How are these five news items?

All related?

Number one.

Fox News Channel's decision to stick with its regular right wing talk shows in prime time.

That's while the Democrats were laying out their evidence against Trump on the Senate floor number to re Giuliani launching a brand new podcast and Web video series.

Number three.

President Trump sitting down with Fox's Maria Bartiromo in Davos and congratulating her for signing a fat new contract.

Number four.

Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy Giuliani going on Judge Janine Show and promoting one of Fox's much smaller rivals O N n and last but not least, President Trump posting more than 330 times on Twitter in just the last five days.

Lots and lots of retweets, including dozens of videos from Fox talk show segments.

What do all these things have in common?

They're all examples of the pro trump media universe operating in a really closed loop, downplaying or just totally denying Trump's wrongdoing while amplifying all the defenses Back with me is John Avlon, Oliver Darcy and Susan Glasser.

Oliver.

You study this right wing ecosystem for a living.

It does seem that the the Wall is just getting stronger and stronger.

The Fox firewall is holding very strongly, and they're trying to inoculate their audience from the argument from the Democrats, which the audience is not used to hearing.

Right there used to hearing Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, given the comfort food that they want.

And so this week, in prime time, you know the one opportunity, perhaps that thes the audience would see these arguments made by someone like Adam Schiff.

They didn't get to see it because they were inoculated by the Fox audience in prime time.

Yeah, the afternoon hearings trial coverage was shown live on Fox News, but then Fox would cut away.

But I want 152 in the afternoon when they had the news anchors on Supposedly right, they brought an Andy McCarthy they didn't bring on.

Judge Napolitano, the top legal ancestral years of Fox News, who happens to be very critical of the president's position, wrote this year this week that there's enough evidence to support his removal.

They did not bring him on.

They brought on Andy McCarthy was very sympathetic to trumpet case, and if you look even further.

Martha MacCallum, for instance, this week she's a top news anchor at Fox.

She did a segment on 100 Biden's paternity case instead of airing the Senate impeachment try, Um, Brett Baer had on this week Peter Schweitzer, who has pushed discredited theories about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden on to promote his new book.

And so it's not just the Fox News opinion hosts who are skewing the news towards Trump.

It's also the Fox News anchors the people that boast about that give it to you straight, who are also happening to skew the news toward Trump.

They're tilting the playing field in that way.

Person, By the way you mentioned Gender Mountain Napolitano.

His most recent column for foxnews dot com and for newspapers, was shared by Nancy Pelosi, like shared by the top Democrat because she agrees with that perspective.

John, you were agreeing with the point about Napolitano.

Yeah, it's an important point, you know.

Dissent is seen as disloyalty.

You get benched if if you're not following the Fox News line because the business model is all play to the base, and so they're working hand in glove with the administration to push the same talking points.

And that necessarily means ignoring evidence means ignoring the Democrats case, talking over it, turning the sound off and having analyst talk over in addition to simply wiping the slate clean.

Yeah, I'm doing ad hominem attacks in prime time.

The bigger challenges that this ends up seeping up to the Senate, and this is where we've got a really challenge for our republic right now.

Can we agree on basic facts?

Can we reason together, even at the level of the Senate?

Because the tail wags the dog there.

They're so afraid of losing a close partisan primary being attacked by the president.

That fear is motivating a lot of their decisions to try to avoid uncomfortable facts.

That's incredibly dangerous for democracy.

But it's happening right now.

Chuck Schumer called this out at a press conference.

It was aired live on Fox News.

Let's look at that.

It may have been the first time that many of my Republican colleagues heard the full story, the complete narrative from start to finish uninterrupted and not filtered through the kaleidoscope lens of Fox News, where it best things are left out and at worst, things.

They're terribly distorted.

I think Schumer's office enjoyed it.

That was aired live on Fox.

But the question is, Susan Glasser is whether it matters that these Republican senators did hear this full accounting from the Democrats that they usually weren't hearing from Sean Hannity Show.

For example, did you see evidence when you were sitting up in the chamber to do see evidence that this actually mattered to the Republican Senators?

You know, Brian, the Senate chaplain I I came to enjoy each day.

He would sort of opened his remarks with that kind of, ah, relevant homily.

And he said, Listen, that trick for senators and I pray for you that you will not just listen but that you will hear.

Ah, and I did see listening on both sides of the aisle.

You know, there are some very diligent no takers among the Republicans, especially Susan Collins.

That swing vote from Maine.

I don't know how much hearing, uh, and in fact, you know the congressional reporters.

By the end of the week, we're suggesting that even a vote for witnesses looks possibly even more remote at the end of the week than it did at the beginning of the week.

However, you know there was Senator Kennedy from Louisiana Republican.

He also agreed, essentially what?

Chuck Schumer that this may be the first time that some of his colleagues were really paying attention because they were being forced to pay attention.

Here's what I would say is that it is very difficult to watch this, and I watched basically every minute of it.

And the reason why is that?

It doesn't feel like it's on the level.

You have a situation where almost everyone Democrats and Republicans have essentially made up their mind.

So how are we supposed to write and think about a process where 24 hours of arguments over three days by the House Democrats to an audience that essentially on both sides is largely unmoved by them?

It's a very painful thing for our democracy, I think tow, watch this.

But number one I would say the second week of the trial Ah is going to be more interesting and news here in many ways because that's where we'll see weather number one.

The senators were moved because they'll have questions that they'll submit, and that will give us an indication of whether they were actually listening and hearing number two.

There is this crucial vote and you know, we have a conventional wisdom right now, but, uh, you know, things happen in Washington and remember, there's an extraordinary amount of evidence that exists that has not yet come out eyes, any of that possibly going to come out in a few days before we hear the senator's being forced to finally put their names and their reputations behind this vote.

So it's not over yet.

Ah, and I think it's It's going to be crucial for history, regardless of what happens is the third time in our republic this has happened so Fox News can ignore it.

But history isn't gonna ignore what happened here this week.

Well, look what we found out that the last night left partners, his attorney saying that Lev Partners has more tapes of President Trump.

Like you said, the evidence maybe all around, but not in front of the senators.

John, you refer recently on New Day to a slow boil of distant information, and I think that we're seeing in the trial as well.

We're going to see that against Joe Biden in the coming days.

This disinformation campaign to try to tarnish Biden That appears to be the case and covering that becomes very tricky because the entire purpose off getting suborning a foreign power to dig up dirt on a political rival is to weaken him as a presidential candidate to create a sense of moral equivalence about corruption between the two potential candidates.

Look, the real danger is, and I think here's where we shouldn't say this is a fait accompli because senators can't simply submit and agreed to this kind of self castration of Congress when it comes to separate and equal powers.

Self, that street, that's really what's happening here.

If they say you know what we don't we're gonna vote for partisan purposes to allow a president to withhold information under an impeachment inquiry that is saying we're going to cut off your nose to spite our face because of proud partisan loyalty and because we're afraid of the president in power.

The question is how many will rise to the level of the Founding Fathers and say no, our independence of our branch in our own integrity matter because we're going to be judged by history we're gonna be judged by our Children and our grandchildren, and I wouldn't give up the game.

It's not about whether you hit a 2/3 margin no one ever has, but to say no witnesses for the first time in U.

S.

History.

That's an admission that you're not interested in evidence and facts and afraid you're frightened before.

And that is what the next few days are all about.

That's right.

Thank you, everybody.