Red Pill Pharma News Worth Waking To

Colbert Portrays Obama as Pillar of Executive Restraint, Fondly Recalls Tan Suit #Political

2026-05-06T08:31:46.227-07:00

https://bit.ly/4dtsw96

As CBS’s The Late Show prepares to wind down operations in less than three weeks, host Stephen Colbert traveled to Chicago for a lengthy interview with former President Barack Obama to hype the opening of his presidential library and museum. Amid a flurry of other softballs, Colbert would suggest that in contrast to President Trump, Obama was a pillar of executive restraint, and recall the old liberal idea that the worst thing Obama ever did was tear a tan suit.

One softball Colbert lobbed was, “Fifty to 100 years from now, when somebody comes to this center, what do you want them to take away from the experience? What do you want them to learn about you and the legacy of your administration?”

Stephen Colbert devoted most of Tuesday's show to an interview with former President Barack Obama where he asked such questions as "50 to 100 years from now, when somebody comes to this center, what do you want them to take away from the experience? What do you want them to learn… pic.twitter.com/SAogMclvRZ
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 6, 2026

Obama gave a generic-sounding response of, “I want them to put my presidency in context, right? I assume in my eulogy somewhere it will be mentioned that he was the first African American president. But what I want people to understand is that there was this extraordinary journey this country took to get to that point, and I was an episode in that… And if I do that, then 50 years from now when people come, presumably they'll still be inspired by that story. Not mine alone, but ours.”

Colbert then moved on, “There's often a conversation about the restriction or the need to restrict certain executive powers. I might have asked you this when you were running for president back in the day. Like, is there any power that President Bush has taken that you would say, ‘No, I don't want that power,' because it keeps accumulating. Now that you're no longer in office, what powers do you believe the president should not have?”

The man who was always bragging about his pen and phone and threatening, “If Congress doesn’t act, I will,” replied, “There are a couple that I followed even though they were law. And I want us — we're going to have to do some work to return to this basic norm, and we probably now have to codify it. The White House shouldn't be able to direct the attorney general to go around prosecuting whoever the president wants prosecuted.”

Next, Colbert acts as if Obama was a great pillar of executive restraint, "I might have asked you this when you are running for president back in the day. Like, is there any power that President Bush has taken that you would say, “No, I don't want that power” because it keeps… pic.twitter.com/p3Vmhb7k2X
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 6, 2026

He also claimed, “The idea is that the attorney general is the people's lawyer. It's not the president's consigliere.”

What about a wingman? Again, any reference to the IRS and Tea Party was conveniently ignored as Obama rolled on, “There's a bunch of stuff that, you know, we can overcome. We can't overcome the politicization of the criminal justice system. The awesome power of the state. You can't have a situation where whoever is in charge starts using that to go after their political enemies or reward their friends, right?... I would consult with Eric Holder, with my attorney general, all the time, around broad policy issues, but that's different than who do you charge, what case do you bring?”

When current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth talks about woke-ism in the military, the Obama era stands out. Nevertheless, Obama added, “The second thing is the military. Don't politicize our military. As president, you are commander-in-chief. You are responsible for directing our military. But there had been a whole series of norms that were in place to ensure that you weren't trying to make that military loyal to you as opposed to the constitution and the people of the United States. We're going to have to find mechanisms to restore that.”

Later, the duo went on a tour of the museum, and Colbert sarcastically wondered, “Is there a wing dedicated to greatest blunders? Is the tan suit here? I’m asking if the tan suit is here.”

Later, Obama gives a tour of the museum, which leads Colbert to wonder "Is there wing dedicated to greatest blunders? Is the tan suit here?" pic.twitter.com/1ifpC7HBrE
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 6, 2026

After Obama declared that “I own that suit proudly,” Colbert pulled out a photo and wondered, “We have this if you want to put it on display someplace. A shattered nation looked up and saw that. When you look back at the tan suit, what occurs to you?”

Obama simply wondered, “Why?”

The real “why?” is why do Colbert and media types insist that the tan suit was the most controversial thing Obama ever did?

Here is a transcript for the May 5 show:

CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

5/5/2026

11:55 PM ET

STEPHEN COLBERT: Fifty to 100 years from now, when somebody comes to this center, what do you want them to take away from the experience? What do you want them to learn about you and the legacy of your administration?

BARACK OBAMA: Well, look. I want them to put my presidency in context, right? I assume in my eulogy somewhere it will be mentioned that he was the first African American president.

COLBERT: I will say something about that.

OBAMA: But what I want people to understand is that there was this extraordinary journey this country took to get to that point, and I was an episode in that. And it's the struggle between the idea that “we the people” includes everybody, that it's not just some. It's not just some select few. So, what I want people to do when they come to this museum is to say, “This is part of that American story, that better story.” The one that has inspired not just generations, but also the world, and the Obama presidency was a part of that story. It was one small chapter. And if I do that, then 50 years from now when people come, presumably they'll still be inspired by that story. Not mine alone, but ours.

COLBERT: Yes, the good future isn't one where they say "Oh, we totally know what he means."

OBAMA: Yes.

COLBERT: The bad future is “What's he talking about?” There's often a conversation about the restriction or the need to restrict certain executive powers.

OBAMA: Yes.

COLBERT: I might have asked you this when you were running for president back in the day. Like, is there any power that President Bush has taken that you would say, “No, I don't want that power,” because it keeps accumulating.

OBAMA: Yeah.

COLBERT: Now that you're no longer in office, what powers do you believe the president should not have?

OBAMA: Well, there are a couple that I followed even though they were law. And I want us — we're going to have to do some work to return to this basic norm, and we probably now have to codify it. The White House shouldn't be able to direct the attorney general to go around prosecuting whoever the president wants prosecuted.

COLBERT: Right, because technically it’s under the executive branch.

OBAMA: Technically—

COLBERT: The norm is that it's independent.

Mr. Obama: The idea is that the attorney general is the people's lawyer. It's not the president's consigliere.

Stephen: Right, even when it's Bobby Kennedy.

OBAMA: --Bobby Kennedy. And so, two of the core principles of a democracy and we can survive a lot. Bad policy, funky elections. There's a bunch of stuff that, you know, we can overcome. We can't overcome the politicization of the criminal justice system. The awesome power of the state. You can't have a situation where whoever is in charge starts using that to go after their political enemies or reward their friends, right? So another power maybe I would say, although this is in the constitution, it's harder to change, but maybe don't pardon people who have given you a bunch of campaign contributions. Or invested in your businesses. So, restoring some sense of the Justice Department being independent in making judgments about specific cases and prosecutions.

I would consult with Eric Holder, with my attorney general, all the time, around broad policy issues, but that's different than who do you charge, what case do you bring?

The second thing is the military. Don't politicize our military. As president, you are commander-in-chief. You are responsible for directing our military. But there had been a whole series of norms that were in place to ensure that you weren't trying to make that military loyal to you as opposed to the constitution and the people of the United States. We're going to have to find mechanisms to restore that. And then, you know, a good policy that I'd like to see followed is that the president of the United States shouldn't have a bunch of side hustles that various companies and foreign entities can invest in.

…

COLBERT: Is there a wing dedicated to greatest blunders? Is the tan suit here? I’m asking if the tan suit is here.

OBAMA: Listen, I own that tan suit proudly, brother.

COLBERT: We have this, if you want to put it on display someplace.

OBAMA: I mean, I look great.

COLBERT: A shattered nation looked up and saw that.

OBAMA: Yeah. Yeah.

COLBERT: When you look back at the tan suit, what occurs to you?

OBAMA: Why?

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

Sourced by the Find us on telegram. Real News for Patriots of the United States of America. We share content that re-affirms our soulful connection to light, Truth, and the Constitutional God given rights of Freedom and Liberty.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Adam Mockler Gets Into It With Conservative, Again, And CNN's Abby Phillip Defends Him #Political

2026-05-06T04:31:40.811-07:00

https://bit.ly/3QNheUx

Last Thursday on CNN's NewsNight with Abby Phillip, AdamMockler of Meidas Touch Network disrespected CNN commentator Scott Jennings into losing his cool, big time. It wasn't pretty, but despite his performance that night, Mockler was invited back on Monday night, and even though Jennings wasn't there, he managed to exhibit many of the same unfortunate qualities from last week.

Phillip began by displaying numbers from various polls showing lack of support for the war, and focused on a Marquette Law School Survey showing that 80% of those 18-29, say there was no sufficient reasons to go to war. She then turned to 23-year-old Mockler who was full of it -- talking points, that is.

MOCKLER: For my entire life, the United States has been at war with some country in the Middle East, and young people have constantly been told that this will make us safer and make us better off. But when we look around at the world today, we are less safe and we are worse off.... And now Gen Z-ers are going to the same thing with Iran....This war is failing.... And I'm sorry, I'm not buying this trust the process line. I don't trust the same people who got us into the prior wars, amassed trillions of dollars in debts, and are not putting America first on the global stage.

