Bernie’s Q&A: Trump, Kaepernick, Bream, Buckley, and more! (7/5) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

What do you think of Nike pulling its 4th of July themed shoes (featuring the “Betsy Ross” flag) off the market, because Colin Kaepernick found it offensive? — William W.

Too complicated for a complete answer in this space. But I think Nike was wrong. If the reason for pulling the shoes off the market was that neo-Nazis embrace the “Betsy Ross flag”… that’s a mistake. First, most Americans had no idea those morons used the flag as a rallying cry … and second, Nike’s decision now gives the white supremacist idiots power they don’t deserve. What happens if they embrace the Stars Spangled Banner next? Does that become off limits for decent people to also embrace. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Hey Bernie, in last weeks Q & A you replied to me that if Trump loses in 2020 it will be “because of his big mouth, and folks like me don’t hold him to account.” Now I have a serious question. How exactly do “I” hold the POTUS to account? You think too much of me Bernie, I HAVE ZERO POWER IN THIS WORLD! What do you suggest? Vote Democrat? I’ve been reading your answer over and over again. I’ve been through a lot, seen things most men will never see, and I know a lot of things, but I seriously cannot, for the life of me figure this one out. You have way more power than I can ever fathom having. I will say this, after watching the Democrat debates, my prediction is looking a hell of lot better. — Respectfully, Ralph P.

Fair question, my friend. First, I do NOT mean that you should vote Democrat. But too many avid Trump supporters defend him to matter what. If Gallup calls, you can say you do NOT approve of the job he’s doing. That’s a big deal. You can have conversations with friends and say he’s behaving like a kid in junior high. Who knows, Gallup might call your friend. Word of mouth matters over time. Social media: I know next to nothing about it but ideas get picked up and passed around. But whenever I see a poll, nearly 100 percent of REPUBLICANS approve of the president. Why should he stop acting the way he does when so many people think he’s doing a great job? That said, I understand your question. You may not have the power to speak to a Joint Session of Congress, but you can do something, Ralph.

I am a John Kennedy Democrat and I do not recognize my party any more. I wrote a short book on JFK Jul 1956 – Nov 1963 I’d like to send to you. How can the Democrats recover from these debates? Especially this last one. Republicans show quotes of the candidates and say, “This is the Democrat Party.” — Chief Clyde

Read my column about how Moderation May Be Dead in the Democratic Party — But in America?

Here’s the question, Clyde: Has America moved as far left as the new progressive Democratic Party? I don’t think so, but I’m not betting on it. People like free stuff. It’s up to the Republicans to make the case that Democrats want to fundamentally change America.

I don’t accept books, because sooner or later authors not only want me to read their work, but want to know what I think of the book. It’s a losing situation for me. But thanks.

Bernie, so the NBA has joined in on the craziness. It has decreed that team owners will no longer be referred to in that manner. Invokes a time when black men were in fact owned by slave owners. Like the mega millionaire narcissists on these teams are “slaves”, are treated like slaves? The owners will now be referred to as Governors. And the beat goes on. P.C. craziness? — John M.

Here’s my not so subtle answer: YES … Crazy!

Hey Bernie. Its a thrill to be able to write to you personally! Im interested in hearing your thoughts on how we can keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. There have been many good proposals through the years suggesting raising contributions (taxes) slightly, reducing COLA increases, gradually raising retirement ages, and many more. Politicians generally wont even discuss these reforms, apparently considering them political suicide–which it probably is. Why do you think individuals my age (62) and older (and younger too) are unwilling to accept a little economic pain now in order to avoid a lot greater pain as we kick the can down the road? Not just our economic pain but for our children and grand children. Is it just plain ignorance? Selfishness? Or what? What are your thoughts? — Your devoted disciple, Alan D

It’s fear, Alan … as you suggest. I’d be for raising the age for SS … but not for people your age or older. Why can’t Congress agree that workers now in their TWENTIES won’t get benefits until they’re … pick an age that’s older than what we have now. I’m against raising taxes — almost always. On the issues you raise, you’ll have a hard time finding profiles in courage.

Bernie: What do you think of the shenanigans of women’s soccer star Megan Rapino? I tune into sports to watch sports and I could give a rip about the political views of the players. If I wanted to listen to dumb political statements and protests I’d watch the Democratic Presidential debates! I think she should be tossed from the team and banned from American soccer for life. — William W.

I got a similar question last week and said that while athletes have the right to speak out on political and social matters, I wish they wouldn’t do it on the playing field, in the arena or stadium. Sports, I said, used to be the place we’d go to escape the daily barrage of politics. But … I don’t think she should be tossed off the team or banned for life (or a day). Banning speech is too dangerous for that.

There are over 20 Democratic presidential candidates this time around, and there were nearly that many Republican candidates last time. Do you get the impression that “Running for President” was just a bucket-list item for a lot of these individuals, as opposed to them sincerely believing they are uniquely qualified (or felt a genuine call) to lead the nation? — John D.

Some of these people are delusional enough to really think they are uniquely qualified to lead the nation. But I think they run mainly for ego reasons and career reasons. Ego: They can say “I ran for president.” Sounds stupid, right. But I think that’s one reason. Career: Maybe they’ll get picked for VP; maybe they’ll get speaking gigs; maybe they’ll leave politics and with “I ran for president” on their otherwise lackluster resume, they’ll get a job in the real world.

I find myself watching Shannon Bream on Fox. I think she’s a rising star and I good interviewer. She actually lets her guests respond. Just wondering your thoughts on her. I have to admit that once your segments on HBO sports are over, I get a little bored. You’ve had the most dramatic episodes. You don’t talk much on this site about it but since us members are paying the huge $4 bucks a month, any chance you can give us premium members a heads up on what’s coming? I believe you said something about the fact you would never write a book again. But I think you should about the 70’s. From music, war, civil rights, etc., the 70’s had it all. You could end it with a line “The day the 70’s ended”. A great line that should not go unwanted. — Tim H.

Shannon Bream is more fair than many others … she talks way too fast for my taste. After a while, I have to change the channel. Thanks for the kind words re Real Sports on HBO. I’ll let you know when I’ve got a story coming up … not sure right now how I do that. As for books, no way Jose. (Did I just appropriate someone else’s culture with the Jose thing?) I agree what we should never let a great line go to waste. So I’ll end with, To be or not to be, that is the question. I just made that up.

Bernie, I think I speak for many of us who are regular readers and contributors to your Q&A sessions that I look forward to every week to the opportunity to get your views on all sorts of issues and also to essentially be part of a discussion group with others around the country who care deeply about many of the same issues. I wish there were opportunities to actually meet face to face with others with whom I share viewpoints and have intelligent discussions but cannot figure out how to do so. Maybe some of your readers have ideas as to how to make that happen in particular locales. For now, I will throw out this idea for those of us who live in South Florida: how about a meet up with our friend Bernie over lunch, dinner or beers to meet one another ( and you of course). The expense could be shared and maybe even we Bernie fans contribute something extra to a charity or good cause of your choice. If this makes any sense (and if you get positive feedback on this thought), I would be happy to do some leg work into seeing if it is feasible. — Michael F.

I’m flattered, Michael. Just between us, I no longer live in Florida. I’ve had it with hurricanes … and the threat of hurricanes. Last September we packed up and left Dodge. But thanks for the thought. I appreciate it.

Hi Bernie —as I recall years ago, the infamous October Surprise conspiracy that alleged Ronald Reagan somehow made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after he won the election in 1980 was debunked more than once. My questions are as follows: was there ever the slightest bit of evidence suggesting that the conspiracy was real? If not, then why do so many people on the left continue to believe it? — The Emperor

I know of no evidence that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after he won. I think the Iranians wanted to humiliate Jimmy Carter so a) they held the hostages until he officially was out of office and b) they were more than a little concerned about what Reagan would do if they DiDN’T release the hostages. As to why people on the left continue to believe it: Because they’re people on the left and because Ronald Reagan was a conservative.

Dear Mr. Goldberg, During the first 2020 Democrat presidential debate, candidates where asked to give their opinion as to the greatest threat to the US. The answers ranged from China, Russia, Donald Trump, Climate Change, money in politics and our political culture.

Many of our systemic problems were a consequence of government actions be they legislation (Congress), judicial decisions (Supreme Count e.g. Roe vs Wade) or executive orders (that are changed by successive presidents). I contend that the biggest threats to the US are the Democrat and Republican parties. Didn’t our 2nd President John Adams warn us about political parties. It is my understanding that our representatives and senators spend as much time on the telephone to raise funds for political campaigns with the money going into the party pot as they do working for the people in their district or state. The funds from the party pot will be used to fund targeted campaigns to oust an incumbent and hopefully bring power to their political party. Thus, the allegiance of a representative or senator will be to the party instead of their district or state.

Any representative or senator who does not follow the party line when asked to do so will likely face strong opposition in the next primary with the funding for the opposing candidate coming from the party pot. In effect the Democrat and Republican parties are interfering with our representative form of government which is the essence of our democracy.

Maybe we need a special investigator to see how money through the political parties affect congressional decisions. (smile) Or am I completely off base in my assessment? In theory, the problem of campaign finance could be fixed by limiting campaign contributions to a representative’s campaign to their district and to a senator’s state while barring any funding from the political party. Not likely to happen, so the burden rests with the voters who appear to always support the incumbent because they really support an authoritarian form of government with their party in power. Thus, the reasoning behind the gerrymandering. Is their hope? Thanks — Ival S. Money is a form of speech. Americans have the right to free speech. So … they have the right to give money (within certain limits) to candidates in or out of their district or state. If you think this is a bad way to go, then, no there is no hope. The burden is on the voters. Given your passion in the subject, I suspect my answer won’t please. It’s the best I’ve got.

Bernie, a reaction to your article on Moderation or lack thereof among Democrats:Perhaps some good can come from the absence of moderation. As the Democrats dig in and go left, the contentious issues garner greater attention. For example, if Trump can control himself ( no easy task), we may finally get a real debate or discussion on a national level regarding issues like abortion ( time limit for decision v partial birth, age limit for required parental notice and funding by government, all issues where there is a national consensus that is more middle of the road), immigration ( open borders or not and maybe even limits on benefits available to those here illegally), and race (exactly what makes someone a racist).

I would like to see a major network ( or a combination say Fox and CNN) sponsor a series of panels that are comprised of serious proponents to discuss these and other issues ( a modern day Firing Line of sorts). The panelists would be selected not by the networks but by acknowledged leaders of the concerned groups. For example, the abortion discussion would be among women from both sides, and the race panel who be consist solely of African Americans (think Cornell West and Ta Nahesi Coates from the left and Larry Elder and Candace Owens from the right) . The ratings would be astronomical. Maybe you could moderate these? — Michael F.

