‘Morning Joe’ bans Trump aide Kellyanne Conway


‘Morning Joe’ bans Trump aide Kellyanne Conway

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway is no longer welcome on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” co-host Mika Brzezinski declared Wednesday — blasting the Trump aide as** “not credible anymore.”**

“At times in recent days, Kellyanne Conway has struggled to be on the same page, to say the least, as the rest of the staff in the White House,” Brzezinski said, citing Conway’s contradictory TV interviews on short-lived national security adviser Michael Flynn’s exit.

“We know for a fact that she tries to book herself on this show —** I won’t do it. Because I don’t believe in fake news, or information that is not true **… every time I’ve ever seen her on television, something’s askew, off or incorrect.”

Co-host Joe Scarborough, echoing an argument he’d made on the show one day earlier, added that Conway was “out of the loop” and not privy to “key meetings” in the White House.

“She’s not briefed,” Scarborough said, dialing back a previous assertion that Conway “lies.” “She’s just saying things just to get in front of the TV set and prove her relevance, because behind the scenes, she’s not in these meetings.”

In case the hosts’ policy on Conway wasn’t abundantly clear, Brzezinski later spelled it out: “Kellyanne Conway does not need to text our show, at least as long as I’m on it,” she stated flatly. “Because it’s not happening here.”


Related to Zibnignew Brezhinski perhaps, a Democrat?


His daughter


I’m sure Kellyanne will be distraught about being frozen out by one of the lowest rated news shows in existence.


I kinda feel bad for her. Her credibility is completely shot. I don’t know if they are deliberately sending her out to make these statements, or whether she is simply out of the loop and reduced to speculating. Either way, its clear that her recent statements have been both wrong and out of step with the official White House line. No point in having a spokeswoman on your show if she does not actually speak for the administration, and doesn’t know what is going on.


I’m not sure I would count her out so quickly. She was instrumental in turning a campaign nobody thought could be won into a victory, and by outthinking an opposition having vastly greater resources.


From the interviews I’ve seen with her my feelings have consistently been that interviews wither her consume time while yielding little to nothing of informational value; she doesn’t provide straight answers to questions and her comments are often not consistent with other things that she has said.


Perhaps that’s not where her talent lies, and possibly she doesn’t care whether she convinces people who won’t believe a word she says anyway.


Yes, absolutely true and impressive accomplishments. But she is spending a lot of that reputational coin very quickly. She needs to figure out a way to right that ship.


I don’t think it does.

I wasn’t writing on whether or not her words were convincing, but that they are self inconsistent and usually not addressing the questions asked. Someone could be consistent yet not convince.


Yes. That’s why Kate McKinnon’s satirical impersonations of her are so perfect.

This isn’t a slam against President Trump. I don’t think Ms. Conway serves him well. She’s too easy a target.


It’s hard to believe anything someone says or to take them credible when they believe in alternative facts.


This sounds kind of childish to me on the part of the hosts of “Morning Joe.” She doesn’t have to be a frequent guest, but to outright ban her? Really?


I think she is more intelligent than that; her words probably are not a direct expression of her beliefs but are instead a tool for shaping/guiding a narrative (not that his helps/addresses views on her credibility). But I don’t think the “alternative facts” phrase did her any favours.


No, it didn’t, despite (or because of) the fact that it was probably the most honest thing she’d ever said on television.

I mean, that was an absolutely straightforward description of what her role is in the Trump White House.


yeah, maybe she should feel honored.:shrug:


Being called to account for candor by MSNBC is a little like getting a chastity pitch from Charlie Sheen. When KellyAnne refers to alternative facts she is talking about ancillary facts, interpretations, or a different perspective or facet of the subject. The phrase alternative fact is used in law and is known to most lawyers, which KellyAnne is, and I’m surprised that journalists and others familiar with legal processes, wouldn’t have immediately interjected with an explanation. Whenever lefties like to refer to alternative facts they are referring to the leftist narrative that is the fantasy world in which those alternative facts exists. Alternate facts are facts the news does not publish because they are don’t fit the narrative. In too many circumstances what so called journalists present is not alternative facts but outright lies and half truth’s. That is why the media’s approval ratings are so low and sinking all the time. So when people want to say alternative facts aren’t facts the not only are wrong but they are propagating an ignorance born out of lazy and shallow thinking.


KC brought was brought the term to life not when talking ancillary facts, interpretations, or a different perspective or facet. She was defending the substitution of alt-fact for fact.

Asked on “Meet the Press” why Spicer used his first appearance before the press to dispute a minimal issue like the inauguration crowd size, and why he used falsehoods to do so, Conway pushed back.

“You’re saying it’s a falsehood and Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that,” she told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

She then went on to echo Spicer’s claim on Saturday that it wasn’t possible to count the crowd, despite Trump’s team’s accompanying insistence that it was the “largest audience.”


No more childish than the Trump WH freezing out CNN, refusing to send surrogates, Kellyanne, the President’s senior counsel and his press secretary, Sean Spicer onto CNN saying, “We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda,” said a White House official, acknowledging that CNN is not such a place, but adding that the ban is not permanent. In an attempt to punish CNN and force down the network’s ratings according to a CNN reporter.


Although on second thought, Trump, as we know, is all about TV ratings.


The possibility of an alterative fact proposes that fact can be this or it could be that. Not that a fact is either this or that. There might be different facts that bear on any question such that the question has legitimacy or truth. That is the thing that I understood KellyAnne to say. The truth of how many people were in attendance is not restricted to the facts introduced because there are other facts that bear on the question which impacts interpretive conclusions.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.