Phillip then seemed to endorse what she had just heard as she addressed Noah Rothman, Senior Writer at National Review.

PHILLIP: Is it fair for young people to have that level of distrust of the people, to Adam's point, who maybe defended the last war and were wrong and are defending this war too?

ROTHMAN: I don't think so. I think honestly, Adam, that's immensely ungrateful to American service personnel and the people who keep us safe every day. After 9/11 it was by no means guaranteed that there would be no mass casualty terrorist attack on American soil.... And after the attack on Iraq and the elimination of Saddam Hussein's regime, we took a terrorist supporting enterprise off the map. We don't talk about Iraq anymore as a threat to national security, because it isn't.

Rothman continued to attempt to educate young Mockler, while also taking him to task.

ROTHMAN: And those who would pretend as though Iran is not a national security threat, are just frankly dismissive of the extent to which American service personnel get up every day to stop these people from executing the attacks on American and their allies that they plan every single day.... And I just think it's just ungrateful.
MOCKLER: I feel less safe due to the actions of our leaders. I'm incredibly grateful for our servicemen here.

Later in the segment, Rothman went back to his original response to Mockler.

ROTHMAN: To clarify what I had said previously, is that it is, in my view, ungrateful to American service personnel to say that they have not kept us safe when we do not measure-

MOCKLER: That's not what I said.

ROTHMAN: Allow me to finish my statement.

At this point, Phillip felt the need to speak up for her Gen Z guest.

PHILLIP: But but he didn't say that.

ROTHMAN: He's saying that we can measure nonevents, which is to suggest that the attacks that have not happened, which none of us are aware of, we're not we're not avoidable because he's talking about because of the nature of these conflicts. And the conflicts themselves are what inspires the attacks.

PHILLIP: But that's not really the argument that he's making. The argument that he's making is that is that the people who made the arguments to go into these conflicts in the first place misled, which is a fact. And and secondly, that the conflicts ended up lasting a very long time, costing a lot of American treasure, and those are also facts. He didn't say it's because they didn't keep us safe. That's not actually what he said.

Rothman then shot back, "Well it is actually what he said."

It seems pretty obvious that Phillip didn't believe that Mockler was capable of presenting his point of view without her stepping in to protect him. His lack of respect and decorum has also proven problematic, and if he were a young Conservative, his days on CNN would have already have been over.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Big Four News Apps: Media Gerrymandering You Didn’t Vote For #Political

2026-05-05T14:31:44.702-07:00

https://bit.ly/3PnpMAX

Not much unlike the lopsided gerrymandering popping up across the country in Democrat-run states from California to Virginia, the Big Four News Apps are tilting the media and information map to almost completely favor one side, the left.

Take the state where the Media Research Center is headquartered, for example. Democrats’ redistricting effort in Virginia could effectively turn a relatively balanced state with a six-Democrat to five-Republican jurisdictional split into a 10-to-1 jurisdictional tyranny.

As many Americans likely saw in reports across the Big Four News Apps (Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN and Yahoo News) on Wednesday morning, Democrats may have scored a narrow redistricting referendum victory on April 21 that could do just that. And while an April 28 Virginia Supreme Court denial of a request to “stay” an injunction against the referendum perhaps offers a glimpse of hope for Republicans living in the state, even if the referendum vote is ultimately upheld, at least there was actually a democratized process by which citizens could make their voices heard.

Not so for the news and information being pumped out by default on the Big Four News Apps. MRC Free Speech America research on the Big Four News Apps makes one thing clear: the news aggregators are overwhelmingly pushing elitist media outlets promoting a left-wing agenda.

So, yes, a 10-to-1 ratio is bad if you’re in the minority in Virginia. But if you’re getting news and information from the Big Four News Apps in America, the ratio is much worse. Try 14-to-1! That’s the left-to-right ratio getting pumped out by the Big Four News Apps onto Americans’ digital devices.

A recent MRC Special Report gives the breakdown:

“Throughout the first five months of MRC-collected data, the Big Four News Apps promoted a whopping 7,265 articles from left-leaning outlets out of a total 10,338 articles from AllSides-rated outlets in their morning editions. That means the Big Four News Apps promoted leftist sources 70% of the time. Compare that gaudy figure to the paltry 539 articles (5%) from right-leaning outlets, and the overt bias of the Big Four News Apps becomes abundantly clear.”

The first half of April didn’t look much better. From the same report: “The Big Four News Apps promoted 799 articles (65%) from left-leaning outlets out of a total of 1,222 articles from April 1 - April 18, 2026. Meanwhile, the news aggregators promoted a paltry 72 articles (6%) from right-leaning outlets during the same period.”

And with the Big Four News Apps collectively reaching over 100 million Americans each week, the volume of articles from elitist media getting pushed to the masses is massive.

But it’s not just the sheer volume that the Big Four News Apps use to stack the deck against conservative thought. As noted earlier, it’s also the messaging that is being pushed from a leftist perspective.

One-sided messaging coupled with volume can pack a horrible punch.

MRC President David Bozell put it plainly in his recent Op-Ed with the Washington Examiner headlined “Rig the headlines, shift the polls.” Bozell wrote, “If millions of Americans are exposed to a steady stream of negative framing, stripped of context and alternative perspectives, it should not be surprising when polling begins to reflect that environment.”

Look no further than two recent MRC Special Reports for just how lopsided the messaging is.

The first, headlined “Special Report: 634 Left vs. 41 Right — While Trump Fights Iran, Big Four News Apps Attack Trump,” exposed the Big Four News Apps for favoring leftist outlets over right-leaning outlets in Iran war coverage. From the Special Report:

“Despite the unprecedented success of the U.S.-led action, the news aggregators’ curation of stories ensured that most Iran coverage in its top 20 morning editions from March 1 through April 19 came from left-leaning outlets, often using sensational, negative and fear-driven framing that undercut the United States and undermined the Trump administration’s efforts to win the war.”

Drilling down more into the individual articles the news aggregators shared reveals just how potent messaging can be. One glaring example from the Iran war coverage: Google News promoted leftist rag The Atlantic, which attempted to explain “Trump’s Logic for Blockading the Blockaders” in the Strait of Hormuz. The subheader from the outlet read, “He wants to use economic pain to weaken Iran—even if that threatens the global economy.” At least three other articles, from right-leaning outlets (American Thinker, Hot Air and New York Post) could have actually provided a glimpse into what Trump’s logic might have been, but Google News did not deign to share those stories with its viewers.

The second MRC Special Report, headlined “Special Report: 0 Out of 255 Stories: Google News, Microsoft’s MSN & Yahoo News Ignore SPLC Scandal,” detailed how the three news aggregators ignored the Southern Poverty Law Center DOJ indictment altogether in their top stories in the mornings after the scandal broke. Similarly glaring, as revealed in this piece, were the articles that the Big Four News Apps refused to promote in the morning editions. Fox News, the New York Post, Breitbart News, Newsmax and The Daily Wire all wrote on the SPLC indictment, but none of them made the top 20 stories in the Big Four News Apps’ morning editions.

The Big Four News Apps aren’t just biased—they’re digital news gerrymanderers, rigging the information landscape and drowning out conservative voices. This is the opposite of fair play, suppressing right-leaning outlets that millions of Americans rely on for balanced coverage and ensuring that the elitist media’s left-wing narratives dominate unchecked. At MRC Free Speech America, we're sounding the alarm loud and clear: Americans deserve transparency and balance, not tech tyranny. And we will continue to expose the Big Four News Apps for their bias and suppression of right-leaning outlets.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Stewart Laughs At The Idea Racism Isn't What It Was In The 60s #Political

2026-05-05T07:31:38.423-07:00

https://bit.ly/42PLlgC

Comedy Central’s Monday host of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart, welcomed lawyer and professor Sherrilyn Ifill to the program to react to the Supreme Court’s latest ruling regarding the Voting Rights Act. However, Stewart also invited Ifill to give a larger history lesson, which led him to laugh at the Court’s 2013 ruling that got rid of the need for DOJ preclearance for southern states because racism in 2026 is not the same as it was in 1965.

Stewart began by asserting, “What are the metrics for how we decided things have changed? Because I would assume that those metrics are the result of Section Five.”

Cracking himself up, he continued, “Is this—is it literally as bad as ‘Section Five has worked so well, let's remove Section Five?’”

Jon Stewart thinks the idea that the country isn't as racist as it was in the 60s is haliarious, "Is this—is it literally as bad as Section Five has worked so well, let's remove Section Five?" Prof. Sherrilyn Ifill goes on to echo the left's favorite Ruth Bader Ginsburg-umbrella… pic.twitter.com/DsX7BbTRKu
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 5, 2026

Ifill responded by citing the left’s favorite Ruth Bader Ginsburg quote, “That is what the late, great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. She said that eliminating Section Five now is like using an umbrella, and it keeps you dry, and then you say, ‘Well, let me throw away the umbrella because I am dry even though it is raining outside.’"