Michael, I’m not blowing smoke: America needs more people like you. Great idea. A modern day Firing Line is what we need — and not the one currently on PBS. I miss Bill Buckley. Thanks for the analysis. Greetings Sir Bernie—-do you know much about the Leonard Peltier case? If not, no big deal. I’m just curious because he is another one of those “underdogs” that leftists enjoy lionizing. Nonetheless I believe 60 Minutes interviewed him many years ago and confronted him about his escape attempt, asking why he ran if he is innocent. (His response came down to his notion that as a Native American Indian that he felt that he could not get a fair trial in racist white America). I realize that I am asking about a subject you may not have any opinion on, but I don’t think it hurts to ask. Your thoughts, if any? — The Emperor

You fascinate me, Emperor. What’s your next question going to be about? Napoleon? Marco Polo? I’m begging you, please ask me about something that is tied in some way to the 21st century. I’m having some fun … no offense, please. (I liked your other question about Iran and that was last century.) It’s just that your interests and mine — and your KNOWLEDGE and mine — don’t always intersect. Don’t know enough about Peltier to comment. We’re still friends, right?

Is having even the slightest expectation that AG Barr and the IOG findings will produce any true accountability from high level Dems a waste of energy? — ScottyG

Depends on what you mean by accountability. The findings MAY show wrongdoing. That doesn’t mean indictments will follow. But the public will at least know more than it knows now. Let’s see what the AG and the IOG find out … and if it’s bad enough, things may get interesting.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here. Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit

Bernie’s Q&A: Megyn Kelly, Sharyl Attkisson, Alan Dershowitz, Jussie Smollett, and more (6/28) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Good evening Bernie, What do you make of the recent “Pro-Fox” contributions by Alan Dershowitz seeming to be the voice of reason for Liberals and pointing out their continuous slide to the whacky Left fringes? Is this him getting back at being shunned by left leaning mainstream media? I find it refreshing actually because he’s so sound in his logic. — Scotty G.

I am a HUGE fan of Alan Dershowitz. He has what many on both the left and right have lost: principles! I don’t think he’s getting even for being shunned. I think he wound up on Fox because the others don’t want him. He’s a very smart guy and I’m sure he knows that Fox likes him because he’s a liberal who finds (legitimate) fault with liberals. I’ve interviewed him several times. In addition to being smart, he’s a very nice guy.

Mr. Goldberg, In recent years, a couple of books have come out, Bias in the Booth by Dylan Gwinn and Republicans Buy Sneakers Too by Clay Travis, that discuss the liberal bias of the sports media and how outlets such as ESPN have infected sports coverage with left-wing politics. I was seeing if you have read either book and if so what are your thoughts? As someone who covers sports on HBO and has also talked at great length about media bias in the news media, why do think there is such a leftward slant in the sports media as well? It would seem to be a bad business model for the likes of ESPN to be so political because (unlike MSNBC and Fox News that cater to partisan political audiences), they are giving its sports viewers exactly what they don’t want, politics instead of sports. — Brian

I have not read either of the books, Brian. As to why I think sports coverage leans left — beyond the scores and who’s a best shortstop in the league kind of news — is that liberals tend to go into journalism — any kind of journalism. So if the sports story has a social issue angle — if the story involves race or gender, for example — and if there’s a bias, it’s likely to be a liberal bias. Finally, some viewers will change the channel if a sports show gets too political. But some won’t. When an ESPN anchor last year was overtly political, more than once, I did change the channel. But I know of no studies on whether politics affects viewership of sports programs.

Simple question: Who was the biggest jerk you ever interviewed? — Jen R.

Not so simple, Jen. I’ve been thinking very hard about your question and can’t think of anybody who would qualify. No one acted like a jerk during the interview. And I’ve been doing this for a long time.

But let me offer up this for your consideration: I interviewed a comedian who was very funny and friendly … but when I years later wrote about liberal bias in the media he became a vocal critic of my work — and in the process he became a kind of jerk. Perhaps you know the name. Al Franken?

Then there was the time I interviewed Jerry Lee Lewis who showed up for the interview several hours late — AND THE INTERVIEW WAS IN HIS HOUSE. Where was Jerry Lee? Also IN HIS HOUSE. He was in some other room and finally made an entrance 2 or 3 hours late. Then the interview went nowhere and I got up and left.

Finally, I interviewed a certain businessman who was friendly, even charming and answered all my questions without hesitation. He later achieved a very important job in politics. (Insert smiley face here.)

In your recent Q&A, you mentioned offhandedly about Ms. Hayley, possibly running for President. I’m also an admirer of Ms. Hayley. Do you think it’s an outside chance that Mr. Trump would “allow” Mr. Pence to step aside and have Ms. Hayley run alongside him as V.P.? — Fred V.

I don’t know if there’s an outside chance that the president would pick Nikki Haley as his VP — but I think it’s a great idea. And I’m not alone. Andrew Stein, who in 2016 founded the Democrats for Trump movement, had a guest column in the Wall Street Journal on this very subject. Here’s part of what he wrote about how Haley would help the president with the women’s vote:

“It’s too late for Mr. Trump to revamp his political personality. But with the 2016 election in the past, Nikki Haley on the ticket could tamp down antipathy for Mr. Trump that seems to afflict so many moderate and Republican-leaning women. President Trump needs the prospect of a Vice President Haley to help recapture the White House.”

Sir Bernard – Please kindly express your knowledge and views as to the following:

1. Was there ever a possibility that Real Sports would have an opportunity to interview the defrocked Lance Armstrong? If assigned such a task, how would you have prepared for such an interview and what provocative questions would you have been sure to ask. Based on what the public has learned from the Oprah interview and the documentary, it amazes me, how such an undeserving person could maintain this evil persona. 2. Regarding Ms. Sharyl Attkisson…Did you have a professional association with her, while at CBS? Please share your knowledge and/or views of her allegations, that the U.S. gov’t hacked her computer and that her CBS managers did nothing to disclose nor prevent such inappropriate actions.

Thank you for another fine Friday of reading your thought provoking responses. — Matthew Q.

Welcome back Matthew. I have to admit that I’m not a fan of bicycle racing. It bores me. — unless the wheels of two bikes get tangled and before it’s over 32 bikes are in a pile in the French Alps. So all I know about Armstrong is what everyone else knows. But if presented with an opportunity to interview him I would have tried to decipher what made him cheat — beyond his defense that “everybody else was doing it.” I’d want to know about his childhood because there are often clues hidden away back there. I’d want to know how he dealt with his guilt. Stuff like that.

Sharyl and I were colleagues though we never met. I was leaving pretty much when she was coming in. I’m a fan of hers and I’ve heard from people who know her that the feelings are mutual. I have no idea what was going on with her computer. Sounds crazy to think that the federal government would actually hack it, but rogue operatives are capable of doing all sorts of things — off the books, of course.

Dear Bernie. What is your opinion of Megyn Kelly as a journalist and commentator? Do you think she’ll be back on television anytime soon? — A.J.

I think she was more honest than others who were or are on prime time cable. She knew what her audience wanted yet asked candidate Trump that question at the first GOP presidential debate about the way he talks about women. I liked that. But I’d prefer that we call her a commentator and not a journalist (though I’m mincing words here, because arguably she was an opinion journalist; I prefer that word be used on people who try to be objective all the time.) Will she be back on TV anytime soon? There are a lot of places she could go. My guess is that we haven’t seen the last of her. But soon? Not so sure how long she has to stay off TV if her buyout had provisions about this. Greetings Sir Bernie—-I hear from left wing sources that the Southern strategy was used by Nixon and the Republicans to bring racist Southerners over to the Republican side. Nonsense! Say the right wingers, who point out that with a few notable exceptions, racist white southern voters continued to vote Democrat, since it was Republicans who voted for civil rights legislation and treated black Americans better but leftist reporters have been engaging in revisionist history to gain black voters and make Republicans look bad. So in your opinion, what is the truth about the Southern Strategy? Is one side being truthful and the other side lying, or is the truth hidden somewhere in between? — The Emperor

I’m not a historian, Emperor. That said, the South was once solidly Democratic now it’s Republican. That didn’t happen by accident. There was a strategy. Southerners may have voted for Democrats — but not liberal Democrats. Even most southern doves on Vietnam weren’t automatically liberal on cultural issues — by northern standards. Southerners by and large were conservative — and Nixon won those Democrats over to his side with a conservative cultural message — tough on law and order, tough on hippies, tough on the war, etc. Did some bigots come over to the GOP side. Yes. But so did others.

I’m with you that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Manchurian Candidate but why does Nikita Kruschev keep creeping int my head? What has happened to the allegations against Lt. Governor of Virginia? If he committed the sexual assaults alleged by these two women don’t they deserve justice? Where is the #me too movement? And if the allegations prove to be false, shouldn’t these women be prosecuted? Where has the left’s virtue gone? Just asking! — Joseph V.

I predicted the governor would be out by halftime during the Super Bowl. He’s still there. I figured the Lt. Governor would be out. Wrong again. Then there’s the attorney general, guilty of something or others. Sill there. If all three got booted, the next in line is a Republican. So we know why Democrats in general aren’t anxious to oust any of them. As for the Lt. Governor in particular: the #MeToo movement is AWOL for obvious reasons. Don’t make me say say the primary one out loud. And yes, if there is a hearing on the matter and the accusations are false, the women should be prosecuted — that’s a general statement about all false allegations of sexual assault. As for the left’s virtue: You’re funny, Joseph.

On the subject of immigration, it appears that finally we may be reaching the point where the real discussion may occur: namely, whether the US should have open borders.

Step 1 of course is for someone to define what open borders means and for those who swear they oppose open borders while also opposing deportation and the imposition of penalties upon those here illegally) to explain the steps they think should be taken when someone makes it across the border illegally. I know this is a complex and multi-faceted issue but like other complex, multi-faceted issues ( such as race: let’s define the terms racism and racists and then we can have that honest “dialogue” about race that we constantly hear about), it is first necessary to clearly define the issue and key terms, and then discuss the matter with everyone on the same page. I fault the conservative media and conservative pundits (no disrespect intended) for not better defining the critical issues and terms. Am I off base? — Michael F

I don’t think you’re office base at all. Defining terms is the right place to start. Neither the right nor the left is especially good at defining terms. Everyone just assumes we know what racist, for example, means. But what if you’re against affirmative action based on race. Does that make you a racist? It’s not always clear cut so defining terms is important.

