Jay Leno's Late Night Criticism: Monica Lewinsky Reacts
The former Tonight Show host recently chatted with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute. The interviewer alluded to a 2014 George Mason University study, which he claimed showed that Jay was "roughly equally balanced between going after Republicans and taking aim at Democrats" (we'll get to why that's not exactly right later).
"It was funny to me when I got hate letters," Jay replied. "That's how you get a whole audience."
"Now, you have to be content with half the audience because you have to give your opinion," he continued. "I like to think that people come to a comedy show to kind of get away from the things, the pressures of life, wherever it might be. And I love political humor, don't get me wrong, but what happens (is) people wind up cozying too much to one side or the other."
"Funny is funny. It's funny when you make fun of their side and they laugh at it. I don't think anybody wants to hear a lecture," the 75-year-old continued. "Why shoot for just half an audience all the time? Why not try to get the whole? I like to bring people into the big picture. I don't understand why you would alienate one particular group."
The thing is, the original study doesn't quite show Jay as being quite partisan. In fact, it shows Jay's top target as being Bill Clinton, with 4,607 jokes. George W. Bush is behind him with 3,239, around 30% less. Out of the top five political figures Jay took aim at between 1992-2014, four of them were Democrats.
Number seven on that list is Monica Lewinsky, who had 454 jokes told about her. Some subsequently responded by pointing out how, proportionally, Monica was a huge target for Jay.
Monica herself even responded by reposting something telling:
In response to a now-deleted X post on the topic, she further wrote, "leno made many, many cruel jokes about me (so much so that i was in the top 10 list of his targets… from all the years he was on the air)…"
See folks, it's fine to alienate half your audience — as long as they're women!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
Sen. Tim Scott On Liberal Outrage Over Gerrymandering In Texas: 'Dems Are Just Ticked Off We've Torn The Page From Their Book'
South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott joins Fox Across America With Jimmy Failla to share his thoughts on the Texas Democrats who left the state this past weekend in an attempt to prevent the state House from holding a vote on new congressional maps. 'I mean, they're losing their minds because they're losing their voters. Think about the results of the 2024 election, especially in the eyes of gerrymandering. What the Democrats want you to believe is that gerrymandering in Texas is about race. Well, 48% of Hispanic men voted for Trump. Gerrymander that, baby! Thirty-plus percent of African American men for the first time in decades voted for Trump, a Republican. We saw Native Americans over 50% voted for Trump. So the fact of the matter is gerrymandering is about power. It is what's happening. It is legal in America to gerrymander for more power. That is just what the Democrats have been doing. What they're really ticked off about is that we've torn the page from their book and we're now applying it to reality, in the same way that they have done decade after decade after decade. The difference is we want to give the American people their money back, which gives them their power, Democrats want socialism taking their money and their power.' Senator Markwayne Mullin Breaks Down The Bombshell New Russiagate Revelations Senator Scott also tells Jimmy all about the themes covered in his new book, One Nation Always Under God: Profiles in Christian Courage . Listen to the podcast to hear what else they discussed!
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
Trump wields influence over GOP and keeps potential successors vying for his favor
WASHINGTON (AP) — Although President Donald Trump has not directly said he thinks JD Vance should be the heir to his 'Make America Great Again' base of support, he acknowledged this week that his vice president is probably the favorite to succeed him 'at this point.' But even as he promoted Vance, Trump also made sure to mention Secretary of State Marco Rubio, telling reporters at the White House on Tuesday that his administration's top diplomat is 'somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form' on a future political ticket. The remarks reflect the massive influence the Republican president currently has over his party. They also serve to promote two of Trump's top advisers without telegraphing the president's singular preference for a successor. Not definitively anointing Vance, or any other Republican, keeps those hoping to succeed Trump vying for his favor, both inside his administration and in the wider Republican field of possible contenders. Speaking with reporters following an executive order signing at the White House, Trump was asked if Vance were the 'heir apparent to MAGA.' 'I think most likely, in all fairness, he's the vice president,' Trump said. 'I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form. ... It's too early obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he's doing a great job and he would be, probably favorite at this point.' When Trump selected the then-39-year-old Vance over other more established Republicans — including Rubio — as his running mate last year, many theorized that Trump was planning for the future of his political movement, angling for a vice president who could carry MAGA forward. Vance has embraced the role at every turn, doing the president's bidding on everything from his relationship with Ukraine to the fight over records related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. Trump, meanwhile, has not hesitated to give Vance high-visibility assignments. As the White House promotes mid-decade redistricting efforts in Texas — and acknowledges it would like the notion to expand to other states — Vance is expected Thursday to discuss redrawing district lines with Gov. Mike Braun during a trip to Indiana. While there, Vance will also headline a fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, which he serves as treasurer. In June he traveled to Los Angeles trip to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center amid clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and looting following immigration raids across Southern California. And earlier this year, Vance was in swing congressional districts in his role as lead cheerleader for Trump's signature tax cut and spending law, an assortment of conservative priorities that Republicans dubbed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' He also lobbied senators on Capitol Hill, working to swing GOP holdouts to support the legislation, and in July cast a tie-breaking vote to get the measure passed in the Senate. He's also taken on a robust role related to foreign policy, holding meetings of his own with world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a trip to New Delhi, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Rubio, who has described Vance as among his closest friends in politics, said on Fox News Channel on Sunday that he felt Vance 'would be a great nominee if he decides he wants to do that.' Other Republicans mentioned as possible 2028 contenders are already making the rounds of early-voting states. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin speaks at a GOP fundraiser in South Carolina this weekend, and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders headlines an event in that state later this month. Both have taken pains to stay in the president's good graces. Not every Republican contender has gone that route. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who lost the 2016 nomination to Trump, has been visiting early-voting states, too, but he voted against the president's signature legislative measure. And Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp — who has long harbored ambitions to run for president but has a complicated history with Trump — recently said he was sitting out of a Senate race in his state, a decision telegraphed by some as an indication Kemp might be eyeing the 2028 White House race. ___ Kinnard can be reached at
