Seth Meyers: 75 Percent of Trump's Sources Are Probably 'Twitter Eggs'

Seth Meyers is pretty sure he knows where Donald Trump is getting his “facts.”

The Late Night host on Monday attempted to make sense of the Republican’s usual “plenty of people have written/said that” spiel, pointing out that the only logical conclusion is that Trump is gathering intel from anonymous social media users.

“I feel like Trump needs to start giving us names when he says ‘a lot of people have said that,'” Meyers argued. “I bet 75 percent of them are Twitter eggs.”

Meyers’ hypothesis came as he dissected Trump’s most recent comments regarding Khizr Khan, the father of a deceased Muslim U.S. soldier who spoke out against the presidential candidate at last week’s Democratic National Convention. In doing so, the NBC host explained why Trump’s response might prove he’s never actually read the United States Constitution.

Watch Meyers’ “Closer Look” above, then weigh in below.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. matraupach says:

    Don’t get me wrong: I don’t like Trump. BUT I would like to see the media to handle Hillary the same way they treat Trump.
    There are way to many Hillary scandals they don’t really cover in the media.
    This media-bias is getting more and more obvious and the media shouldn’t be this one-sided.
    If the lesser evil is to be elected, there has to be fair coverage who the lesser evil really is.
    This one sided reports only convince me that actually Hillary might be worse, because of this manipulative media.
    I simply ask myself how it is possible and the only answer I got so far is that there must be very deep corruption present or other kind of pressure on the media.
    And that would be a big evil for me!

    • peterwdawson says:

      You realize Trump is doing this to himself by purposely trying to make sure the spotlight is always on himself, right? The corruption is ratings, making Trump basically the One Ring of Power in terms of media corruption.

    • A fan of TV says:

      The only way you could be convinced that one sided reporting makes Trump the lesser evil would be if you already believed him to be the lesser evil, and cannot understand why the media isn’t feeding your confirmation bias.
      Hillary’s faults have been covered and dissected, and there is a comparable or worse Trump or GOP problem/scandal to counter every single one. In that respect, the lesser of two evils is clear to all but Trump supporters and apologists, who are still expecting the media to tell the story they would prefer, even if much of the scandals have been exaggerated or falsified by Hillary’s adversaries for political gain.

      • matraupach says:

        Actually I am not sure who the lesser evil is of these two candidates.
        They are different kinds of evil from my perspective:
        One is a stupid racist demagogue.
        The other is a corrupt criminal liar.
        So far I don’t like either and I really can’t decide which one would be worse!
        Do I prefer someone who talks bullsh*t all day and rills up the USA against Muslims and other ethnic groups.
        Or do I want someone who is bought by banks and big money companies and lies and flip flops so often,that you don’t know anymore what you can actually believe, while being so powerful that this candidates criminal activities won’t be prosecuted.
        For me they are different… and in some way the same: horrible choices
        And the media never really fully covered Hillarys scandals(well except maybe FoxNews but they are biased in a different way). For example that Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down because of an E-Mail scandal: What was the cover story? That the (evil) Russians most likely broke into the DNC mail-server and stole these mails and released them on Wikileaks. Did any major news-segment cover what information there actually got released? And why it was so bad for Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Most news-segments didn’t! They focused on the “evil Russians” who most likely pandered with the US-election.
        If you are someone who actually knows what is inside these E-Mails, then you can’t fully support Hillary Clinton from your heart, you could maybe support her because you still think she might be the lesser evil compared to Trump, but should you claim that you support her because you really believe in her, then you are delusional!
        Trump supporters on the other consist in my humble opinion from two kind of groups:
        One: Stupid racist hillbillies
        Two: People who have decided that they dislike Hillary even more.
        This is not a race about the more popular candidate!
        It is a race about which president you could live with:
        President Trump or President Clinton
        I would recommend 4 year vacation after the election: No matter who wins.

        • Sarah says:

          Technically, they are both corrupt liars who have managed to escape criminal prosecution – whose lies and unprosecuted offenses are worse just depends on who you ask.
          To anyone even remotely paying attention there is overwhelming evidence that one candidate wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him in his fluorescent orange face, yet his supporters are willfully ignorant of this verifiable (with video evidence) fact, and he has somehow managed to build a campaign based on being the one who tells the truth.
          Not defending lies by either candidate, but claiming only one does something they both do – largely because (the arguably worse one) is louder, and his supporters are really just happy they’re suddenly allowed to be openly bigoted and racist – does no one any favors.

    • Northattl65 says:

      You are right in that this is an election of which is the less evil. But look at your statement about the so-called media bias against Trump now. First, Clinton was dragged over the coals by the media and the Republicans well before the campaigning even began and they felt that Clinton was going to be the probable Democratic nominee. Second, Trump got to where he is because of all the free non-judgemental media coverage he got because everyone was thinking he had no chance. It was being treated as a joke. The media goes back and forth based on how their ratings are.