I think many on the left are for “open borders” — meaning no restrictions on entry into this country from Central America — but for political reasons won’t admit it. Conservatives, as you suggest, could push the issue and ask what limits liberals would put on immigration. That might help define the term, open borders. But I’m with you on your overarching points about defining terms before arguing the pros and cons of the issues.

Bernie, of the 20+ Democrats, which do you think can give POTUS the best run for the money? Which do you think will win the nomination? — Fred V.

Best run for the money: Joe Biden. Progressives may not like him, but most Democrats do. They believe he will bring “normalcy” back to the White House. As for actually winning the nomination: with less confidence, I’d say Biden — but in the next 10 minutes he can open his mouth and some new “gaffe” will come pouring out. Here’s my question, Fred: If Biden does NOT get the nomination … who will?

Hi Bernie, You were always one of my favorite guests on O’Reilly’s show and your departure was quite a bummer. Why did you decide to return to his show recently? Glad to see you back and hope you are on more going forward. — Peter

I like Bill. If he were still with Fox I’d be on the show every week. But when Bill left, everyone associated with him became, let’s call it, a problem. So a lot of Bill’s regulars went bye bye when Bill left the building. I’ll be on his podcast again. Thanks for the kind words, too, Peter.

After the book and TV movie “Fatal Vision” came out, I read a little bit more about the infamous case of the doctor who was convicted of murdering his wife and children. While the author of the book seems convinced of his guilt, other sources seem to think that Dr. Jeffrey McDonald was wrongfully convicted because people like Helena Stokely supposedly confessed to being complicit in the murders with a couple of drug dealers, and that the military investigators botched it. My questions are as follows: In your opinion, do you recall the case when it happened, and do you think the doctor deserves a new trial? How come several left wing groups that try to advocate for questionable convictions aren’t interested in this case? Do you think it’s because he’s white, a military man, and supposedly was a wealthy doctor? — The Emperor

Emperor, you give me too much credit. You think I know more than I do. I know it’s hard to believe but … I’m not a Renaissance Man. I don’t know about everything under the sun. I know a little about the case you mention but I’m not knowledgeable enough to discuss. And I know some things about politics, the culture and the media.

Bernie: care to weigh in on the recent controversy regarding our world cup team captain and her position regarding the American Flag ( in the context of representing America). What should we expect during the 2020 Olympics and should we care ( I am not questioning anyone’s First Amendment rights which I view as sacrosanct)? — Michael F.

There was a time when we turned to sports to get away from politics. It was a refuge from the daily barrage of politics. Any athlete, as you acknowledge, has the right to kneel during the National Anthem. I just wish they wouldn’t. I wish they’d find a venue outside the stadium to make their point. Who knows if we’ll see more of the same at the Olympics. All that said, I actually think the raised fist during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics was a legitimate act of protest by two black athletes. That came during the civil rights struggles — and in difficult times, certain actions (to me, anyway) are acceptable. I’d be against a raised fist in a black glove today, given all the progress we’ve made since ’68.

Hi Bernie: The Jussie Smollett case intrigues me. Here is an actor at the top of his game, starring in a top-rated TV show and making a reported $100,000 per episode. He was accepted and loved for who he is as a black, openly gay man (ask Sidney Poitier and Rock Hudson how that went a couple of generations ago). Yet that wasn’t enough for Smollett. He had to manufacture a ridiculous racial hoax in order to gain acceptance and affection among his peers. It seems victimization is the new and true currency of the left, more so than money, fame and talent. You often correctly say that we live in the United States of Entertainment. Don’t we also live in the United States of Victimhood? And is the Jussie Smollett case the intersection of the two? — Steve R.

You nailed it, Steve. Being a victim these days is a way to achieve power. And you don’t even have to be a real victim. And if you’re on TV AND you’re a victim — you hit the jackpot. But in Smollett’s case, his story was so ridiculous that just about no one was buying it, at least after a day or two. Even those who are still standing by Smollett, I suspect, don’t believe his story. But to some on the left, if you challenge his victimhood, — phony as it is — you’re putting real victims at risk. You’re right, Steve, “victimization is the new true currency of the left.” Not everybody on the left. Just too many.

Hey Bernie, the article on the “T” word was interesting, I think, unfortunately, that hyperbole is the order of the day from both sides. However, when any part of the media (print, network, or cable) complain about the President’s incendiary rhetoric, I’m compelled to tell all of them: It’s you who created this, for people who hate bullies, you have mocked and bullied conservatives and Republicans for DECADES, sooner or later someone is going to punch back and not take it anymore! You reap what you sow. Now some people may not like or appreciate it, but this is where we are at! Here is my prediction (archive this) Trump will win a landslide in 2020. The Democrat candidates are silly little children, they don’t stand a chance! What do you think? Do you think Trump did the right thing regarding Iran? I know The Mullah’s are out of control, but millions of Iranian’s just want to live and be left alone. Why are we even there if we are #1 in oil production? Who’s interest are we looking out for? — Best regards “Right wing Ralphy”

You think Donald Trump will win in a landslide, Ralph? Archive THIS: He won’t. I’m not predicting whether he’ll win or not, but it won’t be in a landslide. Here’s Donald Trump’s problem — a problem his hard right supporters don’t get. His approval ratings should be in the 65 percent range, given the economy. Instead the number is more than 20 points lower. What you and other passionate Trump supporters like about him, most Americans don’t. If he loses, it’ll be because of his big mouth — and because folks like you have never called him to account. Let’s see who’s right, Ralph. Re Iran: I do think he did the right thing. I thought his reasoning for not attacking was presidential. He needs to act that way more often.

I noticed a while back that some liberal guy had written and published an entire book “responding to” (for lack of a better term) your book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. The author used the same cover design as your book, but basically replaced all of the liberals in it with conservatives, changed the title to who is “Really” Screwing up America, and added the subtitle “(and Bernard Goldberg is #73”). I’m sure his book sold next to no copies, but does it kind of perplex you that someone would 1) take the time and spend the money to put together such a thing, and 2) actually think he was getting in a good dig at you? I mean, it just looks stupid and whiny. — Bob V.

He was throwing spitballs at a battleship — the U.S.S. Bernie.

I never read it, was never even slightly perplexed, and could not care less if he was getting a dig in at me or not. See above reference to spitballs at a battleship.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit

Bernie’s Q&A: AOC, Nikki Haley, the biggest stories I’ve covered, and much more (6/21) — Premium Interactive ($4 members) Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Bernie, I read Bias 6 times, each time I can feel myself getting upset. Is there a untold story? Like, the time you bulldozed your way into Rathers office and said something like: “After 28 years of working together, after all these years, this is how you act towards me? You know what? Your a piece of garbage, if you have a problem with that I’ll be in the parking garage! Is that a little over the top? Lol, I just had to ask, sorry. What did you think of the Stephanopoulos interview with the President? — Ralph P.

Hey Ralph. No untold story along the lines you mention, but what I find interesting, all these years later, is my recollection of how afraid so many of my colleagues were — to get on the wrong side of Dan. Just being seen with me after I wrote the op ed about liberal bias in the Wall Street Journal was something they feared. For folks who take on powerful people and bask in their own supposed “courage” — I found their visceral fear of Dan very sad.

Regarding the interview with Stephanopoulos: I wish the president had said, let me ask you a question George. If you received a call from the Russian Embassy here in Washington, and the ambassador or one of his staff said, “I have dirt on Donald Trump, would you take that meeting — or would you call the FBI?”

I understand the difference between being president and being a reporter. Still, the answer — if George gave one — would have been interesting.

You answered in a recent Q&A session that Bret Baier and Shepard Smith were probably the two most neutral anchors on Fox. A couple of months ago, Josh Bernstein wrote that Bret Baier and Shepard Smith colluded to have Judge Jeanine Pirro suspended those two weeks she was off the air. I wrote to Fox and asked if they would confirm. As expected, they did not respond. Prior to your Q&A mentioned, I had the highest regard for Bret’s “Fair, Balanced, and Unafraid”, but Rosenstein’s article put a damper on it. Can your resources find the truth behind Judge Jeanine’s suspension? — Fred V.

First, I never said Shepard Smith was neutral. He injects his opinions all through his newscast. He’s anything but objective. As for the Pirro episode: All I know is that I think she’s a Trump sycophant who would defend the president if he started a nuclear war with Brazil. I don’t know if either of the two Fox anchors you mentioned were instrumental in her suspension.

I notice that Bill O’Reilly has his own paid streaming video and that you – and presumably others – are using Patreon to develop a paid audience/membership. Do you believe this will be a trend? If so, what do you see as some of the implications? — Hyrum S. Good question, Hyrum. I do see paid memberships on news- related sites as a growing trend, though it is far from a new concept. Online newspapers (including big ones like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal) have used this model for quite some time — primarily because of the decline in print-media subscriptions (thanks to the Internet).

With sites like BernardGoldberg.com, it’s a bit different. We’ve never had a print presence. Still, for the vast majority of online publications to stay afloat, they must turn a profit (or at least break even). This often comes in the form of advertising (ads embedded throughout the site), and as you’ve seen elsewhere, the sheer number of ads (including obnoxious pop-ups) makes some news sites almost unreadable. This is especially the case with sites that have outside investors and/or employ a large number of employees. These sites are under a tremendous amount of pressure to generate lots and lots of web-clicks.

That pressure has created a big problem within our online media culture that isn’t all that different from what we’ve seen from the cable news model. In order to gain more web- clicks from the targeted audience, online content must be increasingly partisan (often to the point of outlandishness). A good example of this (on the political right) is Breitbart.com, which was once pretty levelheaded. During the 2016 election cycle, however, they evaluated the political winds, and adopted a slobbering pro-Trump love affair (from which they’ve never looked back). The move was very good for them financially, as it has been for other sites that went the same route. And there are plenty of anti-Trump counterpart sites on the left.

That’s not something I’m interested in with BernardGoldberg.com. I value independent commentary that doesn’t pander to partisan tribes for the sake of web-clicks. We have a small number of contributors, we’ve never sought investors, and we don’t want to hammer our readers with advertisements. Thus, we went the route of the Premium Membership to maintain the website without compromising its content. Commentary and Ricochet went this direction as well (quite a while before we did), and I’m seeing other sites follow suit.

One last thing… Let me take this opportunity once again to thank all of our Premium Members. You’re the backbone of this site and we truly appreciate your support.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Jason Whitlock, who is a long-time columnist for the Kansas City Star and is more recently a talk show host on Fox Sports. On Ben Shapiro’s podcast, Whitlock posited as to why the media has gone from mainstream liberal to leftist. His theory is that the traditional media outlets are located in New York. Now the new media/social media is located in northern California and the Pacific Northwest. This change in locale has caused much of the media to shift its paradigm to reflect that of the leftist Northwest. Is Whitlock onto something here? — Steve R.

