast, Donald Trump is everywhere. The guy would do Chiller Theatre if he thought he could get a few votes. And there are plenty of invitations because, as stated, Trump brings in viewers.

  But my analysis zeros in on another reason the TV moguls are courting Donald Trump. The feeling among many in the Manhattan media precincts is that Hillary Clinton is a lock for the Democratic nomination. The topic is discussed openly in the saloons off Sixth Avenue, where many press people slake their thirst.

  The prevailing wisdom is that Bernie Sanders has a following but that Mrs. Clinton has the liberal donor class, and the fix is in. The so-called “superdelegates,” who are allowed to vote any way they want at the convention, will go big for the former secretary of state.

  And that is exactly what will happen.

  But the fix extends far beyond party politics. Some media decision makers, such as CNN chief Jeff Zucker, a former friend of Donald Trump, enjoy cake, eating it, and digesting the sweet while shaping the presidential race. Zucker knows Trump is great for his network’s ratings, but he also believes Hillary Clinton will annihilate Trump in the general election, a satisfying outcome for the very liberal Zucker and other media poohbahs who see it the same way.

  So, “let’s get Trump on” becomes the mantra of the TV news industry. “We win both ways
because he’ll never beat Hillary, while Marco Rubio just might.”

  While preparing for the interview with Trump this evening, I have to decide whether to ask him about Megyn Kelly. A few days after the first debate, the candidate called me at home and vented about Kelly. He wanted my opinion, but all I said was that the question had been legit. I did not criticize Kelly because I don’t do the behind-the-back stuff. I did tell Mr. Trump that I would have asked the question differently but did not define it further. Luckily, Trump was so fixated on chastising Megyn that he didn’t ask.

  In addition, Fox News was still hearing from angry viewers, and Roger Ailes wanted the situation to recede. I understood that if I shot it out on the air with Trump over Megyn Kelly, something the candidate would relish, it would blow the entire thing up again.

  Roger had been good to me, so I decided to avoid the Megyn subject entirely, even though no one suggested that I do so. Looking back, I think I made the right decision.

  Kelly aside, it was clear to me that Donald Trump was gaining support by hammering two selected groups: illegal aliens, especially those convicted of crimes; and violent Muslims.

  I already had Trump on the record about radical Islam when he briefly explored running for president in 2010.

  O’REILLY: Do you believe, overall, there is a Muslim problem in the world?

  TRUMP: There is a Muslim problem, absolutely. You just have to turn on your television set.

  O’REILLY: And you think it encompasses all Muslims?

  TRUMP: No, and that’s the sad part about life, because you have fabulous Muslims. I know many Muslims, and they’re fabulous people … Unfortunately, at this moment in time, there is a Muslim problem in the world. And you know it, and I know it, but some people don’t like saying it because they think it’s not politically correct.