Did someone poison Megyn Kelly’s coffee shortly before the first presidential debate?
As Hollywood Reporter reveals, that’s one of many questions the Fox News anchor poses in her soon-to-be-published memoir, Settle For More.
On top of revealing that Roger Ailes offered her “professional advancement in exchange for sexual favors,” she also reflects on her numerous frightening, highly “bizarre” encounters with Trump.
Here are five key points to make you squirm.
1. Donald Trump allegedly threatened her on numerous occasions.
After she aired a segment about him on The Kelly File, Trump reportedly refused to show up for his next booked appearance on the show unless she personally gave him a jingle and apologized. Apparently he told her, “I almost unleashed by beautiful Twitter account against you, and I still may.” He also came after her when he heard she’d planned to start off the first debate with a “very pointed question directed at him.” She describes this as “bizarre behavior, especially for a man who wanted the nuclear codes.” Which now he’ll have soon enough.
2. She thinks someone may have tried to poison her ahead of the first debate.
Kelly became suspicious of a driver who took her to the debate venue and kept insisting upon getting her coffee, which she eventually drank. She claims that immediately afterwards, she felt quite ill, vomiting so much it wasn’t clear if she’d ever make it onto the air. She doesn’t outright accuse anyone of foul play, but claims the incident frightened her enough to contact a lawyer.
3. Roger Ailes allegedly sexually harassed her.
Apparently the former Fox News chief “made sexual comments to me, offers of professional advancement in exchange for sexual favors,” and tried to grab her and kiss her on the lips. when she tried to get away, he reportedly threatened her with a question: “When is your contract up?”
“I knew the reality of the situation,” she writes. “If I caused a stink, my career would likely be over.” She also maintains that Ailes “engineered hit pieces” about her online after she refused to publicly support him in the aftermath of Gretchen Carlson’s allegations.
4. Following the first presidential debate, she received numerous death threats.
Shortly after the man who will be our next President sniped, impossibly, that Kelly had “blood coming out of her… whatever,” it was “like he flipped a switch,” Kelly writes. The infernal comment opened the floodgates to lots of “intense nastiness” in the form of vicious voice mails and death threats.
5. Trump tried to buy her good opinion.
Not surprisingly, Trump was willing to fork out hefty sums of money in order to “shape coverage” of him. He offered to pay for Kelly’s weekend stay at the Trump SoHo hotel, an incident she refers to as “one of the untold stories of the 2016 campaign.
“I was not the only journalist to whom Trump offered gifts clearly meant to shape coverage. Many reporters have told me that Trump worked hard to offer them something fabulous — from hotel rooms to rides on his 757.”
Kelly has felt the need to offer up some clarifying Tweets:
For the record, my book "Settle for More" does not suggest Trump had any debate Qs in advance, nor do I believe that he did.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) November 11, 2016
Also for the record, I believe the reason I got sick the day of the first debate was I contracted a stomach virus, just as Rand Paul did.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) November 11, 2016
Settle For More is out November 15th.
Related: Is Fox News Nudging The GOP To Be Less Homophobic With Megyn Kelly’s Promotion?
I hope you enjoyed your career as a reporter and media personality. Thanks to your vindictive Uncle Newt and Trump your days ARE numbered over at Fox. Were I you I would head on over to CNN or MSNBC. It took a brave woman to tell Uncle Newt to go play with himself and I have loved you since that night. Nothing last forever dear and you are no exception. Thank them for allowing you to move on to better things.
Where did my post go?
Queerty, are you really that afraid of someone else’s opinion that is different than yours that you feel the need to delete my whole post? I thought you celebrated diversity?
Censorship is alive and well at Queerty!
You laid down with dogs and made yourself their little bitch because dogs only like their own kind when spreading fleas…you are not innocent and please these 11th hour gestures are transparently weak and calculated…
I mean come on Ms. Kelly are you surprised as you made your money and now you are poised to make MORE money putting you in league with the likes of Trump and others who support him
You are NO martyr and you are NO saint…
Off topic. Sorry MeGYN. Up at our cabin, a one-room shack of a cable supplier provides the whole area with channels to watch. They used to have Faux News and CNN, but have since omitted CNN. I wonder how many zones in the country where this is true. I called to ask if MSNBC is available and this mountain man said, “If enough people request it, we’ll put it out.” I wonder if some wealthy brothers somewhere pays these cable companies a stipend to curtail liberal viewpoints in these areas. Is this true for Midwest?
You don’t get it do you? Did you learn nothing from the election?
@1EqualityUSA: “Is this true for Midwest?”
Where I live, Oklahoma, isn’t exactly midwest but we tend to be included with them. I can’t say yes or no because I honestly don’t know how cable television covers the state but what I would suggest to you is this: get a satellite dish like I did. F the cable companies.
The REAL story from her revelations was the fact that TRUMP received questions prior to the fox debate!! Why is that not plastered all over this story.. He’s a total hypocrite! The media went after clinton for the donna brazil story it’s time to pay them back in kind!!
Hold up, cowboy.
Amid the brouhaha over the story you are peddling above, Megyn Kelly took to her Twitter account to set the record straight.
On November 10th, she tweeted:
“For the record, my book “Settle for More” does not suggest Trump had any debate Q’s in advance, nor do I believe he did.”
But thank you for pointing out that Donna Brazile, at least twice, secreted debate questions to Hillary ahead of the debates.
Alistair is so full of corn. We only had 56 Democrats and two independents the first two years President Obama was in office.It takes 60 votes to overcome the many filibuster moves that Rebiblicans pushed out of their intestines. Liar.
Gosh, and I thought 51 was a majority. 🙁
I guess by your logic, the Republicans don’t have a majority in the Senate.
I guess you better let Washington, D.C and the media know about your important revelation.
If you only had 56 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents the first two years, how did Obamacare get passed into law with 58 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents voting for it? Who is “full of corn”?
Not one Republican voted for Obama’s disastrous singular domestic “achievement”, but all 60 Democratic Senators (the 2 Independents caucused with the Dems) did.
By Steve Benen
Their majority was smaller than some remember.
Their majority was smaller than some remember.Associated Press
It’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.
The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.
The right continued to push the line over the weekend.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely claimed Democrats had a 60-vote Senate majority for the first 2 years of his presidency.
“For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate,” Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.
I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.
Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
Comments are closed.