I like Whitlock. But geography is not the main reason the media is left wing. The main reason is the philosophy of the people who cover the news — usually they have a liberal worldview. Is the bias moving leftward? Maybe. But again, I don’t think it’s because of geography. More likely it’s because liberals in the media despise Donald Trump and that feeling has made it easier for social media types to hate him even more.

Bernie, I don’t agree with the notion that you cannot commit Obstruction of Justice if a crime was not committed in the first place. For example, a man is unjustly accused of a crime. He finds out about an upcoming investigation and fearful of being wrongly arrested he begs potential witnesses against him to lie to investigators concerning incidents that might paint him in a negative light. That’s obstruction of justice, even though the man never committed the original crime. So, Trump, if he told people to say things that weren’t true to investigators in order to solidify the fact that he had no involvement in Russian collusion, would be committing Obstruction of Justice even though he was not involved in colluding with the Russians. I said, “if.” So, Mueller during his investigation might (I said “might) have come across evidence that Trump was telling his people to give false testimony even though Trump knew he was innocent of Russian collusion. Therefore, you can commit Obstruction of Justice even though you were innocent of what the original investigation was all about. Your thoughts on this? — Joe B.

Joe, I hope you’re not suggesting that I ever said that there can be no obstruction if there’s no underlying crime — because I never said that. What I did say was in the absence of an underlying crime, do Democrats really want to go down the road to impeachment. I said the president may have shown bad judgment re obstruction, but the worst he did was try to impede an investigation into a non-existent crime. But I do agree with you analysis and understanding of obstruction.

I was astounded by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s remark comparing our southern border to “concentration camps.” Does she (and other Democratic Socialists of her generation) really have no idea just how monstrous real concentration camps were or does she just see this offhand remark as a political tool with no regard for how offensive this is for holocaust survivors or anyone who has an appreciation for the magnitude of just how terrible the camps of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (pick your socialist/communist poison) were? Ignorance of history 0r callous disregard? And she’s the new darling of the liberal/left? — John F.

She’s not too smart. She’s the kind of person who crosses the line to make a point. Not unlike our president. The hard left is defending what she said but reasonable liberals aren’t. If she were to ever make a comparable stupid comment about slavery or gay rights or women’s rights — she’d be done. But that won’t happen.

Bernie, as a reporter (whether it be for CBS or Real Sports or elsewhere), what was the most important story you covered, and which story had the most emotional impact on you? Thanks. — Brian G.

I was part of the Real Sports team that broke the concussions in the NFL story. That was pretty big. We also did an expose on poor children being held as slaves in the United Arab Emirates so they could race camels for the betting pleasure of wealthy sheiks. If they fell off and died they’d get shipped home to Bangladesh or wherever in a box. Our story freed about 4,000 children. I also reported stories on what can happen to journalists, scholars and others who expose cost overruns and doping involving major international sporting events inside Russia. And recently we reported a story about the deaths of thousands of racehorses each year in America — another Real Sports expose.

I find it interesting that many of my most important stories were aired on a program with the word Sports in the title.

But I try not to get emotionally involved with any of my stories. The danger is that you run the risk of taking sides — of becoming a crusader. I’m against that. Am I glad those 4,000 kids are no longer slaves. Sure. But I didn’t do the story to feel good about myself. I hope, Brian, you get what I’m saying. Thanks for the question.

I’ll keep it light here: My favorite scene in “Casablanca” is when the Germans are in Rick’s Cafe and they start playing a patriotic German song, but then Lazslo tells the band to play “Le Marseilles” and it ends in a rousing display of patriotism against the Nazis. My questions are as follows: What is YOUR favorite scene from that movie? Also, I never understood why Major Strasser and the Nazis didn’t just arrest Laszlo and get rid of him like most Nazis would normally do; Since they are Nazi thugs why would Major Strasser care about what Renault thought about arresting Laszlo and getting rid of him once and for all? I would think someone like Major Strasser wouldn’t care about Renault’s opinion. –The Emperor

I have too many “favorite scenes” to list here, but I’m a huge fan of your favorite. I also like the scene that ends with, “Round up the usual suspects.” And, of course, the walk off in the fog that ends the movie when Rick says, “Louie, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.”

You may have logic on your side regarding the non-arrest of Laszlo, but if the Nazi did arrest him, that would screw up the rest of the movie, wouldn’t it? So let me end with this: “Emperor, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

I often hear right wing commentator Ben Shapiro complain that President Obama gave millions to the Iranian mullahs to bribe them into being moderates who are not pursuing nuclear weapons but are doing so anyway. Progressive left wing commentator Kyle Kulinski’s rebuttal to this is that Obama simply gave the money BACK to the Iranians because it was already theirs to begin with! Is that true—is the money Obama gave to the Iranians what was left from when their assets were frozen during the hostage crisis? If so, do you think that it was a smart move on the part of President Obama to give that money back to the Iranians? — The Emperor

As I understand it, the money was Iranian money that we froze during the hostage crisis. Was it smart to return the money? President Obama desperately wanted a deal with Iran and giving them back the money was the only way to secure the deal. Smart if you believe it was a good deal. Otherwise, not so much.

Mr. Goldberg, in your opinion, who killed JFK — ranging from the multiple gunmen theories to whether there was a conspiracy and, if so, amongst whom and why? Thanks! — JCP

Lee Harvey Oswald.

Bernie, in your questions Joe Biden should be asked, you mentioned the 2020 debates. Here is my proposal to avoid the media bias and disgusting performances by the likes of the Candy Crowleys: each candidate selects a questioner who asks questions of the opponent and each question has say a two-five minute time period. If the candidate tries to stonewall or lies, the questioner can so note for the record. I know this would create a circus of sorts ( boosting ratings??) but would create a more balanced playing field. Would love to see a Trey Gowdy take on Biden under these rules. Your thoughts? — Michael F.

Barnum and Bailey’s circus would seem dull compared to what you’re suggesting. So you’re saying, Biden could choose Sean Hannity to question Bernie Sanders who could choose Rush Limbaugh to question Mayor Pete? Great for ratings, but of course this could never happen — lefties couldn’t pick a conservative to question their opponents without getting bashed. Why not this, which is not nearly as “exciting” but far more practical: real journalists behaving like real journalists and not taking sides or throwing softballs at candidates they like. It’s worked in the past. For the record, I’d also love to see Trey Gowdy take on Biden — or any of the others. And while we’re at it, I’d like to see Alan Dershowitz take on Donald Trump — or anyone else running for president.

Bernie, I just read an article about Maduro shipping out hundreds of millions of dollars of Venezuelan gold to Africa and it made me think how many “world leaders” have been mega wealthy over the decades while “serving their people.” We have read rumors about the fortune Chavez amassed while living and how wealthy the Castros are as well (among many others). Isn’t it time for our leaders to be forced to answer where they stand on issues of this sort? And while you are at it, please share your views regarding the world’s elites who serve as world leaders at the UN ( boy do I miss Nikki Haley). — Michael F.

Michael, my friend … Do we really need to ask world leaders where they stand on dictators looting the treasuries of their countries?

I miss Nikki Haley too. I’d vote for her for president. I even hoped our current president would decide not to run for reelection and Nikki Haley would jump in. I’m an enthusiastic supporter. As for other U.N. ambassadors from other countries: They reflect the nature of the country they represent. So ambassadors from authoritarian countries do what they’re told, lie when it serves their purpose, and nobody takes any of it too seriously. The U.N. started out as a good idea. Not so much these days.

Bernie, why are members of the press still relying on polls and posting polling numbers as if they mean something? How can any polling be seen as reliable after 2016? You cannot say they were much better in 2018. Yes, the Dems took back the house as predicted but here in Ohio all of the polls were way off, again. Ohio stayed red and yet I still see people in the media saying how Biden is up big on Trump in Ohio. Us Buckeyes heard that about Hillary, then about the mid term “blue wave”, and now about Biden. When will the press learn that polls are pointless? — JM

Actually the national polls in 2016 were quite accurate — regarding the popular vote. State polls were not as accurate. My friend John Daly has written several columns on the subject on the website; check them out. Finally, presidential polls this far out mean very little. But they might be warning signs for one side or the other — the most recent ones might be flashing caution for the president. But again, it’s early. When did it happen that so many blacks vote only Democrat? Republicans freed them (& died for them) Repubs instituted reconstruction which was starting to get them on their feet. Dems killed reconstruction and instituted Jim Crow, dems kept them from voting, dems started & con’t the Ku Klux Klan (& murdered them), the dems have put them essentially back on a plantation. It’s just that the government is the new master. How can they not understand this? — Beverly

Historically, you’re right. But Democrats are the party of big government and lower income people have been led to believe they need to government to keep them afloat. Republicans have not done a very good job winning black voters to their side.

In the past, you mentioned that there were groups and individuals that told journalists what should and should not be included in their news stories when it comes to certain maters regarding sex, sexual orientation and race, not to mention other. Is is still prevalent today, and if so, what could be done to stop it? — Alex P.

I’m not sure I said the higher ups actually told reporters what to put in their story. What happens is that journalists know the thinking of the newsroom; they know what’s a supposedly reasonable position and what isn’t. So they slant the news in a liberal direction on many hot social issues — affirmative action, welfare, feminist issues etc. I can’t recall ever being told what I could and couldn’t say. At Fox no-one ever told me to stop bashing Mr. Trump. They just didn’t like it. And in case you haven’t noticed, Fox and I have parted company.

Mr. G., I’m old school, and although we’re not too far apart in age, my preference is to address you the way I was brought up, and that is Mr. Goldberg, and not your first name until we meet and you allow me otherwise. Ok. Iran. With your many years of journalism and keen insight, what are your thoughts about Iran and the possibility of a war, not to mention Russia and China taking Iran’s side against the evil America? Thank you. — Terry J.

First off, Terry, please feel free to call me Bernie. I thank you for the respect, but I’m AOK with us being on a first name basis. Regarding Iran, the president says he doesn’t want war. But if Iran keeps up the provocations — attacking ships and shooting down our drones flying over international waters — things will escalate. As for China and Russia taking Iran’s side: To be expected.

How long do you think it will take before the left leaning media actually pushes back and asks AOC, who is quickly becoming a “power” to be reckoned with on the Left, a tough question and/or push back at some of the ridiculous things she says? Her latest comment comparing the detention centers on the southern border to Nazi concentration camps was basically brushed off. I would love to ask her if A) she has ever visited the border, and B) has she studied the Holocaust? Finally does she believe Ellis Island also was a concentration camp? Woman makes my head explode! — John M.