Her proof that it is still raining was quite underwhelming, “So, that's what happened. That was now gone. Now we didn't have preclearance, and you all may have noticed in the last ten years, the explosion of voter ID laws and voter suppression laws, that came as a result of 2013.”

Stewart then scoffed, “Right, because they don't have to get preclearance. Although, to be fair, if you were trying to get preclearance from this administration, I would imagine they would just go, ‘You're precleared.’”

It is considered common sense that someone would be legally required to obtain a driver’s license before they drive a car, but requiring that same driver’s license as a form of ID at a polling station is considered 1965-style racism, according to The Daily Show. That is why Stewart’s question is backward. The question should not be what the metrics are to show whether things have changed, but how do Stewart and Ifill decide that things haven’t changed?

Here is a transcript for the May 4 show:

Comedy Central The Daily Show

5/4/2026

11:35 PM ET

JON STEWART: What are the metrics for how we decided things have changed? Because I would assume that those metrics are the result of Section Five.

SHERRILYN IFILL: Yeah, it’s so interesting.

STEWART: Is this—is it literally as bad as—

IFILL: Yeah.

STEWART: — "Section Five has worked so well, let's remove Section Five?"

IFILL: That is what the late, great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. She said that eliminating Section Five now is like using an umbrella, and it keeps you dry, and then you say, "Well, let me throw away the umbrella because I am dry even though it is raining outside."

So, that's what happened. That was now gone. Now we didn't have preclearance, and you all may have noticed in the last ten years, the explosion of voter ID laws and voter suppression laws, that came as a result of 2013.

STEWART: Right, because they don't have to get preclearance. Although, to be fair, if you were trying to get preclearance from this administration, I would imagine they would just go, "You're precleared."

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Soros-Funded Quincy Institute Amplified Nutty Claim Iran's ‘Gaming’ Trump and ‘Winning’ #Political

2026-05-04T22:31:31.197-07:00

https://bit.ly/4cOYDzX

Leave it to the Soros regime to make it seem to the public like an economically-shellacked enemy of the U.S. is somehow winning its war against President Donald Trump.

The liberal Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft — which boasts $2,025,000 in funding from George Soros between 2019-2023 — pushed an asinine claim by non-resident fellow Ian Proud April 28 headlined, “Iran and Russia are gaming the United States, and winning.”

Proud then fear-mongered that Trump was running out of time to end the world before the American economy goes belly up. Proud attempted to prop up Iran’s illusory economic firewall, which new reporting proves is false in retrospect: “Both [Iran and Russia] have as a source of their strength considerable natural resources from which they can generate cash flow to sustain themselves during stand-offs with the West.” But as even pro-terrorist outlet Al Jazeera admitted May 2, “Prices surge, jobs disappear as war strains Iran’s economy.”

Meanwhile, a day after Proud’s piece was published, Trump’s arch-rival at the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, even conceded in his last policy press conference as chairman that “Growth is really solid across our economy. Some of that is that consumer spending is hanging in pretty well, the most recent data are good.”

But in Proud’s distorted reality, it is Iran that is “now ‘making a mint’ from the current war” and maintaining a “significant financial advantage.” But the data do not support these obfuscations in the slightest. In fact, the Iranian rial is now down a whopping 20 percent against the U.S. dollar since the start of the American naval blockade April 13, according to Brookings Institution senior fellow Robin Brooks. As Brooks summarized, “We're only three weeks into the blockade and this is the most visible sign it's already meaningfully disrupting Iran's economy. The blockade is working.” What kind of “significant financial advantage” is that? In fact, Al Jazeera noted that the “toxic mix” of the naval blockade, the Islamist regime’s near-total internet shutdown, the bombardment against Iran’s infrastructure, and ongoing U.S. sanctions have all been “pummelling the [Iranian] economy.”

Since the start of the US blockade on April 13, the Iranian Rial is down 20 percent against the Dollar. We're only three weeks into the blockade and this is the most visible sign it's already meaningfully disrupting Iran's economy. The blockade is working.https://t.co/tkb1sh0KHN pic.twitter.com/j4fbhgElAW
— Robin Brooks (@robin_j_brooks) May 4, 2026

What Proud is doing is the equivalent of saying boxer Deontay Wilder still had the advantage after Tyson Fury knocked him down to the canvas twice and left him bloodied in their rematch bout. Reading Proud’s ridiculous pro-Iran propaganda illustrates this analogy well:

But, if Iran wasn’t going to buckle economically in the years before the war when its oil exports and earnings were sagging, it isn’t going to do so now, with the oil market booming in its favor.

Economist Daniel Lacalle skewered this point in a sarcastic May 4 X post. “The Iran oil industry is doing awesomely well because the regime says so.” He continued: “That is why it bans the internet, so you cannot get any independent information. It is amazing that Western media buys and sells the regime's propaganda.” Apparently the Soros circle is guilty of buying and selling the same anti-American Kool-Aid, too.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Only 5 Percent of Network Evening News Coverage on DHS Shutdown Blamed Democrats #Political

2026-05-04T09:31:51.728-07:00

https://bit.ly/3R0x4Lq

Thursday saw an end to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, with the House passing a bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), capping 76 days of tumult for government employees in agencies such as the Coast Guard, TSA, and Secret Service. But on the lead network evening newscasts, a Media Research Center analysis found only five percent of their shutdown coverage blamed Democrats for opposing any further funding of deportations.

MRC analysts scanned every mention of the partial government shutdown and the public consequences between February 14 and April 30 on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News. Only 21 out of the 76 days included at least one newscast mentioning Democrat demands.

Most concerning and glaring was the fact that, in the five days following the April 25 attempted assassination of President Trump and members of his cabinet at the White House Correspondents Dinner, there was not a single mention of the fact that Secret Services, TSA, and other agencies involved were there under financial duress.

CBS saw the biggest plummet from the first study on March 16, going from 10 percent of its coverage blaming Democrats to its final tally of about four percent, or two minutes out of 53 minutes and 24 seconds. Here’s a video of the five new mentions:

In my latest NewsBusters study, I tallied up the network evening news coverage of the DHS shutdown that finally ended on April 30 and what percentage mentioned Democrats were the cause of it by refusing to fund President Trump’s deportation agenda.
The ‘CBS Evening News’ spent… pic.twitter.com/9MRInqaAek
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 4, 2026

“Democrats are refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security unless Republicans agree to changes in immigration enforcement. Guess who is caught in the middle? 50,000 TSA officers,” CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil declared off the top of the March 17 Evening News.

Even though correspondent Skyler Henry correctly noted on March 22 the shutdown was “triggered by Democrat outrage at ICE tactics in Minneapolis” and demands that “officers unmask and wear IDs,” fellow correspondent Cristian Benavides painted President Trump’s rhetoric as an obstacle to funding because he was “using social media to call the Democrats ‘lunatics’ and ‘unreasonable.’”

CBS’s final mention of Democrats being to blame came way back on March 29 as correspondent Jason Allen declared: “Democrats are saying they’re not going to agree to any proposal that doesn’t also include significant reforms to ICE.”

Here was how the CBS Evening News told its viewers on April 30 the impasse ended following a month of silence about the issue, one of 13 instances when the word “Democrats” never came up in their shutdown coverage (click “expand”):

DOKOUPIL: And Ed, the homeland security shutdown is over after nearly 80 days. What was the breakthrough?

ED O’KEEFE: That’s right. Most of it is over. The White House essentially told House Republicans to pass the bill the Senate had passed five weeks ago, and with paychecks running out this week, they did. The pressure was building because the Coast Guard commandant had warned in an interview with CBS News his agency’s funding was set to run out tomorrow. The TSA was losing officers. More than 1,100 quit during the shutdown, so now most of DHS is fully reopened, but the underlying disagreements about immigration policy remain unsolved and funding is still cut to immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Customs and Border Protection agencies. Tony, Republicans say they will sort that out in the coming weeks.

ABC’s World News Tonight also saw a precipitous decline as it went from nine percent of coverage tagging Democrats to seven percent — or three minutes and four seconds out of 46 minutes and eight seconds overall — in this final tally.

Between our first study on the morning of March 16 and the evening of April 30, ABC mentioned Democrats nine times, but sought to blame both parties.

For example, here was senior national correspondent Steve Osunsami on March 19: “The deadlock in Washington started 34 days ago and this week the White House and Democrats in Congress traded offers to end it, but so far no deal...But with the workers telling us what they need is for Democrats and Republicans to get it together and start paying them again.”