      But I think you are also very right about how people are looking at this election. I fear people are going to vote on emotion and not rational thinking. It’s going to come down to who do I hate more. What’s scary about that is the type of person we elect. And above all, don’t think that Trump will moderate his views in the Oval office. He is not listening to his advisors now. He reacts based upon how he perceives he is being attacked personally. Unfortunately, everything to him is personal. I’m not saying Clinton is the greatest. There is a lot there as well. But, truthfully, how much is based on people’s reaction to her personality?

      • Preacher Book says:

        “I fear people are going to vote on emotion and not rational thinking.”

        They already are and have been for quite some time. Trump’s insensitivity and manipulation in business are receiving a lot of coverage because that’s the history we’ve got to examine. With Clinton, after several decades of constant criticism, there are no indictments, arrests or convictions. Either she is the slickest criminal that has ever lived (and wouldn’t you want someone that accomplished on your side?) or the vast majority of the accusations are simply made up? She has had a distinguished accomplished career. What it seems to boil down to is people don’t like her. Simple dislike.

        Both candidates have been covered by the media. And if you’re thinking a comedy bit about an offish, rude, thin-skinned buffoon who has no business running for any office isn’t fair, well, yeah you’re right. But it also isn’t the news and its job isn’t to be fair, but to make you laugh. If MP, you’re admitting it hits close to home, well, it’s just gravy !!!

  2. Freddie says:

    It would be refreshing to see Clinton treated the same way the media treats Trump, for sure. I mean, she’s had 30 years of scrutiny of her professional and personal life. She’s been debriefed by national security and law enforcement agencies concerning the biggest errors in judgment she’s made. She’s had the endorsement of dozens of seasoned political officers. Whereas he’s got four bankruptcies, an endorsement from Vladimir Putin, a reality TV career and a real talent at Tweeting nonsense. So, yes, I wound find it refreshing if the U.S. media stopped treating them like candidates of equal worth for this particular job.

    • Bill says:

      You do realize that someone is in charge of his Twitter account right? Same with Hillary

      • Freddie says:

        That’s what you took from my comnments? The Twitter thing? But, hey, let’s go with that. So Trump has four bankruptcies, a Putin endorsement and a reality TV career. That’s it. And the U.S. media apparently thinks that makes him a comparable candidate for the leadership of the country to a woman who has legal, organizational and governmental experience getting things done.

        So, again, it would indeed be a relief if the U.S. media treated Clinton the same way they treat Trump.

        • Bill says:

          Lol chill out guy. Not my fault people still don’t realize that presidential candidates have far much better things to do with there time then update Twitter lol

      • Marcie says:

        I think the point is that nobody is in charge of his Twitter account but Trump. He can’t control himself, so he earns the bad press. The best thing he could do for himself is hand over his Twitter account to somebody with common sense.

    • A fan of TV says:


  3. Paradise Lost says:

    Americans should take stock at how the media manipulates the narratives of our everyday lives. Both candidates are two sides of tarnished coins and now the election will be about what people are opting to blatantly overlook to choose a new leader. No one has said in concise detail, exactly what they stand for and why each candidate would be good for this country. But they are willing to talk about, until they’re blue in the face, about being against what the other candidate stands for. After the showmanship is done, who is looking out for this country and its citizens? Late night hosts combining acerbic comedy with important commentary is not the answer. If they valued the average American’s opinion they’d report or poke fun at each candidate and let the people decide for themselves. It’s going to be emotional voting because there is not enough rational and neutral information being distributed. Ganging up on one candidate is extreme if they’re so sure he won’t win. It’s doesn’t matter which candidate you like. Tainted information will lead to bad decision making for the U.S. I just hope we can all live with the result in November.

    • Mary says:

      I see what you are saying but from my perspective I truly believe that is why Donald almost daily inserts his foot in mouth. I really don’t think he has a clue or how the Government works. I think he got into this thinking it probably won’t go to far and now realize that he is in over his head. It seems the more outrageous he is the more his supporters get behind him. He is probably saying to himself, I really underestimated people’s anger and fear. Either that or he really does have a god complex and thinks he is the greatest. I don’t think anyone is ganging up on Trump but in all seriousness the things that comes out of his mouth should not be taken lightly and thrown under the rug. He’s to me is an unstable man and I have no faith he would treat all citizens fairly or be a true leader in these trying times. He is the type of man that my mother and grandmother would say – run don’t walk to the nearest exit. In all seriousness I think he might be trying to throw this race but his possums aren’t allowing that.

    • Preacher Book says:

      So, I take you watch a lot of FOX News?

    • Sarah says:

      Again, which candidate has been ganged up on depends on who you ask and which tv channels you watch – there has been plenty of negativity, deserved and undeserved, on both sides.

  4. Zoe says:

    You mean he didn’t bring in Bobby Moynihan for an Anthony Crispino cameo? For shame. Crispino being a Trump adviser would make far too much sense.

  5. The Carpooler says:

    I cannot agree more. Cheerios are far better than Tasty-Os.