Helpful hint, John: While the media and progressives take her somewhat seriously, you don’t have to. The reason she’s on television so much is because shiny objects saying dopey things are good for cable ratings.

I just heard that she’s got a very low approval rating in her own district. After her activist role in the Amazon matter — chasing away lots of jobs — I’m not at all sure she’ll win a second term next year. Then the media will say, “Of course, she said too many controversial things.”

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit

Bernie’s Q&A: Kristol, Biden, Rathergate, Ron Burgundy and much more (6/14) — Premium Interactive ($4 members) Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Bernie, I’m surrounded by liberal family and friends. In a give-and-take argument, what would be the top pluses to Obama’s presidency and his biggest minuses. I can argue the Trump side economy, jobs, vs personality, etc. How about Obama? It’s sometimes easier to gain points in an argument by conceding a point. — Paul M.

He wore nice suits and ties and he had a nice smile. That’s all I’ve got.

Trying to find honest down-the-middle news reporting on television these days is giving me a migraine. As far as the print media goes, I depend on the Wall Street Journal for the straight news. Their editorials are right wing, but their news reporting is decidedly down the middle. On television, MSNBC, CNN, and the nightly network news programs are far to the left of Lenin. On Fox News, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and sometimes Laura Ingram are nothing more than cheerleaders for President Trump. I’m surprised they don’t break out the pom poms and do splits. Bret Baier and Shepard Smith seems to be the most neutral on Fox, but their time slots aren’t the best for working people who want to watch their shows. Is there any news show in prime time, on any of the networks, that consistently puts out straight news without any obvious ideological tilt? — Joe B.

I agree with almost everything you wrote, Joe … except … Shepard Smith is not neutral. It’s not his liberal politics that annoy me, it’s that he sprinkles his opinions throughout the show. That they’re liberal opinions drives Fox viewers nuts. I’m sure they’d be fine with him if he had a conservative bias that he threw into his newscast. Also, I’m a big fan of WSJ editorials and columns. I learn more from the Journal’s opinion pages than I do from a lot of other news sources.

Try watching the 11pm show on Fox with Shannon Bream — and let me know what you think.

Sir Bernard–During my decades of public service with DoJ (sorry, U.S. Dept. of Justice), I saw my share of ruthlessness and hypocrisy at the top of the so-called food chain. As I watch our current state of political food fights, I can’t help but think of the movie The Godfather with one particular episode coming to mind:

Your comments please? Also, regarding the soon-to-be released OIG (sorry, Office of Inspector General) report , I would suggest not having many expectations, considering the IG community (where I finished my federal service) is known to be a “paper tiger.” Wish I had more uplifting news for you and your ever-growing audience. Thank you for responding to EACH of my thought-provoking questions and comments. — Matthew Q.

First and foremost: The Godfather Parts I and II are masterpieces. I know nothing more as it pertains to your questions. I’m not even sure what you’re suggesting. As for the “paper tiger” characterization: You know more than I do, but I’m willing to wait and see what the OIG report says. But I thank you, Matthew, for giving me the opportunity to watch 2 minutes and 40 seconds of my second favorite movie of all time. (Casablanca is my favorite.)

Hey Bernie, first, your feedback to my questions and opinions are appreciated. For the record: I’m not trying to butt heads with you, just asking for your opinion on things I feel passionate about. You know and worked with the people I’m asking about and being someone who has bought and read every book you’ve written it’s really awesome to actually have a back and forth. As you know, I’m not crazy about Democrats, but I’m not a fan of elected officials who have been in D.C. for decades including many Republicans. Do you think term limits would be a good idea? Democrats have been saying the most outlandish stuff that just baffles me! AOC calls ICE agents terrorists, NY passes abortion bills up until birth, Presidential candidates are talking about banning guns, limiting speech, not saying flattering things about people of faith, and talking about abolishing the Electoral college. Pelosi says we are in a “constitutional crisis” YEAH! Mostly from the left. Do you think they say these outlandish things because they know the media will not challenge, but champion their comments? Do you think what happened to Kavanaugh was despicable? Do you think we are headed for a dark time in America, or will these moves towards soft tyranny be defeated? — Ralph

Ralph: Hell may be freezing over. I agree with everything you said.

First, I do NOT think progressives say those crazy things because they know liberal reporters will eat it up. I think they say crazy things because they believe those crazy things.

Second, Yes I do think that what happened to Kavanaugh was despicable. I thought left-wing Democrats on the panel embarrassed themselves.

Third, I’m not sure how you’re defining a dark time. I think we’ll get more polarized in years to come. And that’s not a good thing. And I’m not sure what it will take for us to come to our senses.

As for term limits: The voters have a chance every 2, 4 and 6 years to vote anyone they want in or out of office. Sure, incumbents have an advantage. But I’d rather put the burden of choosing on the voter rather than having term limit legislation. But I’m open to be swayed on this one. Bernie, I imagine I wasn’t alone growing up and thinking the whole world was like my own. Though I’m a few years younger than you, it’s likely we shared similar childhood experiences. Growing up in Detroit in a Jewish neighborhood, I thought everyone in the world was Jewish and a Democrat. The values I recall, included the importance of equal opportunity, civil liberties, color blindness, and an abhorrence of quotas and preferences. These values likely came from our grandparents who fled socialists, communists, Nazis, and other totalitarians where there was no freedom. Around 1994 I realized that no issues really mattered if we didn’t have prosperity that comes from a strong capitalistic economy, a good monetary system, and a safe and secure environment. At that time, I began noticing Democrats were becoming less interested in equal opportunity and color blindness, and more interested in economic equality, preferences and economic policies that threatened our future. Which brings me to a troubling recent survey by the Jewish Electoral Institute that concludes that a large majority of Jews now prefer a party where skin color is a determinative factor, civil liberties and due process are replaced by mob rule, and an economic system that many fled is now preferred — not to mention actual anti-Semitic congressional members who are tolerated by leadership.

How is it that Jews overwhelmingly support a party that represents everything that is anathema to their own beliefs about culture, freedoms, security and economic prosperity? And it’s not just Jewish ‘voters’. Not one of the 7 Jewish senators or 20 Jewish Democrat house members voted to approve the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. They, along with the ACLU apparently no longer support individual rights, freedom of speech, due process, presumption of innocence or the constitution, and instead favor the incivility, violence, and smear tactics of their party which always seem to lead to Jews being the first victims. Incidentally, where are the ADL and ACLU? It’s not that I’m crazy about Trump. But at least he’s color blind, not anti-Semitic, a great supporter of our relationship with Israel, and keeping his promises on improving the economy with cuts in taxes and regulations that have brought jobs and prosperity to many previously ignored. I know some scholars like Norman Podhoretz have tried to analyze this puzzling behavior. What do you think is going on? Is it rote behavior? Is it lack of knowledge? Are younger people just uneducated? Or is it that Jews, like many other groups, tend to put blame on leaders trying to fix problems, instead of those who caused the problems? — Michael E.

I think the mistake we make is to think the religion of the Jewish people you speak about is Judaism. It’s not. It’s liberalism. That comes first and that’s what guides their opinions and votes. And that, to me anyway, explains why something like 70 percent of American Jews vote Democratic.

Thinking back, I see the CNN coverage direct from Baghdad of Desert Storm perhaps the High Water Mark of journalism. Today it seems, outside of programs such as 60 minutes and HBO sports, today’s mainstream journalist focus on press briefings, interviews, and the internet for writing news. I may be wrong but I don’t see the street journalism and investigative reporting that was typical years ago. Am I wrong on this? Just a note: this Sunday morning our local sports radio station dedicated a full morning discussing horse racing. Centering on your reporting from HBO sports. You were quoted all morning. Great listening. Amazing how infectious good reporting is! — Tim H.

Hey Tim. Newspapers are still doing investigative reporting, and CBS News promotes itself with the tag line, Original Reporting. I think you’re too harsh regarding mainstream journalism’s dependence on “press briefings, interviews and the internet.” Cable is another story. The news people at Fox are very good. But all 3 major cable TV news operations are best known for their opinion shows. And what they do, by and large, is tell the audience what it wants to hear. It’s as if liberals think they can’t learn anything from conservatives and conservatives don’t think they can learn anything from liberals.

Thanks for the kind words about HBO Sports and my recent story about the deaths of racehorses at tracks all across America.

Do you think that once Trump is no longer president (whether it’s after this term or a second term), the Republican/conservative base will start caring again about things like the national debt, limited government, free markets, personal character, etc? Or do you think the base will continue down this path of personality/culture-war fueled populism?

Also, if Trump loses next year, do you think he’ll run again in 2024 (which I believe the law would allow)? Thanks. — Ben G.

Second question first: No way he runs in 2024. No. Way.

Ben, I hope, and think, once Donald Trump is out of office conservatives will care once again about things they’ve long cared about: national debt, limited government, etc etc.

But if the standard bearer for those ideas is very much unlike Donald Trump in terms of personality, I’m not convinced Mr. Trump’s most loyal fans will get on board and support that candidate. They like Donald Trump’s in-your-face demeanor. A more civil candidate may not go over well with the so-called base. Several million sat home on Election Day when McCain ran; same thing when Romney ran.

Bill Kristol seems to be one of the most despised conservatives among hardcore Trump supporters (online anyway). Have you ever met Bill, and what are your thoughts on him as a person and commentator? — Jen R.

I met him once, very briefly. We set hello and that was it. It’s no surprise that hardcore Trump supporters despise him. When I criticized Donald Trump I did it on Fox. Kristol — and more than a few other conservatives — bash the president on CNN and MSNBC. I’m not saying Mr. Trump doesn’t deserve the criticism. But it bothers me to see conservatives on those two cable channels. They’re being used and that seems to be just fine with them. CNN and MSNBC love nothing more than to have conservatives bash the president. Fox bears some responsibility for this. If Fox won’t let Kristol (and others) criticize the president on their channel, and CNN and MSNBC will, then if they crave face time they’ll do just what they’re doing.