White House correspondent Selina Wang seemed to not only admit two days later Democrats were the cause of the chaos, but stood by them as she boasted “Democrats [are] holding firm, saying any deal needs reforms to Trump’s immigration enforcement policy” and that the President deploying ICE agents to airports “only hardens their resolve[.]”

Congressional Jay O’Brien struck a similar tone a day later on March 22: “Remember, Democrats are holding firm. They’re refusing to vote to fund DHS without reforms to ICE. And Democrats have tried to numerous, piecemeal attempts fund agencies[.]”

On March 27’s World News Tonight, senior political correspondent Rachel Scott gave away the game: “Democrats hoped the partial government shutdown would pressure Republicans to reform immigration enforcement after federal officers killed protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. That didn’t happen. The Senate deal left the door open for more negotiation.”

ABC was radio silent on the plight of government workers from March 30 until April 30 when anchor David Muir tucked in 19-second brief the shutdown was suddenly over:

Tonight, House lawmakers voting to fund the Department of Homeland Security, ending the 76 day partial government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history. The House passing the Senate-approved bill funding most of Homeland Security's operations, including the Secret Service, FEMA and TSA. The bill does not give additional funding to ice. President Trump is expected to sign the bill.

Going finally to NBC Nightly News, their tally inched up a single percentage point from three percent in our first study to four percent, which translated to 101 seconds out of 38 minutes and five seconds of shutdown coverage (and was also the lowest of the networks).

Senior correspondent Tom Costello shifted blame to Republicans instead of Democrats, arguing on March 16 the GOP wouldn’t acquiesce to “changes to ICE procedures after two Americans were killed in Minneapolis.” One day later, he huffed “both” parties “want to fund Homeland Security,” yet “Republicans object to Democratic demands[.]”

On March 21, correspondent Valerie Castro also painted Democrats as the good guys: “An attempt by Senate Democrats to advance a bill funding just TSA...failing to secure enough votes today.”

In contrast, correspondent Julie Tsirkin went in a different direction on the March 22 Nightly News: “For 37 days, Democrats have blocked funding to the Department of Homeland Security because of the administration’s immigration crackdown.”

Her Capitol Hill colleague Ryan Nobles similarly went down this road, pointing out “Democrats have said no” to GOP proposals and even pressing Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in a hallway about her party’s refusal to reopen the government.

But in the last Democrat mention on March 30, correspondent Priscilla Thompson placed Democrats in the right: “House Republicans on Friday rejected a bipartisan Senate deal to fund all of DHS except for ICE and Customs and Border Protection.”

NBC had last mentioned the shutdown on April 4 before anchor Tom Llamas announced the end on April 30 in a two-sentence news brief: “We have more news out of Washington tonight. President Trump signing a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a surprise breakthrough on Capitol Hill, bringing an end to the record-long partial government shutdown.”

When Americans are polled on which party is to blame for government shutdowns, Republicans have consistently been identified as the culprit, regardless of whether they occupy the White House or have a congressional majority.

But when the elite media spent such an infinitesimal amount of time during this most recent shutdown highlighting the basic facts of why hundreds of thousands of American workers went months without pay, it’s easy to see why Americans resort to an answer the press have molded and shaped for decades: It’s the GOP’s fault.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

MS NOW: In Voting Rights Ruling, SCOTUS Says Blacks Have No Rights It Needs To Respect #Political

2026-05-03T18:31:52.442-07:00

https://bit.ly/4n3RsY0

On last night’s The Weekend: Primetime on MS NOW, legal analyst and law professor Paul Butler delivered an astonishing assessment of the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act.

Analogizing it to the Dred Scott decision -- that garbage in heavy rotation -- Butler made the absurd claim:

“It’s like the Dred Scott decision, where the Court said that the black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect. The Supreme Court is saying that the black voter and the brown voter has [sic] no rights that it respects.”

He also argued the ruling was worse than Plessy v. Ferguson, claiming that Plessy at least required formal equality under “separate but equal,” whereas this decision means “black and brown votes don’t have the same power as white votes.”

Co-host Ayman Mohyeldin responded by saying Democrats must make this a central part of their 2028 campaign. He listed priorities including doing away with the filibuster, Supreme Court reform [a euphemism for court packing], implementing the Voting Rights Act in a new legal framework, police reform, social justice reform, and even trying to abolish the Electoral College— something that would likely have backfired in 2024, since Trump comfortably won the popular vote.

Co-host Catherine Rampell then asked what remedies Democrats could realistically offer, explicitly suggesting court packing as one possibility, since the Supreme Court appears to be blocking tools like majority-minority districts.

Butler replied that Congress and states can no longer create majority-minority districts. He offered little in the way of institutional solutions, instead closing on a faith-based and almost fatalistic note:

“A lot of black people are just leaning on our history, saying, we got through enslavement, we got through Jim Crow, somehow we’ll get through this.”

This closing evokes the long tradition of faith-based endurance rooted in black historical resilience—the spirit found in spirituals, civil rights-era rhetoric, and “We Shall Overcome.” The segment stands out for how quickly it moved from activist political demands to resigned historical fatalism.

We take a more positive view of the Court's decision, recalling Chief Justice John Roberts' famous words in 2007: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Here's the transcript.

MS NOW
The Weekend: Primetime
5/2/26
7:08 pm EDT

AYMAN MOHYELDIN: Yeah, so where does this take the civil rights fight now, Paul? I mean, if you, when you kind of take a big picture approach and take a step back, where do you see the fight for trying to ensure the full rights of black and brown people in this country to vote—and have their votes actually weigh as they should go?

PAUL BUTLER: Ayman, that's a really difficult question. In some ways, this is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions on race ever. It's actually worse than Plessy v. Ferguson.

MOHYELDIN: Wow.

BUTLER: Plessy actually required formal equality—separate, but equal. With this case, black and vrown votes don't have the same power as white votes. It's like the Dred Scott decision, where the Court said that the black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect. The Supreme Court is saying that the black voter and the brown voter has [sic] no rights that it respects.

MOHYELDIN: I think Democrats going forward have to make this a central part of whatever they campaign on. Whether it's doing away with the filibuster, Supreme Court reform, finding ways to implement the Voting Rights Act in a new legal framework—has to be core to what they run on.

And if you're not a Democratic candidate in 2028 who's willing to make that core to your campaign—police reform, social justice reform, voting rights reform, perhaps even trying to do -- I know it's hard -- but trying to do away with the Electoral College. I think those are the things that the base of the party wants.

CATHERINE RAMPELL: But to Paul's point, it's hard for me to even understand what the remedy is that Democrats could offer here, aside from like packing the Court.

Or is there some -- if the Supreme Court is saying that the Constitution does not allow something like the Voting Rights Act to protect the recognition of vlack and brown votes, where do Democrats even go? What do they offer?

BUTLER: So that part—the creation of majority-minority districts—the Supreme Court has said that can no longer be done. Congress can't change that, states can't change that.

So, Ayman, I mean, you ask where do we go from here? A lot of black people are just leaning on our history, saying, we got through enslavement, we got through Jim Crow, somehow we'll get through this.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

NY Times Panics: Supreme Court Voting Rights Ruling Banished 'Seatbelt of Our Democracy' #Political

2026-05-03T06:31:35.801-07:00

https://bit.ly/3P5dvkq

The New York Times reacted badly to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in vote in Louisiana v. Callais that struck down racial gerrymandering to insure black voters have the best chance to elect black representatives to Congress.

Political reporter Nick Corasaniti, long-obsessed with so-called GOP “voter suppression,” was dramatically opinionated in his news story, “Voting Rights Ruling Could Fuel Era of Endless Redistricting Wars.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to upend a key provision of the Voting Rights Act has plunged the nation into a dizzying new era of partisan conflict, most likely ushering in a forever redistricting war that could produce fewer competitive seats in Congress and further polarize American politics.

Left as probable casualties are longstanding principles of fair representation — along with American voters, who are likelier now to be shunted into hyperpartisan districts drawn in each state to benefit the party in power. A great carving could effectively dilute the power of millions, especially minority voters, and make partisan primaries more important than general elections when it comes to choosing leaders.

“We lost one of the last seatbelts of our democracy,” said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

Somehow, the ACLU doesn't warrant the liberal label, but the Supreme Court majority is branded conservative.

The ruling by the court’s conservative majority struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, describing it as an unconstitutional gerrymander that improperly considered race to create a majority-Black district. The ruling, Democrats argued, effectively removed one of the final guardrails that kept the most ruthlessly partisan interests at bay when it came to drawing congressional and legislative maps.

Some also fear that the court’s decision will reverberate beyond the halls of Congress.

Corasaniti sounded all-in on racial gerrymandering (which, not coincidentally, guarantees certain seats for the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress).

More broadly, minority voters fear a backslide after losing what they say was a critical legal protection.

