CNN’s Jake Tapper and Fox News’ Chris Wallace pushed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s baseless accusation that stolen emails released by WikiLeaks shows former secretary of state Hillary Clinton engaged in “pay to play” with the Moroccan government.

The two January 2015 emails in question show a discussion between aides Robby Mook and Huma Abedin about whether Clinton would participate in an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) summit in Morocco. Abedin expressed concern about Clinton cancelling her appearance, saying that Moroccan king Mohammed VI pledged $12 million to the Clinton Foundation’s charitable efforts and was expecting Clinton’s participation.

On October 21, Trump said during a rally in North Carolina, “Now from WikiLeaks, we just learned she tried to get 12 million (dollars) from the king of Morocco for an appearance. More pay for play." On October 23, Tapper and Wallace questioned Mook, who is now Clinton's campaign manager, about the emails released by WikiLeaks. On State of the Union, Tapper, although noting that Clinton didn’t go to Morocco, insisted that “this is a real issue ... pay to play.” And on Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked, “why wasn’t that classic pay to play?”

The suggestion that Clinton’s activities with regard to Morocco are a corrupt pay to play are dubious for three reasons.

First, there is no evidence that Clinton offered Morocco’s leadership any government action. In fact, she was in no position to do so, as the summit was scheduled for more than two years after she stepped down as secretary of state.

Second, in spite of Abedin’s concerns, Clinton did not actually attend the summit and it went forward anyway.

Third, according to ABC News, “Clinton Foundation records do not show any direct pledge of funding from the king or government of Morocco to the charity.” ABC suggests that this is because the $12 million pledge was actually a commitment to CGI, which are “agreements only to aid the program's international projects, not to directly fund the Clinton Foundation itself.”

CNN’s own report of Trump’s remarks shows why his accusation is baseless (emphasis added):

The accusation is just the latest Trump has leveled against Clinton as he's argued she engaged in "pay for play" schemes involving the Clinton Foundation during her time as secretary of state. But the Clinton Global Initiative summit in Morocco that Clinton was set to attend in exchange for the $12 million pledge took place in May 2015 and was discussed in emails by Clinton's top aides in November 2014, after her tenure as secretary of state ended.

Clinton did not end up attending the summit.

Because Clinton did not attend the summit, was not in the employ of the government at the time, and the funds would not have gone to the Clinton Foundation directly, there is no “pay for play” here, despite claims by Trump and some in the media. Instead, this is just the latest in a string of reporting failures regarding Clinton Foundation donations.

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler debunked claims from Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and right-wing media that the FBI and State Department engaged in a “quid pro quo” in order for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to face less scrutiny for her use of a private email server as secretary of state. Kessler asserted “there is no evidence” of any alleged “collusion” between the two agencies.

Trump and his campaign baselessly claimed that transcripts released by the FBI relating to their investigation into Clinton’s email use show that a top State Department official proposed a “quid pro quo” wherein the FBI would agree to lower the classification level of one of Clinton’s emails if the State Department would agree to allow the posting of more FBI officals in Iraq. Right-wing media asserted that the FBI documents “bolster Donald Trump’s criticism of corruption.” The same flawed analysis made its way to mainstream media and GOP lawmakers, who are using it to call for a State Department official to be fired. But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell pointed out, there “was no quid pro quo, there was no linkage” and “there was nothing at all nefarious” that happened between the two agencies. Even the FBI official involved in the alleged collusion disputed the pejorative characterization of the interaction, telling The Washington Post it is “a reach.”

In the October 19 fact-check, Kessler explained that “‘quid pro quo’ was a secondhand description of a conversation — and both people who engaged in the conversation insist there was no collusion. Moreover, there is no evidence that anything happened as a result of the conversation.” Kessler added that summaries of the exchanges between the officials show “that whatever was said in the conversation, nothing happened to change the classification of the emails,” which “certainly undercuts Trump’s claim of ‘collusion.’” From the fact-check:

Trump rushed out a video statement to supporters claiming that there was “collusion” between the State Department, FBI and the Justice Department “to make Hillary Clinton look less guilty” after news reports that an FBI official spoke of a “quid pro quo” between the FBI and State regarding the classification status of some of Clinton’s emails.