As a movie fan, I’ve seen any number of films about true crimes. What disgusts me is when I read the facts about many of the people accused and sometimes convicted of the crimes after watching the Hollywood movie versions of what happened. Now I realize & get the whole notion of dramatic license. Nonetheless when I read about Robert Stroud (“The Bird Man Of Alcatraz”), Barbara Jean Graham (“I Want To Live”) and Ruben Hurricane Carter (“The Hurricane”) and see blatant lies passing for dramatic license to push a false picture of what these historical criminals were actually like, I want to show audiences who and what these thugs truly were! My question—what is it about these people that makes Hollywood writers & directors and other left wing entertainers like Bob Dylan want to lionize and make heroes and martyrs out of them? Norman Jewison Even got sued by one of Ruben Carter’s opponents for distorting a boxing match that Carter lost fair and square—-what’s going on with these leftists? At long last, have they no shame or sense of decency? — The Emperor

There’s a reason I don’t watch docudramas. And you stated that reason. I don’t know where truth ends and drama begins. As to motivations: I’m not specifically commenting about any of the movies you mentioned because, at least in the Ruben Hurricane Carter story, the facts are unclear — to me. But in general, liberals like to fight for the underdog and they often find that underdog at the wrong end of a guilty verdict. But we both know if Rush Limbaugh were wrongly convicted of a violent crime, Hollywood wouldn’t be making movies about the injustice; they’d be celebrating.

With Joe Biden’s age…..does he promise to just try and serve one term? (82 years old) or does he say, (Well, we’ll see when we reach that point) or does he (hope???) that 86 years of age will be granted him and we are supposed to come along for the ride?? With all of that, how important will his V.P. pick be?? If people can see Biden winning in 2020…..I would think it would be a LOT harder in 2024….wondering if he is going to be around for 4 more years…..Could he be the get rid of Trump candidate so that in 2024 we have a REAL election again? — Mike C.

I’m guessing Biden isn’t thinking about winning a second term. He’s focused on one thing: winning in 2020. If he succeeds, Que sera sera. What will be, will be. As for public promises regarding his future: I’m not expecting any promise from him. If he says he’ll serve just one term, Democrats would begin fighting for the top spot in 2024 campaign about 5 seconds after the inauguration.

As for VP: If Joe wins the nomination he won’t pick a white male as his running mate. I’m pretty sure of that. I’ve said all along that he’d pick Kamala Harris — white/black … old/young … male/female … moderate liberal/progressive.

Bernie…. Since you’re on the Mount Rushmore of current REAL journalists…if all the sudden you were made ‘Czar Of All Media’…and we’re given total control of the way media is presented and procured…what are five things you would immediately implement? — Greggo

Thanks for the compliment.

1. I would tell my staff, if you have an agenda, find another place to work. 2. No tweeting about stories you’re covering or may cover. No appearances on partisan TV shows either. The public won’t trust you if you appear, for example, on a show whose host calls the president a “schmuck.” 3. You’re entitled to your opinions but you must check them at the door. 4. It’s not enough to be accurate. We also have to be fair. Be sure to include all serious points of view on controversial stories. That does not mean we have to put someone in our story who says the Earth is flat. Use common sense. 5. We are not in business to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. That’s what ministers and social workers do. We are here to present both sides (or more) of the story as honestly as we can. We are not crusaders for ANY cause, no matter how worthy you may think it is. Let the audience decide how to feel about any story we cover.

I just watched the documentary on FoxNation.com of the whole mess that became Rathergate, and the fake but accurate memos from George W Bush’s national guard service. Considering this all went down just a couple years after your book ‘Bias’ came out, how much guilty pleasure did you get seeing Dan Rather & Mary Mapes get their comeuppance? — Thomas K.

Fair question, Thomas, but really … I don’t gloat. I do think Mapes and probably Rather had it in for W. But I don’t revel in their bad circumstances.

Bernie, have you ever seen the movie Anchorman 2? If you have what do you think? If not, I’ll tell you a little about it. It came out in 2013 and I just recently watched it. The scene takes place around 1980 when cable was getting into the news business. Ron Burgundy (Will Farrell) is fired from a network news channel. At the same time his wife is hired by the same network. Burgundy ends up getting a job with GNN, the world’s first 24-hour network.

I am not sure that have all of the details exact, but one of the scenes went something like this. His wife has a huge interview lined up with I believe Yasser Arafat and other leaders in the Middle East. They plan to have an intellectual discuss and hope to bring peace to the Middle East (similar to Walter Cronkite’s interview with Sadat and Begin). Burgundy’s cable news cast is up against his wife’s show. All week long, Burgundy promises everyone that he’ll out do that! Everyone thinks he’s crazy and it will probably be the end of his career.

With a few minutes before each show begins, Burgundy is preparing to admit that he has nothing and is ready to apologize on air to everyone, including his wife. Suddenly, he glimpses at one of the monitors and asked his producer, what’s that??? The producer responds that the police are chasing someone on a Los Angeles freeway. Burgundy replies, “put it on the main feed!”. The producer says, “are you crazy?” Burgundy insist “put it on!”. The producer, thinking that Burgundy is gone to be fired anyway, complies. The ratings go through the roof and Ron Burgundy wins! The rest is history! Sound about right? — Michael T.

Yup! Some guy steals a pack of bubble gum from a candy store and Fox was on the air for hours with the police chase. I’m all for Burgundy or anyone else mocking the crap out of the real idiots who put that stuff on TV. Fox even showed a guy blowing his brains out after a chase. It was supposed to be on a delay but someone screwed up. Everyone involved in police chase live shots — other than the OJ slow mo chase or something truly newsworthy — is a disgrace.

Bernie, when or why did so many people in this nation stop respecting each other despite our differences? It seems like the rise of identity politics has torn us apart and made people hate those with different opinions and beliefs from their own. Do you believe identity politics is a serious threat to the survival of our nation and do you ever think we will get to a point where our leaders can work together despite their different beliefs? — JM

I think both sides, right and left, are responsible for the polarization we have in America. Neither side thinks it can learn anything from the other. It’s beyond identity politics. Politics in general is war these days. And neither side seems to want a truce. Can our leaders work together? They can. But I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

It seems to me that at times journalists are lazy in terms of how they write their stories. For example, if a press release is sent to them by an interest group or other, they report that release as though it were gospel without follow up or check. If a rally is in town, and they do no interviewing of the attendees or the organizers, we are left with only the journalists description and nothing else. Journalists took pride in the past when doing their stories and made sure that they checked and rechecked the facts before printing and going on air. That is not the case anymore. Do you agree? — Alex P.

I’m curious how you know that journalists write their stories from press releases sent by interest groups. That may happen at a small local station but not likely at a major news organization. The problem today is that too many journalists believe certain values are the “correct” ones and other values are not — and they spin their stories according to those preconceived ideas. And journalists tend to find sources who give them juicy anonymous scoops that may or may not represent the whole situation. I’m not sure if that’s laziness or something worse.

Bernie, This may not be easy to pull off but it’d command a very large audience and it’d be good for the country: For years you have written about, talked about and warned about how the liberal bias of the mainstream media is destroying journalism and the credibility of the news media and has become a serious impediment to the public’s ability to obtain a proper balance of information upon which to make well- informed judgments about the issues. All the while pretty much every big name in journalism has dismissed your claim of liberal bias, suggesting, in effect, that you and those of us who agree with you simply do not have a case that merits being taken seriously.

My question is: Why don’t you resolve to make an all-out effort to force – force – the liberal bias deniers (call them that – it’d drive them nuts) to debate you on this in public on television? It’d be great fun and it’d accomplish much good. Sure, no network or cable outlet would carry it but maybe PBS could be shammed into doing so. More likely it’d have to be C-Span but with enough publicity generated about such a debate it would command impressive audience numbers. As Ronald Reagan liked to say, If you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat. They refuse to see the light. So why don’t you do everything you can, Bernie, to burn them with the heat? You’d wipe the floor with them. I know it. You know it. They know it. All you need do is forcefully say you’d had it with these liberal bias deniers and you dare any one of them- or any group of them – to publicly debate you on this issue. And then, I guarantee it, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and others would pound them relentlessly demanding they be as willing to defend their no-liberal-bias claim as you are to defend you charge that’s it’s rampant. It’d be easy to create on-going coverage that would have them cringing and quivering. I’d volunteer to craft the strategy because it’s something I personally would love to see happen. They deserve it! The worst that could happen is that a pretty sizable number of the public would witness these crowds running away scared rather than defend their claim that they’re fair. Which, of course, makes your point. The best is we strike a powerful blow against liberal media bias. Would you be willing to try doing this? — Fred E. Thanks Fred for the confidence in me, but I’m just not interested. Would I want to debate someone who says the Earth is flat? Besides, I don’t think it’s just a liberal bias problem anymore — not with the power of cable tv news. It’s a good idea but not for me.

President Trump is crude and uncouth and crass and at times dishonest, among other things, but that doesn’t justify such wretched reporting on certain subjects. Cenk Uygur reported on a vile hate crime that could happen “only in Trump’s America” Where and elderly Mexican man was brutally assaulted and told to go back to Mexico. The young turks made out like this was a hate crime committed by the white supremacist Trump supporters but it turned out to be a black female thug from Los Angeles——an unlikely Trump supporter. Another reporter, a Mr. Dean I believe, reported an account of a young disabled man being abducted and called racial epithets and how trumps name was being bandied about by the criminal thugs. The narrative would lead any listener to believe that a mentally disabled black man was attacked by white Trump supporters, but the opposite was true and it was a mentally disabled young white man who was attacked by anti-trump black thugs. And finally of course, we have the Covington Catholic High School vs. Nathan Phillips and the media’s embarrassing and dreadful behavior of which they are now facing a lawsuit.

My questions are as follows: Why wouldn’t the news media’s behavior regarding these incidents NOT make them the “enemy of the people” when media members deliberately distort their reporting to not only push their biased narrative but also to purposely slander and harm people who are despised by the media when in reality THEY are the victims in these stories. Also, if the media loses tons of money to the Covington high school students, do you think other mainstream media outlets will think twice in the future before deliberately slandering people they don’t like? — Best regards to you from the Emperor! With all due respect, Emperor, I am so sick of the “Enemies of the people” garbage. You pick out egregious examples of bias. Not by hard news journalists but by political left wing activists with a tiny megaphone. Is Sean Hannity an enemy of the people for putting out fake news that bolsters his right wing politics? Or, in your view, are liberals the only guilty ones here.

Donald Trump refers to mainstream journalists as the enemies of the people — because, he says, they peddle “fake news.” For the 10 millionth time, they do not make up sources out of nothing. The president is playing you for a great big sucker. He told Leslie Stahl — off camera — that he bashes the media so people won’t trust reporters when they say bad things about him. I confirmed the story with someone in the room with Mr. Trump and Leslie. Let me repeat: He’s playing YOU and many other fans of his, for suckers. He knows you’ll believe anything he says about the press — even when journalists accurately report his dishonesty. I’m sick of this subject.