“Black Americans have never been fully represented in the electoral process,” said Damon Hewitt, the president of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a civil rights group. “This ruling makes it less likely that we ever will.”

Friday’s lead New York Times story by Atlanta bureau chief Rick Rojas carried a similar alarmist tone: “How the Voting Rights Decision May Block the Rise of Young Black Leaders.” By “young black leaders,” the paper only means Democrats. The paper certainly isn’t sympathetic to black conservatives.

Evan Turnage left a job on Capitol Hill and returned home to Mississippi to run for Congress. It didn’t pan out; he lost a Democratic primary in March against a popular incumbent. But by crisscrossing the region and building name recognition, he thought he had laid groundwork that could pay off later.

Next time, though, he could face an even more formidable hurdle: His district, long drawn to have a majority-Black constituency, could be redrawn to become practically impossible for a Black Democrat to win.

Or -- perhaps candidates could appeal to voters of all races?

Across the South, Republican officials are ready to quickly redraw legislative districts, seizing upon the Supreme Court decision on Wednesday that struck down a voting map in Louisiana and further weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act, which for decades helped usher in generations of Black leaders.

Rojas could have more accurately pointed out that the Supreme Court struck down racial preferences in national electoral politics.

He devoted two paragraphs to Justice Samuel Alito’s reasoning, including his note that Louisiana’s map violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by creating a second majority-black district (incidentally, the Times capitalizes “Black” but not “white).

But critics said that, in effect, the court’s decision gutted the law.

Rojas did uncover a “certain strain of optimism” in the unsuccessful candidate Turnage remembering that his grandparents had the honor of voting for Barack Obama.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

CNN's Scott Jennings Tells Rude Adam Mockler, 'Get Your F---ing Hand Out Of My Face' #Political

2026-05-02T17:31:42.223-07:00

https://bit.ly/4dl4rBh

If you are a regular viewer of CNN, you are probably used to seeing the network's Sr. Political Commentator Scott Jennings appear on various shows, usually as the lone conservative voice on a panel stacked with left-wingers, who can get testy with him at times over his views, but tend to treat him with expected respect. There are however exceptions, and one of those occurred Thursday on NewsNight with Abby Phillip, as 23-year-old Adam Mockler of Meidas Touch Network disrespected Jennings into losing his cool, big time.

The discussion centered around the Iran war, chock full of left-wing talking points, calling into question the legitimacy of the effort, and who is winning at this point, and that's where young Mockler went to work.

MOCKLER: Donald Trump is very impressive. He's taken his two largest campaign promises, no new wars and lower prices, ending inflation, and he's messed both of them up. He started a new war that spiked inflation, and now this war is actively failing.... We'll sit here and you'll laugh at Americans spending money, But the reality is we are failing this war. The purpose of a war is to extract political concessions from the enemy.

Mockler then turned to look at Jennings, and went on some kind of attack.

MOCKLER: Can you name a single political concession we've gotten from them? Anything at all?

JENNINGS: Oh, are you talking to me?
MOCKLER: Any political concessions, because you can't name one.
JENNINGS: So, here's what we're doing.
MOCKLER: No political concessions.

After being interrupted, Jennings responded with a good one.

JENNINGS: When you get up past your bedtime, you get hyper.

PHILLIP: All right. Let's not--

JENNINGS: We have a clear issue here.

Mockler again went after Jenings, and Jennings ignored it, this time.

MOCKLER: You're shaking.

JENNINGS: We have a clear issue here. No nuclear weapons for the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, period, full stop.... Again, a little bit of patience right here, not bombs, but patience on a naval blockade could get the outcome you want, which is no nuclear weapons for the largest state sponsor of terror in.

MOCKLER: You've been saying this for eight weeks, and we are now past the 4 to 6 week deadline. Where is he enriched uranium right now.

JENNINGS: It's under rubble.

MOCKLER: Where is it right now in the United States or Iran? Iran has enriched uranium. They still have the scientists scattered across their country, and they have all of the blueprints in the cloud. You can sit there and act confused, but you can't name a single political concession. It's not over from Iran.

JENNINGS: It's not over yet.

And neither were the confrontations between the two panelists, as Mockler went after Jennings hard.

MOCKLER: We all know that Scott Jennings is more than happy to defend a war with a country that starts with letters I-R-A, that we are currently failing.... I was only a few years old while you were in the (GW BUSH) administration defending prior endless wars. Now this war is failing.

JENNINGS: Eight weeks is endless to you.

MOCKLER: You said it was going to be 4 to 6 weeks.

JENNINGS: You have the attention span of a gnat. Is that what you have?

MOCKLER: Now you're making condescending remarks because you can't defend the fact that this war is not going your way. Wait one more time.

JENNINGS: Not going, your way?

Mockler then raised his fist as he asked yet again for Jennings to name, "one political concession" and Jennings exploded.

JENNINGS: Get you f--king hand out of my face.

Turning to Phillip he added, "I'm not going to have this guy's hand in my face. Honestly."

Phillip chimed in with, "Everybody hang tight okay? Everybody calm down, okay? We're having a debate. You can respond to the points that he's making." Jennings did calm down, but it didn't stop wise-guy Mockler from again repeating to Jennings, "Can you name a political concession that we've gotten?", and, "He can't answer the question."

Jennings and Mockler are no strangers to going at it with each other on NewsNight, with some other instances happening last August and last December.

Mockler was arrogant, disrespectful and overly aggressive, and many will feel he got what he deserved. Some might feel he didn't get enough. But the Meidas Touch guys quickly pushed for CNN to fire Jennings (no dissenting allowed!): “How could any network possibly allow this loose cannon on the air?”

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Morning Joe’s Graham Platner Love-Fest Interview Glances Over Controversies #Political

2026-05-02T05:31:37.139-07:00

https://bit.ly/4t6oJU1

On Friday, MS NOW’s Morning Joe hosted an interview with Democratic Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner, poised to be the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine. The supposed anti-establishment candidate went on the largest, liberal establishment morning talk show to discuss his campaign, as the hosts glanced over his controversies, which include Platner’s Nazi tattoo and his past comments on Reddit about women and other topics.

The only mention of any controversy was a lobbed softball from occasional co-host Willie Geist about the Republicans’ framing of Platner as “too radical” for Maine.

Joe Scarborough’s first question to Platner asked him if he would “actually exercise” Article I of the Constitution, as he set up Platner to go on an anti-Iran war speech.

Platner said, “We have seen, time and time again, Congress handing over war powers to the executive branch. And we need people in the halls of power who want to claw that power back.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski asked about current Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) who he would replace if elected. Platner attacked the Big, Beautiful Bill and then went to the normal progressive, Bernie Sanders-like phrases and points about billionaires, corporations, and companies like Palantir:

Finally, one of the hosts brought up the backlash to Platner and the points of interest against him, including posts on Reddit and a Nazi tattoo on his chest. But, Geist posed the question as just “Republican attacks” and paired the question of radicalization with, simply, “past comments” that he might regret:

Platner took the question first about radicalization, which he based on an economic wealth gap fight, similar to a campaign speech by Bernie and AOC. As for his past comments, he repeated a line about him being isolated after combat tours and said he had become a changed man.

Jonathan Lemire then posed a question about Platner as an anti-establishment candidate, while he was on the most Democratic establishment talk show. Platner pledged to work with the Democratic leadership, including Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), but also promised his campaign would remain grassroots.

At the end of the interview, Scarborough compared himself to Platner: “It's what happened to me. I actually, I had party leaders working against me around the clock. Said I was too radical to get elected.”

Scarborough definitely did not have a Nazi tattoo on his chest, and he almost certainly was not a Redditor when he ran for Congress. But even with the controversies, he was definitely their candidate now.

The transcript is below. Click "expand":

MS NOW’s Morning Joe

May 1, 2026

8:10:18 AM Eastern

(...)

JOE SCABOROUGH: And Graham Platner follows us. Now. He is both a Marine and a U.S. Army Veteran who's deployed overseas four times. Graham, thank you so much for being with us.

You know, we could talk about a lot of things. You talk about inflation, we can talk about the money. But I want to just start with Article One of the Constitution. Do you know what it is? And unlike Republicans in the United States Senate right now, would you actually, when you take the oath to God to uphold the Constitution of the United States, will you do that and actually exercise what, what our founding fathers demanded Congress exercise Article One powers over war and peace?

GRAHAM PLATNER (D-ME, CANDIDATE FOR US SENATE): You know, when this nation was founded, the Constitution lays out very clearly that the power to make war is in the hands of the body that most directly represents the American people. Because when the United States goes to war, it is the American people who are asked to shoulder the burden.

And as ridiculous as the war in Iran is, I mean, I think we can all agree that this thing is just utterly insane. We have to be clear that this really does come on. Decades of Congress abdicating its constitutional duty. We have seen, time and time again, Congress handing over war powers to the executive branch. And we need people in the halls of power who want to claw that power back.