“Quid pro quo” certainly sounds bad. But as more information has come in, there’s much less to the story than Trump claims.

[...]

The statement about “quid pro quo” comes from an FBI summary of an interview (known as a 302) with a third, unidentified FBI official during the criminal investigation of Clinton’s private email account. But there are other interviews as well, including with [then-FBI director for international operations Brian] McCauley and [then-State Department undersecretary of state for administration Patrick] Kennedy. Moreover, even the summaries with the unnamed official shows that whatever was said in the conversation, nothing happened to change the classification of the emails.

That certainly undercuts Trump’s claim of “collusion.”

[...]

To sum up, “quid pro quo” was a secondhand description of a conversation — and both people who engaged in the conversation insist there was no collusion. Moreover, there is no evidence that anything happened as a result of the conversation. The FBI did not back down from its contention that the email should to labeled as classified.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace has selected “Debt and entitlements,” “Immigration,” “Economy,” “Supreme Court,” “Foreign hot spots,” and “Fitness to be President” as the topics for the final presidential debate, which he will moderate on October 19. But the fact that neither “the environment” nor “energy” are among the topics would not excuse Wallace if he fails to ask a question about climate change.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our country and the planet, and it’s far more than strictly an environmental or energy issue. As Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican Governor of New Jersey who ran the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, has said, climate change “has very serious implications for our country from a national security point of view, from an economic point of view and a health point of view.”

The nonpartisan Open Debate Coalition recently launched a petition urging Wallace to ask the questions on the coalition’s website that have received the most votes from the public. A question about how the presidential candidates would address climate change currently has the fourth-most votes, trailing only two questions about guns and one about Social Security.

If Wallace refuses to ask Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump about climate change, it will mark the culmination of a stunning media failure. It would mean that presidential debate moderators failed to address climate change in two consecutive election cycles, after climate questions were asked in two presidential debates and the vice presidential debate in 2008. Even worse, it would mean that Trump avoids fielding a single debate question on climate change during the entire presidential campaign, spanning 14 primary and general election debates over the last 14 months.

Climate change has far-reaching impacts and ramifications, as Whitman explained, so there are many ways Wallace could weave it into most -- if not all -- of the topics he’s selected. Here are five questions that he could ask:

Topic: Immigration

Possible Debate Question: Studies show that climate change worsened the extreme drought in Syria that contributed to the Syrian refugee crisis, and that the effects of climate change on crop yields will drive millions of Mexicans to seek entry into the United States in the coming decades. Will you incorporate climate change into your immigration policies, and if so, how?

Topic: Economy

Possible Debate Question: A 2016 survey of 750 top economists found that climate change is now the single greatest threat to the global economy. What will you do to protect our economy from the effects of climate change?

Topic: Supreme Court

Possible Debate Question: Following a 2007 Supreme Court ruling and a scientific assessment by the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA is legally required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change under the Clean Air Act. Will you implement the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the EPA’s emissions reduction strategy, and if not, how will your administration fulfill the Supreme Court’s mandate to cut greenhouse gas pollution?

Topic: Foreign Hot Spots

Possible Debate Question: The Pentagon has determined that climate change will “aggravate existing problems -- such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions -- that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.” To what extent do you believe climate-related risks should be integrated into military planning?

Topic: Fitness To Be President

Possible Debate Question: The scientific community is nearly unanimous in saying that global warming is happening and caused by burning fossil fuels, yet many politicians refuse to acknowledge this is the case. Will you listen to the scientists on climate change, and do you believe that those who refuse to do so are unfit for our nation’s highest office?

As organizations such as WikiLeaks and DCLeaks continue to release emails that appear to originate from individuals close to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign, a group of former top national security officials and outside experts are warning “members of the media to stay engaged and to think critically about the facts they consume and disseminate.” The group notes that “what is taking place” in terms of the leaking of private emails “follows a well-known Russian playbook,” and “it is imperative that we focus on the broad disinformation campaign that is already underway.”

