
Chris Wallace On Fox News: ‘The Best Inaugural Address I Ever Heard’

Fox News’s Chris Wallace calls Joe Biden’s inaugural address the best that he has ever heard. pic.twitter.com/cVhaRw1RXX
— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) January 20, 2021
Fox News’ Sandra Smith wonders if Biden signing executive orders on his first day will show he’s not for unity, asking “what message does this send.” Chris Wallace: “It says that he won. It’s as simple as that.” pic.twitter.com/y1zGSBubtV
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) January 20, 2021
Chris Wallace will probably have a pink slip in his next paycheck, but Damn, I respect him #SpeakingTruthToPower https://t.co/AEmqhcPhpQ
— 🇺🇸Proud of my Country Again🇺🇸💙🌊 (@soccerlives1127) January 20, 2021
Chris Wallace on Fox News just now said he’s been listening to Inaugural speeches since Kennedy’s in 1961 & that Biden’s was the best he’s ever heard. This being said on Fox is not a small deal. 👏🏼
— MegLavDC (@MegLavDC) January 20, 2021
News Round-Up: November 18, 2019

Fox News Fact Checks Sarah Huckabee Sanders On Bogus ‘Terrorists Coming Across Mexican Border’ Lie
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders found out today what it’s like to be interviewed by a journalist who’s done his homework.
In an interview with Fox News‘ Chris Wallace, Sanders attempted to push the false claim about terrorists being caught at the southern border on Fox News Sunday, but Chris Wallace just happened to have the facts at hand.
“I know the statistic, I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this,” Wallace said. “Do you know what those 4,000 people come where they are captured? Airports.”
“Not always,” Sanders tried.
“Airports. The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border,” continued Wallace. “But they’re not coming across the southern border, Sarah, they’re coming and they’re being stopped at airports.”
“They’re coming a number of ways, they’re certainly, I’m not disagreeing with you that they’re coming through airports,” lamely offered Sanders.
You have to wonder how different would the state of the nation be if every journalist was prepared with facts when interviewing politicians?
Watch below.
Chris Wallace “I know the statistic, I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come, where they are captured? Airports.” Sarah Sanders didn’t see that coming! pic.twitter.com/OTHlck84xY— Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) January 6, 2019
Sarah Sanders attempted to push the false claim about terrorists being caught at the southern border on Fox News Sunday and Chris Wallace was having none of it.https://t.co/qGBS6V8PR2 pic.twitter.com/cdDynlvxwA— andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) January 6, 2019
.@PressSec didn’t get grilled, she got eviscerated for the flat-out fabrications and pathetic factual distortions she, @realDonaldTrump and @SecNielsen keep pushing out there.—
Chris Wallace Grills Sarah Sanders on Bogus Border Terror Threat Claims https://t.co/zix7LVtvCF
— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) January 6, 2019
On Fox News, Chris Wallace destroys Sarah Sanders. pic.twitter.com/SGGL4in8bG— Will Saletan (@saletan) January 6, 2019
Fox News To Jill Stein: “There’s Not A Chance In The World” A Recount Will Change The Election
Things got really heated today on Fox News Sunday as host Chris Wallace challenged Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein on her ongoing mission to see the results of the election recounted in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Said Wallace, “There’s not a chance in the world here, Dr. Stein, that the vote is going to change in those three states.”
I honestly don’t understand why conservatives are so adverse to a recount.
The money has been raised by private citizens, it’s not costing the American taxpayer anything, and it’s legal. Plus, for weeks Donald Trump ranted that the “system was rigged.” Just this week he asserted that there were “millions” of illegal votes in other states.
So what’s so bad about looking into these issues?
I don’t believe a recount will change the outcome of the election, but I do agree with Dr. Stein that irregularities will always lead to questions unless we actually audit results in our elections.
What harm could there be?
And one more thing – Wallace asserts that Stein is doing exactly what Trump declared before the election in that he said he may or may not accept the results of the election.
The difference between the two is that Trump was saying he might not accept results based on nothing that had happened yet. Stein is acting now, in a perfectly legal manner, based on the research of computer experts who have seen irregularities that don’t seem to make sense. Trump’s statements before the election are not the same as Stein’s after.