And I'll be honest, for me, it's a pretty personal thing. I mean, I had to fight in Iraq. I wish to god there had been a Congress back then that didn't have people like Susan Collins in it, who were more than happy to send America's sons and daughters off to fight and die and take part in untold horrors, for what it seems like today was just a complete fool's errand. It's not just about the politics.

It's not just, frankly, even about the constitutional responsibility. There is a moral clarity that we lack. There is a moral clarity that we have a lot of leaders who don't seem to have that when we send people off to war, we are asking of them horrific things and immense sacrifice. And for a long time, we have a political class that kind of treats war like it's a game, like it's something they get to do to look tough or to posture, or in the worst case, really just kind of pad the pocketbooks of defense companies that donate a lot of money to them.

But either - however you look at it, we really have had, and I just want to make this clear, I think it's on both sides of the aisle. We've had a lot of people for a long time in power who have given up on the fact that we are supposed to be waging war. As a nation, we are not just supposed to give that power to one person and then let them run rampant with it, which, sadly, is why we find ourselves in the absurdity that is the Iran war and running up against insane statements like, well, because we have a ceasefire that stops the clock. That's that's just I mean, that's not how it works.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So, you mentioned Senator Collins. Let's talk about the state of Maine. Maine is a hard-working, proud, beautiful state. How has she not served the interest of Mainers? How will you - I know a lot of business owners and families in the state of Maine who are still very much behind the president and his party.

PLATNER: One, in the 30 years that Susan Collins has been in office, things have gotten harder for working-class Mainers. I say this as somebody that lives in a small, working-class town on the coast of Maine and makes his living on the sea. We have seen our health care system fall apart. We have seen hospitals closing. I mean, over the past three years, we've lost three rural hospitals in the state, primarily because the Republicans passed a Big, Beautiful bill.

Susan Collins did not use her power on appropriations to slow it down in any way. And those Medicaid and Medicare cuts that were used to justify tax cuts to corporations, those cuts have resulted in hospital closures. Because it turns out, as no surprise to anyone, rural health care is not really a profitable business. And it needed those subsidies to come in and keep those hospitals alive. Well, they're gone now. And now we have mainers who are driving two, sometimes three hours just to get health care, people giving birth in emergency departments, because labor and delivery units in eastern and northern Maine have closed.

That has happened on Susan Collins' watch. And that has happened because she and Republican politicians like her have prioritized the interests of billionaires and corporations over people, which, I may add, is why over the past week, we have already seen out-of-state superpacs pouring millions of dollars into negative ads against me. Even before the announcement yesterday, super PACs that are funded by the CEOs of Palantir and Blackstone and, most amusingly, a private equity group that broke down and sold off for parts a lot of the mills here in Maine, specifically Jay and Bucksport.

They hate the fact that we are building a movement to represent Mainers, and we need to fight back. So, if anybody is watching, we could definitely use your help, grahamforsenate.com. We can use all the money we can get because we're up against billionaires in this one, and they're not going to give it to us easily.

WILLIE GEIST: Graham, good morning. Since, especially even just the last 24 hours, since it's become clear that you'll be the guy in the democratic side, Republicans have stepped up their attacks on you, putting out statements yesterday after Governor Mills bowed out of the race, that you're just too radical to win in the state of Maine.

We've talked to you on this show, gone through some of the past comments you've made that you say you regret. The suggestion is that you're unsteady, that people can't be sure about how you lead. What do you say to those criticisms that you're radical? And going back to past comments that you've said some things that people shouldn't support?

PLATNER: So, one of the idea that my politics are too radical, I find somewhat laughable. I mean, as I go all over the state of Maine, you talk to any working person in Maine, Republican, Democrat, Independent, ask them if they think they live in a political system and an economic system that has their best interests at heart. Nobody says yes, nobody.

Everybody knows. Everybody knows that. We have witnessed the largest transfer of wealth from working people to the ruling class in American history, and it has happened while we have watched our working communities in the state of Maine begin to fall apart. We've watched the hard work that Mainers have done for generations no longer be enough to own your home, to have health care, to have access to good schools for your kids. It's all becoming significantly harder to make life work down here. While we also watch the largest accumulation of wealth in human history happening at the top echelons of our society. Everybody sees that happening.

And the idea that you want to show up for working people, you want to have a tax code that taxes wealth at at least the same rate as we tax wages, because right now we tax wages at a much higher rate than wealth. That's not radical. That's just showing up for the people that build this country, the people that go out every single day and work with their hands, work with their bodies, support their families, support their neighbors, support their communities. We put in the work down here, and we're just asking that that hard work be enough.

Again, when it comes to if I'm study enough. Well, I was an NCO in the Marine Corps in the army. I led men in combat. I have run an oyster farm for the past decade. I run a small business. I am a diver in the Gulf of Maine. Diving is a cold and relatively dangerous business and I enjoy it thoroughly because it's a challenge. Steadiness and a steady hand is very much a part of my existence. And I think that that's very much going to continue. And it's also what the people of Maine see, because I'm very much of them. I'm born and raised here, spent my life here, make a living on the sea here with my hands.

And it is a - it's not surprising that the Republican party is going to attack me with that. I mean, these are a lot of people who've never worked a day in their lives. And if they have, it certainly hasn't been with their hands. They don't know what it's like to fix an outboard engine on the ocean. They don't know what it's like to have to like, you know, fix your chainsaw because a tree came down the neighbor's driveway and it's the middle of winter. They don't know what that life is. Mainers know what that life is. And for them, the only attack they're going to have is trying to make stuff up.

I mean, you guys were just talking about the fact that Tim Scott and Scalise are out there just lying about gas prices. I fully expect that to continue in all facets of this.

But as to past comments, I got back from my four combat tours, and I was a pretty isolated and angry young man. And I went on the internet, and I expressed that. And I had opinions and beliefs and said things in the past that do not reflect who I am now. Because like most people, you grow, you change, you learn new things, you meet new people, and you realize that you can be a better version of yourself. And that's something I've been working on for a very long time and continue to do so. And I think the people of Maine see that.

JONATHAN LEMIRE: So, Graham, we just mentioned the Republicans, of course, lining up their attacks, some saying they're salivating for this campaign. Also, no secret that you were not the candidate of choice for some of the Democratic Establishment Leader Schumer supported. Governor Mills, I know you spoke to Leader Schumer yesterday. Feel free to categorize that call.

But also, though perhaps it was to this point to your benefit, to have some distance from the Democratic establishment. As you mount your candidacy, what will your relationship like with the party going forward, as you likely need their help in what will be a very expensive race?

PLATNER: Yeah, I mean, I spoke to the leader last night, and I'll just say that nothing brings people together like wanting to get Susan Collins out of office. That is the priority for me. That is the priority for Senator Schumer, and I'm happy to get whatever help that they are willing to provide.

This is going to be a very expensive race. The Republican Party has already committed $42 million to this thing. And that's from the party. That's not even considering all the outside spending from billionaire super PACs. So, we're going to - we'll take money. But I will say this. What we have built is ours. We have built a campaign with tens of thousands of Mainers as volunteers.

We have built a campaign that is focused on field organizing and building, frankly, working-class power in the State of Maine by getting labor unions and community groups and civil rights groups and political organizations and just individuals combining in a coordinated and broad-based coalition. That's what we've done. If people want to come in and give us money to help us grow, that is fantastic. But that is the game that we're playing. That is the battlefield that we are trying to shape.

And I think, one, it's how you win this thing. You can't, like, you can't play their game. If we play the game, the old just kind of well-worn playbook of raise lots of money, spend it on consultants, spend it on TV ads, that's not how this is going to work. That's what they're going to do. We need to do something different. And that's what we've been doing since August of last year, which is why we have the momentum that we have, and we have the trust of so many Mainers because I go to every corner of the state. We've held 63 town halls. By the time this thing is done, I'm going to hold public events in almost every single town, over 2000 people in this state.

And in Maine, going and talking to people, having that personal relationship, having their neighbors knock on their door and talk about this campaign, that's how we're going to win it. We're going to do that no matter what.

And our criticisms, my criticisms of the party leadership, my criticisms of the party, they have not changed. And I've been very vocal about that since the beginning. But we will absolutely take the help that we can get. But it's our show, and we're proud of what we built, and we're just going to keep moving forward with it.

SCARBOROUGH: And that's a really great message to send, a great message to send to people in Washington, DC that are all going to jump on board now, and they should.

It's what happened to me. I actually, I had party leaders working against me around the clock. Said I was too radical to get elected. And so people would come up to me halfway through my term and they go, “Hey, if you don't vote with leadership, they're going to,” I go, what? What? Work against me? I got 62% the first time they worked against me. I'll get 70.