In multiple email dumps, WikiLeaks published a trove of what appear to be hacked emails from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. Politico reported that “there have been no bombshells,” adding that Podesta and the Clinton campaign have “neither verified nor denied the authenticity of the emails.”

National security and cybersecurity experts have been saying for months that Russian intelligence services were most likely involved in the hacks -- and the U.S. government has now formally accused them of attempting to “interfere with the U.S. election process.” Yet right-wing media, including one of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s closest allies, Roger Stone, have cheered for Russian espionage and the hacking of private emails of American citizens. Fox News has even credulously reported on the illegally obtained documents. Donald Trump himself has said he is not convinced Russia is behind the leaks, which an unnamed intelligence briefer for Trump called a “willful misrepresentation” of reality, given the information Trump received in his intelligence briefings.

A group of 16 former top national security officials and outside experts have penned a letter saying they are “concerned that an ongoing Russian influence operation is targeting the 2016 U.S. election.” The signatories of the letter note that American “debates on critical national security issues will be targeted” by Russian intelligence “in an effort to sway public opinion away from our national interests.” The experts conclude, “There is no amount of short-term partisan gain or perceived media scoop that could justify that outcome,” imploring “members of the media to stay engaged and to think critically about the facts they consume and disseminate.” From the October 6 letter:

At an October 10 campaign rally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed Clinton family friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal told Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, that “one important point has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable.” Trump alleged Blumenthal said that “if the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate”:

However, Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald found the alleged Blumenthal comments “really, really familiar.” Eichenwald found the comments “so familiar” because, in fact, “they were something I wrote.”

In an October 10 article, Eichenwald revealed that Sputnik, a news organization “established by the [Russian] government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya,” discovered in a WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s hacked emails “a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal” calling the Benghazi attacks a “legitimate” talking point against Clinton.

In reality, Sputnik’s declared “‘October surprise’” quoted “two sentences from a 10,000 word piece” Eichenwald wrote for Newsweek “which apparently Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta.” Contrary to the lies from Sputnik and Trump, Eichenwald’s article is not about how the Benghazi attacks are Hillary Clinton’s fault, but rather “the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans” and “the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation.” 

Even though “once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down,” Trump continued to use Russian state media’s lie as a weapon against his political opponent. This fits Trump and his campaign’s pattern of questionable relations with Russia, including calls for the Kremlin to commit a cyberattack against Hillary Clinton. 

Journalists across the spectrum marveled at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump throwing running mate Gov. Mike Pence “under the bus” by asserting that they haven’t spoken about Syria and that they “disagree” on the issue during the October 9 presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, MO.

From CNN’s coverage of the October 9 presidential debate:

MARTHA RADDATZ (MODERATOR): Let me repeat the question. If you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said “provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength” and that “if Russia continues to be involved in airstrikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.”

DONALD TRUMP: He and I haven't spoken and I disagree.

RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?

TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, which [Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton] made strong and scary and Obama made into a powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly. I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria , they had a chance. And that was the line.

Reporters characterized Trump’s remarks as “unprecedented[ly]”  throwing Pence “under the bus”:

Pence, under the bus https://t.co/eFOjSMieFm

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) October 10, 2016

"He and I haven't spoken" is more damaging than "we disagree."

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 10, 2016

BIG MOMENT: "He and I haven't spoken, and I disagree" -- Trump on his running mate Mike Pence's Syria stance.

— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) October 10, 2016

Whoa. Martha Raddatz notes what Pence has said about dealing with Syria. Trump's response: "He and I haven’t spoken and I disagree."

— Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) October 10, 2016

"He and I haven't spoken," Trump says of Pence. "I disagree with my running mate," he adds re: his Syria position. #debates2016

— Ed O'Keefe (@edatpost) October 10, 2016

"He and I haven't spoken and I disagree" Trump says re: Pence's position on humanitarian situation Syria. Audible gasps in press file

— Noah Gray (@NoahGrayCNN) October 10, 2016

"He and I haven't spoken and I disagree" Trump says of Mike Pence's Syria policy.