Mr. Goldberg, I’ve heard about the good work you have been doing to help that citizens group that is trying to persuade highway departments to relocate Deer Crossing signs from heavily traveled roads to spots where it will be safer for them to cross without getting injured or causing injuries to cars and drivers. I just want to say Thank You and Good for You. Your sensitivity and your skill at sounding the alarm for problems that need to be dealt with leads me to ask you if you would please consider joining with me in trying to do something about the national disgrace we’re experiencing in abuse of parking spaces for the handicapped. We all know that the best parking spaces are reserved for the handicapped and this is a good thing, right? But our authorities need to wise up and do it right. Think about it: the signs read that if you park in a handicapped space without proper credentials, Maximum Penalty $250 or whatever. Dumb! Why give away that that’s the worse penalty you can get? Penalty $250 & Up would be a much greater deterrent. Make them worry about worst possible instead of telling them what to expect, get it? People who are in perfect health and great shape are using spaces reserved for the handicapped everywhere you look. They know that if they do it every opportunity they get there’s little chance they’ll be caught at it and fined. And even if they do eventually get caught, well, if they’re done it 500 times over the years and pay a $250 fine they just view it as having had the best parking spaces available all these times for just 50 cents. Hard to beat that deal, right? The solution to ending this horrible abuse of handicapped parking is so obvious, Bernie, that I know someone with your smarts and powers of persuasion will be able to get the authorities to pass the law we need. Presumptions underlie all laws, right? We presume, for example, that if the penalty for bank robbery, is prison as opposed to a $10 fine fewer people will rob banks. Well, just have the law state that we as a society presume that anyone who is not handicapped who parks in a handicapped space wishes they were handicapped. Get it? If they want to identify as being handicapped, let them! Instead of paying a fine, they’ll get to play The Wheel of Misfortune. Spin and Win. Lose a leg. Lose an arm. Lose an eye or two. Spin and win a surprise handicap. I expect there will be some opposition to this, but we have to do something and I am sure that most people agree with me that if we did this then people who are not handicapped would quit hogging so many of our precious supply of handicapped parking spaces. You get it, right? Counting on your support. Thanks for considering. — Fred E.

Fred, keep the jokes shorter next time. Ever hear about how “Brevity is the soul of wit.” In your case, brevity is a four letter word. Question: Last time you wrote to me, I suggested you go pro with your comedy act. You’re very good. Have you gone pro? I can see you on a local cable access TV show at 2 in the morning — someplace like Raleigh, NC. I know Bernie that you have said you believe Mueller believes Trump committed Obstruction. My question is, where is the crime? Obstruction of injustice? Is the Prosecutor’s job to prosecute crime or merely to get a notch on his belt. My concern is if they can do this to the President they can do this to anyone! A waste of the people’s time and money! — Joseph V.

Donald Trump does stupid things on a regular basis. Trying to stop or impede the investigation was one of those stupid things. And he did it repeatedly. But as I’ve written more than once — he tried to impede an investigation into a non- existent crime. I think Mr. Trump is impulsively stupid and I think his Democratic foes who want him impeached are hopelessly partisan and nasty. I don’t like either side.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.

Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit Bernie’s Q&A: Karl Rove, Paul McCartney, Hank Haney, AG Barr, and more (6/7) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)

Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium

Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.

Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):

Do you think, especially during the Bush years, that Karl Rove got a bad rap as an evil genius (cutthroat, no-holds-barred political operative)? Unlike a lot of people who’ve managed presidential campaigns, he has always struck me as a nice and thoughtful guy. I know that people would argue that point by referencing the infamous robocall regarding John McCain’s daughter (when Bush was running against McCain in the 2000 primary), but Rove denies that was him, and and I don’t know what to believe there. What are your thoughts on Mr. Rove? — Jen R.

He’s one of the relatively few contributors on Fox from whom I always learn something. Sure, he’s a partisan, but unlike many of the others on Fox, he’s not an ideologue. And I look forward on Thursday’s to his column in the Wall Street Journal. If I were running for something — I NEVER WILL — I’d want Rove on my team.

Sir Bernard-Thank you for your recent in depth (hidden camera) reporting of the current state of affairs of horse racing in the U.S. I would highly recommend, to your viewing audience, the piece recently aired on HBO Real Sports. — Matthew Q.

Thanks Matthew. I’ve heard from a lot of people who watched the story. The one word that keeps popping up is “disturbing.”

Okay, I’ll bite—what’s the story about Paul McCartney calling you “Dave” way back when? — The Emperor (Editor’s note: Chris C. asked the same question)

I spent four days with McCartney in Chicago in the late 80s for a CBS News 48 Hours special. After four days we said goodbye at the door to his suite at the Ritz Carlton hotel. As I walked off down a long narrow hallway, he added a final goodbye from his door, something like “Take it easy” or “Take care” and ended with him calling me Dave. I was about 20 feet down the hallway and I slowly turned and said, “You don’t know my name.” To which he replied: “Yes I do.” So I said, “What’s my name.” McCartney said, “Bernie.” I then said, “So why’d you call me Dave.” He said: “I call all Americans Dave.” I smiled and said, “Take it easy, Ringo.” Turned and walked into the sunset. Bernie, over a decade ago your pal O’Reilly wrote “Culture Warrior.” I think the battle now is much more intense than it was in the mid-60s and actually has been globalized. What are your views on this subject and given the bias in the institutions that most directly control culture in America ( the press, academia and the entertainment industry), is it inevitable that the secular progressive forces will ultimately prevail? Also do you have advice for parents and grandparents who worry about their children and grandchildren being inundated with non-traditional values and perspectives? — Michael F.

The Left has won the culture war. They control the culture — all the institutions you mentioned: the press, academia, the entertainment industry. I think one of the reasons Donald Trump won in 2016 is because a lot of Americans know what you know and are just as unhappy about it. Can things change? Sure. But I don’t see those institutions moving rightward anytime soon.

As for what parents and grandparents can do: Teach values. Live the values you say are important. Kids will pick up on that. Culture is a powerful force — but so is family.

Sir Bernard :

1. Do you believe CNN demonstrated fairness when they asked then-GoP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich about a purported conversation with his then-spouse regarding an open marriage? 2. If invited, would you welcome the opportunity to be on a panel of an upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential debate between the candidate of the democrat and republican party? If so or if not, what questions would you like to ask of Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden (assuming he is the Democrat candidate)? 3. Is it appropriate to refer to the Democrat party and their elected officials….as Democratic vs Democrat? — Matthew Q.

1. As I recall that was one of, if not THE, first question asked of Gingrich. I think it was designed to make him look bad — not to elicit genuine, important information. I didn’t like it when I heard it– and I still don’t like it. 2. It’s moot, Matthew. Not going to happen. I’d ask the president why he’s so thin-skinned; why he can’t take a shot and not respond; why he’s so insecure that he has to fight back with needlessly nasty responses. I ask him what it was about his childhood that made him the way he is today. As for Biden, I have a column coming up later this month with a whole bunch of questions I want reporters to ask him at the first Democratic presidential debate. Stay tuned. 3. I can’t figure out the hard right fascination with calling the party Democrat instead of Democratic. I’ve heard from a few liberals that conservatives who use the word Democrat do it because the word ends with “rat.” At first I thought that was ridiculous. Now, I’m not so sure.

There an old saying that some people think borders on the ridiculous that I’d like to quote now. The saying goes, “If you’re 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart. And if you’re 50 and not a conservative, you have no brains.” Of course, that statement is a quite a bit over-the-top, but it does have a germ of truth embedded in it. Young people tend to be idealistic rather than pragmatic. So, it follows that their political ideology will tend to tilt to the left; sometimes far to the left. But as we get older, and we have been frequently smacked in the face with life’s reality, we tend to tilt to the right, and again, sometimes far to the right. So, I guess that explains why in areas of the country with an older population, the Republicans tend to do well. And conversely, in areas where the population trends younger, the Democrats tend to do well. This, as well as other factors, screams for the continued need for the Electoral College, which the Democrats are feverishly looking to abolish. What are your thoughts on this matter? And do you think it’s possible/probable that the Electoral College will go by the way of the Betamax? — Joe B.

Huh? Is Betamax dead? What about my 8-track, is that behind the curve too?

Ok, let’s get serious: Your analysis is right on the money regarding the quotation. As for the Electoral College, some liberals want to abolish it because it cost them the last election. If they won because of the Electoral College it would be conservatives — not all, of course — saying it’s time for the EC to go. But I don’t think the Electoral College is going to be abolished anytime soon. But, never say never.

Regarding what led to the Special Counsel investigation, I do appreciate that we have to wait for the IG/DOJ reports, but I believe we can infer a lot from these factoids: Comey/fired; Mccabe/fired; Strokh/fired(?)/reassigned; Page/resigned; Baker/resigned; Ohr/twice demoted (for now). I cannot recall that much top-shelf brass leaving in a supposedly non- political agency. And, of course, all the Russian activity took place under the previous administration. Something is beyond rotten. Your thoughts? — The Fantom

Fantom, this answer won’t please you anymore than the last. I can wait a few days for the Inspector General’s report to come out. And I can wait for the attorney general’s findings too. I’d rather comment after I have hard facts as to what was actually going on. Will I be shocked if they conclude that higher ups at the FBI broke the rules? No!

Hi Bernie, In the last Q&A, you mentioned that you believe that Robert Mueller believes that President Trump did in fact commit obstruction, but didn’t name it in his report due the DOJ guidelines about indicting a sitting President, which he referred to in his press briefing. While under oath and presenting to congress AG Barr stated that he and Rod Rosenstein specifically asked Mueller three separate times if the DOJ guidelines were what prevented him in making that finding and that Mueller confirmed three times that it was not. Barr went on to say that he and Rosenstein looked at the report independent of the DOJ guidelines (as if they did not exist), and still did not come up with obstruction. We know that one of the “11 instances” of potential obstruction sited by Mueller was Trump’s obvious joke saying maybe the Russians could find Hillary’s missing emails since the FBI couldn’t. So here’s the questions: Who is lying, Barr who was under oath and had witnesses to the conversation, or Mueller, who gave a press conference and didn’t take questions? Secondly, don’t you find it a bit laughable (if not sad) that Mueller and so many journalists actually cite Trump’s joke as collusion/obstruction? Is the left really that stupid, or have they all just had their funny bones surgically removed? Thanks! — Keith M.

Let me start at the end, Keith. Yes liberals — some of them, anyway — really are that stupid and a lot of them have no sense of humor when it comes to the man they detest, Donald J. Trump.

As for the rest of your question, honestly, I’m growing weary of who said what. I don’t know if Barr is covering for the president or if Mueller isn’t the straight shooter he’s portrayed to be. Really, I just don’t know. In any event, I’m more concerned right now with the NBA Finals.