So, you are in a unique position here to get their support and you should get their support. And I know a lot of people would say the Democratic Party needs to be united. But man, really quickly we got to go. But talk about the Independence it will give you, doing this on your own with your grassroots support and not getting help early on, from the senate leadership.

PLATNER: This is very much my kind of politics. And the reason that I'm running is because for a long time, and this is not just me, a lot of my neighbors, a lot of my friends, we've all been lamenting the fact that we have not seen an actual movement based, organizing focused political campaign in the State of Maine, really focused on working class people's issues, the material realities we all live in down here.

We have been able to build that, and the fact that we have built it on our own. The fact that our average donation is $26 and 99% of our donations are less than 100 bucks. The fact that we've been able to do all of this without the help of the establishment, it puts us in such an amazing position. And it also, Joe, it's kind of funny. I think you and I, at this point, had a very similar experience being told very similar things from party leadership, from people who are experts in politics, who know better than we do. And it is in many ways, very heartening to see this kind of politics not just work, but work spectacularly and allow us to continue building what I think is the politics of the future at this point. This is how we need to do this kind of thing moving forward, certainly here in the state of Maine.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. I had people come up to me saying, "Son, you ran such a great campaign. You'll probably get in fourth or fifth place. It'll be great for you.” And like I said before, everything that's happened, you've built it along with your grassroots supporters. Man, that gives you such extraordinary Independence when you do get to Washington. Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, Graham Platner, thank you so much for being with us, and good luck out on the trail.

(...)

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Biden SBA Used Code ‘Benghazi’ to Cloak Illicit Payments to Planned Parenthood, Sen. Ernst Shows DOJ #Political

2026-05-01T10:31:37.487-07:00

https://bit.ly/4eXd9XD

“You can’t make this stuff up, folks, but sadly, it’s real,” Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said Wednesday, reporting on X.com that she has officially requested a Justice Department investigation into the Biden Administration’s apparent use of a code word to illegally disguise its funneling of $90 million of taxpayer money to the nation’s largest abortion provider.

“After years of being stonewalled by Biden’s Small Business Administration (SBA),” Ernst “finally gained access to agency communications and uncovered a potential cover-up obscuring $90 million in taxpayer funds Biden officials gifted to Planned Parenthood,” the senator says in a press release regarding her letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Ernst, chairwoman of the Senate Small Business Committee, summarized her findings in one of a series of posts on X.com:

“I uncovered that the Biden administration had given Planned Parenthood affiliates, through the Payroll Protections Program, over $90 million in COVID-era loans — even though they were ineligible!

“Even worse than that, they tried to obscure the fact that they had done this illegally – by using the codeword ‘Benghazi.’”

“If Biden officials intentionally used the codeword ‘Benghzai’ to cover up how SBA funneled $90 million to the nation’s top abortion provider, taxpayers deserve to know!” Ernst wrote.

In 2021, when Republicans began probing how Planned Parenthood received the payments, even though it didn’t qualify for them, Biden Administration SBA officials began sending communications headlined “Benghazi” – the site of a deadly 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. compound in Libya, Sen. Ernst explained in a Fox News Channel interview:

“Benghazi. What does that have to do with small business, Benghazi?

“A blatant use of a code word to conceal, not only from those of us that are charged with oversight, but from the American people should they ever request information on Planned Parenthood and how they received those loans.”

[embedded content]

Planned Parenthood received the small business loans, even though the SBA had previously informed the abortion giant that it did not qualify, primarily due to its size.

“The use of an unrelated codeword would have effectively hidden information related to these programs from any congressional or public record requests – which, if proven, would be a violation of the Federal Records Act and a federal crime,” Sen. Ernst notes in her press release.

Biden’s appointees and SBA employees knowingly concealed or attempted to conceal their records relating to Planned Parenthood, Ernst wrote, telling Acting Attorney General Blanche her letter contains proof of her charges:

“With the records detailed here, and many more I’ve obtained, perhaps now we know why the Biden administration did not want to share its Planned Parenthood records with Congress.”

In her letter, Ernst includes several images of communications appearing to show officials discussing, not only the illicit payments to Planned Parenthood, but also how to handle any concerns and inquiries regarding the payments.

The most damning piece of evidence appears to be an admission of the subterfuge in an April 30, 2021 direct message titled “Benghazi,” in which Biden’s SBA General Counsel Peggy SBA Chief of Staff Antwaun Griffin wrote:

“Can I schedule a meeting so we can decision [sic] Benghazi (Planned Parenthood)?”

“Yes, let’s talk Benghazi,” Chief of Staff Griffin replied.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

ABC and NBC Morning Shows Parrot Dem Views on SCOTUS Map Ruling #Political

2026-05-01T04:31:46.915-07:00

https://bit.ly/4ePXdXe

After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callis, which found that states could not draw congressional maps based on race, the network Thursday morning shows of ABC, CBS, and NBC took the moment to parrot the Democratic Party’s views on the ruling as the reporter’s news packages focused on the backlash.

All the networks covered the decision on their morning shows. ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today had their stories in the early portion of the 7 AM lead hour, while the CBS Mornings segment occurred near the start of their second hour.

On Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts teased the story as “Major Fallout” as the sound of the Louisiana Legislature’s session to pass a new map was heard in the background.

The actual news package was presented by senior political correspondent Rachel Scott who called it a “major blow to the landmark Voting Rights Act.” Scott continued, “The high court sided with a group of white voters in Louisiana who argued one of the state's two majority-black districts was improperly drawn and relied too heavily on race.”

On Thursday's Good Morning America, ABC's Rachel Scott parroted the Democrats' viewpoint on the Supreme Court's Louisiana congressional map ruling. She described Justice Kagan's dissent as "scathing" as the justice warned of "far-reaching and grave" consequences. pic.twitter.com/q1EuT2nuax
— Nick (@nspin310) April 30, 2026

After she played Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry’s response and read part of Justice Samuel Alito’s ruling, she went straight to the liberal viewpoint. She framed the ruling as a decision that might have brought back “discriminatory voting practices” seen before the civil rights movement:

But Democrats argue that ruling effectively cuts the Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement, to ban discriminatory voting practices.”

Scott then stated, “The ruling also means only one of Louisiana's six congressional districts will now be majority black, even though black voters make up one-third of the state.”

Examining Virginia’s recent redistricting, Scott chatted about how the state may be represented by Democrats ten-to-one in Congress after 46 percent of the electorate voted for Trump in 2024.

Scott echoed the Louisiana congressional representative who could lose his seat due to the ruling: "Congressman Cleo Fields represents the district now ruled unconstitutional, saying the decision will make it more difficult for nonwhite candidates to be elected.”

She displayed Kagan’s dissent to the six-to-three ruling and called it “a scathing dissent” with “far-reaching and grave” consequences.

The end of Scott’s report featured a state Democratic lawmaker’s voice who protested the passage of new maps in Florida.

On NBC’s Today, host Craig Melvin teased the segment at the top of the show and described the SCOTUS ruling as “a controversial move as the battle for control of Congress escalates.”

White House correspondent Garrett Haake introduced the story as a “fallout” to the ruling and labeled the ruling as a “conservative majority” decision that said it was unconstitutional for lawmakers to have “allowed race to play a part in government decision-making.”

On NBC's Today, WH correspondent Garrett Haake's news package on SCOTUS's Louisiana map ruling quoted Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and former President Obama, who both worried about democracy in the face of the ruling.
In his piece, he also quoted AOC as a voice against… pic.twitter.com/vVhzwh1hHY
— Nick (@nspin310) April 30, 2026

After he played a very miniature soundbite from Landry, Haake went straight to the Democrat viewpoint, quoting Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, who called it a “devastating day in the history of our American democracy,” and former President Obama, who accused the court of “abandoning” the principles of “equal participation” in democracy.

Haake also reported on Florida’s redistricting before he quoted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as the voice against gerrymandering, along with a much shorter quote from moderate Republican Mike Lawler:

HAAKE: But lawmakers on both sides say this fight won't end until politics are removed from the entire process.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: The democratic caucus has tried to pass non-partisan gerrymandering for ten years, Republicans have rejected it. So we have to all abide by the same rules.

LAWLER: I don't think there should be guaranteed districts for everybody.

On CBS Mornings, there was less of a framed angle to the segment than there was from the other two broadcast networks.

Guest host Major Garrett introduced the topic as a “monumental” ruling. He described the ruling:

“To a monumental Supreme Court ruling that could affect the upcoming midterm elections and beyond. The rule ruled Louisiana's Congressional Map with two majority black districts is illegal because it relied too much on race to draw the district lines. A lower court had ordered redistricting, arguing one-third of the black population was not properly represented.”