#2016

Unprecedented.

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) October 10, 2016

WHOA!!! Trump is asked about Pence’s comments about confronting Russia.

Trump: “He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree.”#debate

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) October 10, 2016

Maybe the most striking foreign issue statement of the debate from Trump and almost entirely false. https://t.co/UzyWKgxDqI

— Julian Borger (@julianborger) October 10, 2016

Fox News Channel, the brainchild of Nixon operative Roger Ailes and bankrolled by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, launched on October 7, 1996. In the ensuing two decades, the right-wing network has released a torrent of hateful messages, misogyny, and fraudulent smears, all in the guise of journalism.

In reality, Fox News is an enforcement arm of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

Fox News has time and time again been a malignant force, utilizing its airwaves to attack progressive activists and politicians, elevate conservative activists and officials, and slant facts and information -- sometimes completely inventing it out of whole cloth -- in service of a right-wing conservative agenda.

While Fox has steadily grown in influence within the conservative movement, its star has considerably faded as a force within the wider media since its height during the Bush presidency.

After having devoted dozens of hours of airtime to Donald Trump, massively assisting his quest to secure the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, network chief Roger Ailes was ousted from his position when a slew of women accused him of perpetrating years and years of sexual harassment at the network.

Former anchor Gretchen Carlson, reportedly armed with audio tapes of Ailes, alleged that he had repeatedly sexually harassed her and demoted her when she refused his advances. Soon at least 25 other women came forward with similar stories to Carlson’s about Ailes’ behavior, and it was reported that prime-time host Megyn Kelly was also included among Ailes purported targets. Ailes no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Fox News, but his top lieutenants who allegedly helped to cover up his behavior remain in charge, while Ailes is now advising the campaign of the candidate his network helped to build.

Here is an overview of some of the lowlights of Fox’s 20 years on the air:

1996

Fox News anchor endorsed Bob Dole for president in the Republican National Committee’s official magazine

1997

Fox News producer resigned after an executive told him to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks

1998

Fox employees said management made them “cook the facts” to tilt news stories to the right

1999

Fox gave TV show to internet gossip Matt Drudge

2000

Fox News poll asked whether Bill Clinton or Al Gore was “most likely to cheat at cards”

Fox News employed George W. Bush cousin John Ellis who prematurely called election in favor of Bush

During the 2000 recount, Fox anchor John Gibson complained “Democratic lawyers have flooded Florida” because Bush favored tort reform

2001

Fox ran a special called “Vanishing Freedoms” that argued the United Nations was “taking over” private property

Fox’s Special Report had Republican and Democratic guests at an 8-to-1 ratio

2002

Fox host Bill O’Reilly said 66 percent of people supported invading Iraq without UN support when the real number was 37 percent

2003

Bill O’Reilly said the Iraq War would “not last more than a week”

Fox anchor said the network was “very reluctant to show these pictures” of an anti-Iraq War protest

O’Reilly said that “once the war” in Iraq began, those opposed to the action should “shut up”

O’Reilly argued that the U.S. military should “flatten Baghdad”

Fox falsely reported that a “huge chemical weapon factory” had been found in Iraq

Fox anchor Brit Hume said “nobody seriously argued” that Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction

Fox executive’s memo told the entire network to note the “political courage and tactical cunning” of President George W. Bush “in our reporting through the day”

O’Reilly cut off the microphone of anti-war activist Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed on 9/11

2004

Fox chief political correspondent wrote and published a fake news story making fun of Democratic candidate John Kerry on FoxNews.com

Fox executive wrote memo telling anchors to downplay Abu Ghraib story

Fox News aired less of the Democratic Convention than any other cable news network

Fox claimed that Christmas was “under siege”

2005

Fox News doctored AP copy to mimic language preferred by the Bush White House

Fox News aired 58 segments promoting the “War on Christmas”

Fox used a TV psychic to claim Terri Schiavo was “clear” on what was happening around her