13 minutes ago
What's known and not yet known about the Justice Department's scrutiny of Trump-Russia probe origins
WASHINGTON -- News that Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing a criminal investigation into the Obama-era origins of the Trump-Russia investigation means that one of the most studied, and politically polarizing, chapters of modern American history will be under the microscope yet again. Here's a look at what's known and not yet known about the latest Justice Department revelation: Perhaps no issue continues to aggravate President Donald Trump more than the assessment by intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf and the investigation by law enforcement into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow to tip the outcome of the contest. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tapped as special counsel by Trump's first Justice Department to investigate, found that Russia had waged a multi-prong operation in Trump's favor and that the Republican president's campaign welcomed the aid. But Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. As president for a second time, Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the Justice Department as a weapon of retribution against perceived political adversaries he sees as having smeared him, including by calling for Obama-era officials to be jailed. And his administration, now more broadly and across multiple agencies, has been engaged in a effort to reopen the long-accepted conclusion — including among prominent Republicans — of Russian interference and to scrutinize the officials involved in reaching that assessment. Bondi, a Trump loyalist, has directed Justice Department prosecutors to investigate the Russia inquiry and has authorized the use of a grand jury. Grand juries are tools used by prosecutors to issue subpoenas for records and testimony and to produce indictments based on the evidence they receive. The bar is low for an indictment given that the presentation of evidence by prosecutors is one-sided, though grand juries do have the option to decline to indict and have done so in the past. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Bondi's directive to The Associated Press but key questions remain. The Justice Department has not disclosed, for instance, which prosecutors are pursuing the investigation, where the grand jury that might hear evidence is located and whether and when law enforcement officials might seek to bring criminal charges. The Justice Department, in an unusual statement last month, appeared to confirm the existence of an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan but provided no details. It's not clear who might be targeted in the investigation, but the Trump administration has been aggressively challenging intelligence community conclusions about Russia's actions and intentions that had seemed settled long ago. It's been a welcome diversion for the administration as it confronts a wave of criticism from Trump's base and conservative influencers over the handling of records from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. In the last month, Trump administration officials and allies have released a series of documents aimed at casting doubt on the extent of interference and at portraying the original Russia investigation as an Obama administration frame-job. The documents have been hailed by Trump and other supporters as incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy, but a close inspection of the records shows they fall well short of that. Among the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, the administration's director of national intelligence, are emails showing that Obama administration officials recognized in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in favor of Trump. But the absence of evidence that votes were switched — something the Obama administration never alleged — has no bearing on the ample evidence of other forms of Russia interference, including a hack-and-leak operation involving Democratic emails and a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and spreading disinformation. Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a previously classified annex of a 2023 report by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the first Trump administration to hunt for government misconduct in the Trump-Russia investigation. The annex included a series of emails, including one from July 2016 that was purportedly sent by a senior staffer at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, that referred to a plan approved by then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to link Trump to Russia at a time when the public was focusing on her use of a private email server. But Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and that the alleged author had no recollection of drafting the email. The report said the Durham team's best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. Fresh scrutiny has also centered around the intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference published in January 2017. An annex in a classified version of the assessment contained a summary of the so-called Steele dossier — a compilation of opposition research that included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip about Trump and Russia. Just as Russian interference has been heavily scrutinized, so too has the U.S. government's response to it. Multiple government reports, including not only from Mueller but also a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee that included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have documented Russia's activities in painstaking detail. To be sure, reports from the Justice Department inspector general and Durham also identified significant flaws in the FBI's Russia investigation, including errors and omissions in applications the Justice Department submitted to a secretive surveillance court to eavesdrop on a national security adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. But Durham found no criminal wrongdoing among senior government officials, bringing three criminal cases — two against private citizens that resulted in acquittals at trial and a third against a little-known FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email. It is unclear if there is any criminal misconduct that exists that Durham, who launched his investigation in 2019 and concluded it four years later, somehow missed during his sprawling inquiry.