Greetings Mr. Goldberg: I often hear from right wingers that they dislike the welfare system because in their opinion it often rewards bad behavior, laziness, promiscuity, illegitimacy, etc. I also hear from left wingers that conservative red states have the highest amount of people ON welfare programs, implying the hypocrisy of so many on the right who denigrate these programs. The left wingers state that left wing programs are successful because so many liberals are much richer than so many conservatives, and thus their states don’t have as many people ON welfare. The odd paradox I see here is that supposedly many conservatives are receiving welfare benefits that they despise, and many liberals who say that they want the rich to “pay their fair share and spread the wealth” ARE the rich whom THEY despise. What’s going on here? How do you explain red states having so many conservatives receiving the welfare benefits that they hate? How do you explain the blue states having so many wealthy liberals that hate the wealthy? Your thoughts are most appreciated. — Best Regards from The Emperor

Your Holiness, you make my head hurt. In a good way. Insert smiley face here.

It’s not crazy that some people on welfare don’t like OTHER people on welfare. Race may be a factor here. I suspect you know what I mean. Some white guy in the Ozarks may not think much of a woman with 5 kids on welfare in Chicago. But they’re both on welfare, right? So go figure.

And those wealthy liberals who are constantly complaining about income inequality and all that, aren’t giving away their money — and they don’t hate themselves for having money. Liberals don’t like conservatives with “too much” money. If they themselves have it, that’s fine.

People are only human, Emperor, and humans are full of inconsistencies. George Carlin once told me this whole thing — the world in which we live — is one great big show. If it is, Your Holiness, just take in the show, smile at the hypocrisies, and enjoy.

In Jon Meachom’s Biography of Thomas Jefferson, he says Sally Hemmings was Jefferson’s wife’s half sister. His wife’s Father had a Slave mistress that bore him children. Jefferson took care of Sally and her Family after his wife’s death. He brought Sally with him to France vwhere she could have immediately declared herself a free person but did not choose to do so. Doesn’t this speak to Jefferson’s character? — Joseph V.

Sure. But don’t expect everybody to think Jefferson was a great guy. If — I repeat if — he was having sex with a slave — human property who may not have had a say in the matter — that also says something about his character. Yes? One more time: IF …

Mr. Goldberg, I, like most laughed when Di Blasio announced his candidacy for POTUS. What I was struck by was the high percentage of New Yorkers who thought it was a dumb idea and how he would be a terrible candidate. I would have loved to ask them, “why if you feel that way, did you vote for the man not once, but twice?” Moving on, why do you think the Republicans have chosen not to go after the likes of Julie Swetnick who [under the guidance of her scumbag attorney, Avenatti] perjured herself during the Kavanaugh hearings.? Know darn well the Democrats would not have let that go by. It’s kinda like they went “whew, at least we got him confirmed” and decided to forget how unscrupulous the attacks on him were. — John M.

I don’t know why Republicans in Congress let all sorts of people getting away with all kinds of stuff. Why didn’t they go after the IRS woman, Lois Lerner behind the move to deprive conservative organizations tax-exempt status? Take a guess who cleared up of any wrongdoing? Then FBI Chief James Comey.

Why haven’t they gone after the guy who “bleached” Hillary’s computer info? Why was he granted immunity? I could go on, but I don’t want to get depressed.

I’m asking if you think my analysis is over the top paranoid. I’m going to paraphrase Mueller without using President Trumps name because he is not my concern…

Mueller: Citizen, my office was charged with investigating an allegation against you and your associates in collusion with foreign elements wishing to harm our nation. Our final conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence to make this judgement against you. However during this investigation, your protestation of your innocence denigrated our process and demeaned it as a WitchHunt. We therefore cannot exonerate you as your Protest of innocence obstructed us from finding out you did not commit a crime. It’s unfair to accuse you without a trial so although my assignment is over we are leaving up to the system to try you for protesting us. Because 1. We do not like you because 2. You do not like us. You will have to prove you are not guilty.

Does the term Malicious Prosecution strike a chord? Or “Enemy of the State”? Isn’t this what the Communist did to Innocents they perceived as their enemies in the Soviet Union?? Am I over the top in seeing this trend towards Totalitarianism in our Justice system? I don’t like President Trump but I believe he is an American Citizen and deserves the Presumption of innocence like the Rest of us. If they can do this to him, they can do it to us. Am I nuts? — Joseph V.

You may be nuts, but in this matter you’re on to something. First, I do not think Mueller refused to exonerate the president because the president said bad things about Mueller. I don’t think he’d be that petty. Of course, he’s only human so who knows. But I agree that Mueller had no business making that very public statement about “not exonerating” the president. As you say, we’re all entitled to the presumption of innocence. Donald Trump doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent. But what is clear to me is that Mueller believes the president broke the law, that he obstructed justice and that he now believes it’s up to Congress to act. And I also think Mueller would like to see Mr. Trump impeached. Bernie, I’d be interested in hearing your take on the recent Hank Haney/Korean LPGA players dust up. Perhaps how he said what he said could have been phrased more delicately, but when I read his quote I took it more as Hank giving high praise to the level of play demonstrated by the current field of great young female Korean golfers. — OverTheTop

Two things: First, I think anyone who isn’t careful these days with how he says anything, especially about women — and in this case women of a particular nationality — is just asking for trouble. Memo to everybody speaking publicly: Think before you open your mouth and then … don’t be stupid! And second: I wish we’d all ratchet down on the sensitivity. I often think we’re looking for something to offend us. Here’s how Haney put it after saying whoever wins the next LPGA would likely be a Korean:

“My prediction that a Korean woman would be atop the leaderboard at the Women’s US Open was based on statistics and facts. Korean women are absolutely dominating the LPGA Tour. If you asked me again my answer would be the same but worded more carefully.”

Bernie: I know the major newspapers are liberal. Even in their news stories, opinion is inserted, sometimes deftly, sometimes heavy-handed. I always thought the Associated Press was like Joe Friday in its news stories — just the facts. I saw this lead sentence in their news story about President Trump going to Europe: “Like a bull who keeps returning to the china shop, President Donald Trump is headed back to Europe, where on previous visits he has strained historic friendships and insulted his hosts.” What in the world? It’s not even original with that cliche. What are your thoughts on the AP news coverage now? Does this surprise you? — Warren M.

My first job out of college was at the AP. Back then, it was, as you say, just the facts. No more. It’s disgraceful. But I suspect the AP figures it has to be provocative these days to be noticed, to stand out. When I was there, many moons ago, the whole idea was NOT to stand out. I agree with your analysis, Warren. Thanks for sending it my way.

Ok Bernie, here it goes. I’ve ruminated for 2 weeks over your answers to my questions about Hannity, Trump, and Fake news. First you said “The President is playing you Ralph” I’m from the same streets you are, no one plays me. On Hannity being “dishonest” you may be right, I disagree, but ok maybe. As far as him being a sycophant, I think that’s a little extreme. Here is my question, as the guy who literally wrote a book called “Crazies to the left, Wimps to the right” what is it that you don’t like about Trump? Can you give me one example of a legitimate criticism, except for his manner? He’s the guy fighting back on disgraceful left wing mendacity but you seem to have a big beef with the President, why? — Ralph P.

There’s no answer that I can give, Ralph, that would satisfy you. Your mind is made up on this, and so is mine. But I will say that when you write, “Can you give me one example of a legitimate criticism, except for his manner” … it reminds me of that old line, “Besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the show.

Donald Trump is the most dishonest person I’ve ever met either in public or private life. He’s crude. He’s vulgar. He’s mean-spirited — and those are some of his good points.

I understand that these things don’t bother you. Fine with me. You’re not the only person to say something like, “As long as he fights the disgraceful left wing …”

You and I care about different things, Ralph. We put priorities on different values. Free country, right?

And if you think Hannity isn’t a Trump sycophant then you don’t know the meaning of the word. Hannity would defend Trump if the president shot somebody on Fifth Avenue — and would crucify Obama or Hillary if they jaywalked. Let’s agree to disagree and move on. And for the record: I”m not a Never Trumper. If he knocks off the trash talk and the rest, I’ll support him.

Bernie, where do you stand on style versus substance? Will the 2020 elections be more about style or substance? Personality or policy? What policy issues matter most to you? — Michael F.

In the United States of Entertainment, you can’t minimize personality. Trump won in 2016 because of his personality. Hillary lost because of hers. But of course, substance matters. Style alone won’t cut it. What matters to me? Someone with policies I agree with (substance) … and a style that makes him or her electable.

Interesting column you wrote on impeachment in Trump’s second term. So then, what are the odds of the Democrats keeping the house???? How does the map look for the house in 2020? — Mike C.

Too early to say, Mike. More than 40 GOP House members retired last time around, which gave the Democrats a big advantage. But, and forgive me for stating the obvious, if Trump wins big, the House could go GOP. If he loses, it probably stays with the Democrats. Let’s revisit as we get closer to Nov 2020.

In watching this year’s D-Day ceremonies, do you have any concerns that the 100 year remembrance will be treated still with the same priority, respect and reverence? Will the worlds leaders & peoples’ in 25 years still “get it”? I certainly hope so. — Scotty G.

No concerns at all. There’s something special about 100 — birthdays, anniversaries, whatever. This assumes, of course, that our nation hasn’t fundamentally changed between now and then. But I don’t think even far left candidates, the ones who want to change all sorts of things about America, will be dopey enough to downplay such a historic event. If I’m wrong get back to me in 25 years. (Joke)

Being that you were such a big part of the O’Reilly Factor for so many years, I was curious if you were ever publicly berated by someone who recognized you from television, and wanted to give you a piece of their mind over a political disagreement. — Max R.

Good question, Max. The folks who recognize me, at airports or restaurants, are invariably friendly. Every now and then someone will tell me he disagrees with me, but that’s fine. However ..

I used to play pick up basketball on weekends. Everyone except me was a liberal. One of those guys was also NUTS. He once went off the rails, screaming, “You’re just a typical Republican.” And someone in the neighborhood saw my wife walking the dog — before her mandatory morning coffee — and said something like, “I don’t like anything about your husband — or anything he stands for.” My wife — who people say is the nicest person they ever met — told the guy to “think whatever you want,” and kept walking.

If he had said it to my face, I would have smiled and also just kept walking. Depending on my mood, I might have said, “Small world. I don’t like anything about you, either.” To this day, I’ve never met the guy. To be clear, I don’t care if he doesn’t like anything about me, but don’t stop my wife on the street and berate me — indirectly. And like I said, she hadn’t even had her morning coffee. Trust me, that’s a big deal.

Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here. Name: *

Email Address:

Subject:

Message: * Submit