2006

Host Bill O’Reilly said same-sex marriage was linked to interspecies relationships

Fox correspondent called waterboarding “a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk”

Fox argued that a civil war in Iraq could be “a good thing”

2007

Fox hosted a “body language expert” who accused Hillary Clinton of exhibiting “evil laughter”

Fox & Friends reported on comments from Michelle Obama with the term “the claws come out”

Fox News used a photo of Rep. Harold Ford while talking about Barack Obama

Fox host Brian Kilmeade said Barack Obama “went to a madrassa” as a child

2008

Fox anchor asked if Obamas engaged in “a terrorist fist jab”

Fox News executive pushed on-air lies claiming Barack Obama promoted socialism

Fox contributor Newt Gingrich warned of “gay and secular fascism”

Fox contributor Liz Trotta remarked that she wished somebody would "knock off" both Osama Bin Laden and then-candidate Barack Obama

2009

Ailes reportedly said he sees the network as “as the Alamo” against President Obama

Beck said President Obama is a “racist” with “a deep-seated hatred for white people”

Beck said Obama’s agenda was based on “reparations”

Beck imitated Obama pouring gasoline on the “average American”

Beck pretended to poison Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Fox organized and promoted anti-Obama “tea party” protests

Host Sean Hannity said conservative protest attracted 20,000 when Capitol police said it was 4,000

Fox contributor Dick Morris used the network to raise money for a PAC that was paying him

Fox plagiarized a GOP press release and passed it off as its own research

2010

Beck questioned whether Obama was really a Christian

Beck said Obama returned a Churchill bust to England because he hates the British

Beck said, “There will be rivers of blood if we don’t have values and principles”

Beck said the Obama administration might kill “10 percent” of the population

Fox host Brian Kilmeade said “all terrorists are Muslims”

2011

Beck said the “American left” is “funding terrorists or working with terrorists”

Fox hosts said the ownership of appliances negates the effects of poverty

Fox hired Sarah Palin; Roger Ailes commented: “I hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings”

Multiple Fox News shows pushed racist birther conspiracy about Barack Obama

Fox headline: “Obama’s Hip-Hop BBQ Didn’t Create Jobs”

Fox hosts blamed SpongeBob Squarepants for “pushing a global warming agenda”

2012

Fox contributor Geraldo Rivera said Trayvon Martin’s hoodie is “as much responsible” for his death as shooter George Zimmerman

Fox analyst Karl Rove refused to accept that President Obama won Ohio in the election

Fox & Friends claimed that President Obama had a diplomatic meeting with a pirate

Fox contributor compared food stamps to a diet plan

2013

Host Megyn Kelly asserted that Jesus and Santa Claus are white

Fox contributors said men should have the dominant role in the home

At least nine Fox contributors used the network to test the waters before running for office

2014

Fox’s evening lineup aired nearly 1,100 segments on the Benghazi attacks and their aftermath from 2012-14

Fox hosts described torture as humiliating “a few terrorists” and subjecting them to ”a little bit of cold”

Fox producer Jesse Watters said the statutory rape of a child isn’t as bad if the female perpetrator is attractive

Fox host Tucker Carlson said reporting statutory rape is “whiny”

2015

Fox News told young children to run toward active shooters

Fox contributor called President Obama "a total pussy"

Fox’s prime-time lineup demonized the Black Lives Matter movement

Fox host Steve Doocy complained about the controversy around an ad suggesting date rape: “Remember … when people used to make jokes?”

Fox contributor Brit Hume blamed “the deregulation of sex” for campus sexual assaults

Fox co-host Stacey Dash said some campus sexual assault victims are “bad girls … who like to be naughty”

2016

Host Sean Hannity spent an entire week promoting Clinton health conspiracies

Fox cited online polls favoring Donald Trump after calling them “worthless”

Fox figures attacked the idea that debate moderators would fact-check candidates

Fox promoted Donald Trump’s conspiracy theory that the election would be “rigged”

Fox figures defended Roger Ailes against sexual harassment allegations, then Fox settled the claim