CBS Mornings had a less framed approach to the Supreme Court's ruling, as Major Garret described the ruling as "monumental." Then, Ed O’Keefe illustrated potential next steps in the new redistricting battle, as he referenced more possible redistricting in blue and red states. pic.twitter.com/3tDzJjTG3k
— Nick (@nspin310) April 30, 2026

Ed O’Keefe reported more details of the story and described the makeup of the House majority and gave potential next steps in the new redistricting battle.

After Gayle King asked what the Democratic response would be, O’Keefe mentioned possible redistricting in hard-blue states like California, Colorado, and Illinois, which already has a ridiculously gerrymandered map.

The transcripts from ABC, NBC, and CBS are below. Click "expand":

ABC’s Good Morning America

April 30, 2026

7:00:52 AM Eastern

ROBIN ROBERTS: Major Fallout. (...) After the Supreme Court's historic decision to limit the landmark Voting Rights Act? Now, the states are racing to withdraw their voting maps and what it means for the midterms.

(...)

7:08:24 AM Eastern

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The fallout now from the Supreme Court's ruling on voting rights, dramatically weakening a key provision of a 60-year-old law from the civil rights era. The decisions could have a significant impact on the midterms. Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott has the story. Good morning, Rachel.

RACHEL SCOTT: George, good morning to you. And we're already starting to see the impacts of this. This decision by the high court severely weakens a section of the landmark Voting Rights Act. And this morning, we're already hearing from Republicans calling on states to redraw their congressional maps before the midterm election.

[Cuts to news package]

This morning, the Supreme Court delivered a major blow to the landmark Voting Rights Act. The high court sided with a group of white voters in Louisiana who argued one of the state's two majority-black districts was improperly drawn and relied too heavily on race. Louisiana's governor praising the decision.

GOV. JEFF LANDRY (R-LA): I think this whole race-baiting - race issue on the redistricting is has been put to bed finally, once and for all.

RACHEL SCOTT: Justice Samuel Alito writing “race can only be taken into account when there's evidence that a state intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

But Democrats argue that ruling effectively cuts the Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement, to ban discriminatory voting practices. The ruling also means only one of Louisiana's six congressional districts will now be majority black, even though black voters make up one-third of the state.

Congressman Cleo Fields represents the district now ruled unconstitutional, saying the decision will make it more difficult for nonwhite candidates to be elected.

REP. CLEO FIELDs (D-LA): If you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can't do nothing about that.

SCOTT: The liberal justices agreeing justice Elena Kagan, writing in a scathing dissent that the consequences of the ruling are likely to be far reaching and grave. Saying if other states follow suit, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Kagan, calling it the latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.

And just hours after that ruling, Florida Republicans passing a new congressional map that could allow the GOP to gain up to four seats in the midterms.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MEMBER: The bill passes.

SCOTT: Democrats protesting in the state capitol.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MEMBER: Have all members voted? [Protest yell in background]

[Cuts back to live]

SCOTT: Any new congressional maps will likely be challenged in court, but Republicans are wasting no time. One challenge, though, for them is that primary season is already well underway, so it's unclear what impact this is going to have on the November midterm elections, but it will certainly impact the future makeup of Congress and elections for 2028 beyond. Robin?

(...)

NBC’s Today

April 30, 2026

7:01:35 AM Eastern

CRAIG MELVIN: Landmark ruling. The Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana's voting map. The state’s governor responding with a controversial move as the battle for control of Congress escalates. Straight ahead, what it all means with the crucial midterm elections now just months away.

(...)

7:11:29 AM Eastern

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: More to get to, including a key Supreme Court ruling on voting rights ahead of the critical November elections. It could have a major impact on how states redraw their congressional districts.

NBC's Garrett Haake is at the White House with more. Garrett, good morning.

GARRETT HAAKE: Reporter: Hey, Savannah, good morning. The court here ruled that a majority-black district in Louisiana, currently controlled by a Democrat, was illegally created and must be redrawn. But the fallout from this ruling could now create significant and long-lasting impacts on both the partisan and racial makeup of Congress.

[Cuts to news package]

The Supreme Court escalating an intense back and forth battle for control of Congress, with a landmark ruling that's already affecting some elections. The court's conservative majority ruling six-to-three that Louisiana's current congressional map, with two majority African-American districts, is unconstitutional. Saying lawmakers allowed race to play a part in government decision-making.

GOV. JEFF LANDRY (R-LA): This is exactly what we'll be looking for, is some clarity and certainty from the courts.

HAAKE: Democrats blasting the ruling, arguing it weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, aimed at preventing discrimination on the basis of race. Adding that other majority black districts are now vulnerable to being erased.

SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): Today is a devastating day in the history of our American democracy.

HAAKE: Former President Barack Obama accusing the court of, quote, “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”

President Trump calling the decision a, quote, “big win”, which comes as he's urged GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps to boost Republicans.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Some states don't need to redraw and some do.

HAAKE: That push creating a legislative tit for tat. Both parties angling to win more seats, which will be key for the rest of Trump's presidency, with Congress currently narrowly controlled by Republicans.

Eight states have already approved mid-decade map changes.

FLORIDA STATE REP.: Drawing lines on the basis of race is wrong and unconstitutional.

HAAKE: Most recently, on Wednesday, the Florida GOP making a change that will lead to more Republican-leaning districts. Experts say the real implications will come in future elections. But lawmakers on both sides say this fight won't end until politics are removed from the entire process.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The democratic caucus has tried to pass non-partisan gerrymandering for ten years, Republicans have rejected it. So we have to all abide by the same rules.

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): I don't think there should be guaranteed districts for everybody.

[Cuts back to live]

GUTHRIE: So, Garrett, how could this ultimately impact the upcoming midterms?

HAAKE: Well, it’s all going to depend on how aggressive governors and state legislators really want to be, with state primaries already in full swing. In the short-term, most experts think that only a handful of states will have the combination of both political will and time to change their now, before the midterms.

I’d watch Tennessee and South Carolina, both of which have similar majority-black districts that could now potentially legally be redrawn. But that would lead to Democratic states potentially right to respond with new maps of their own. So, I think what seems more likely is that before the next election in 2030, we'll see another months-long process of politicians redrawing maps to try to pick their voters before the voters pick their next set of politicians. Savannah?

GUTHRIE: All right, Garrett, thank you very much.

(...)

CBS Mornings

April 30, 2026

8:03:00 AM Eastern

MAJOR GARRETT: To a monumental Supreme Court ruling that could affect the upcoming midterm elections and beyond. The rule ruled Louisiana's Congressional Map with two majority black districts is illegal because it relied too much on race to draw the district lines. A lower court had ordered redistricting, arguing one-third of the black population was not properly represented.

The Supreme Court decision weakens section 2 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and could have a lot of effect on elections this term and in the future. Ed O'Keefe is in Washington to bring us the details. Ed, good morning.

ED O’KEEFE: Major, good to see you. Let's remind folks that the current balance of power shows Republicans with a real thin majority there. Ultimately, 218 seats is what you need to control the House of Representatives, and they're both, the two parties, are fighting over where exactly they can pick up seats.

So, let's go through this. Louisiana is the first place we expect it will happen. The governor is reportedly going to suspend next month's primaries to redraw the map and deal with this specific blue district that stretches from New Orleans to Shreveport. If they can do that, that’s one potential Republican seat.

Then go over to Florida, where just yesterday Republican legislators approved a new map that potentially gives the GOP up to four more seats there. They called the special session, anticipating the Supreme Court would rule this way. The other state that may quickly redraw its map is Mississippi. They have four seats in that state, and that big blue one there is the one that may potentially be up for redrawing. It is where most of the state's African-American voters live. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that they can tweak the Voting Rights Act, Republicans say they may try to draw there.

Other states would like to do this, major. The problem is the candidate registration deadline is passed, the primary has already been held, so you are looking to 2028 to see a bunch of other states redraw their maps.

GAYLE KING: So, hey Ed, before you go, how do you expect the Democrats to respond to all of this?

O’KEEFE: First of all, they will file a bunch of lawsuits to try to stop it in the individual states. Second, a bunch of Democrats said, you want to redraw the maps in the Republican-controlled southern states? Well, introduce you to California, Illinois, New York, Colorado, places like that.

You want to redraw there, we have more seats in those states and could potentially redraw those.

And the idea now is: see these two parties potentially fight over this and then maybe at some point there's an ultimatum on trying to do this. That requires voters, though, to get upset, call their congressman and your governor and say, “I don't like this,” and maybe, one day, it stops.

KING: All right. To be continued, Ed. Thank you. Always good to see you.

(..)

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Daily Show: Conservatives Use 'Lazy Tropes' To Justify Bombing Muslims #Political

2026-04-30T08:31:44.757-07:00

https://ift.tt/Vmy1sAS

Every so often, Comedy Central invites an outsider to The Daily Show to allow them to host one segment while they rant on a topic of their choosing in a segment they call “In My Opinion,” and Wednesday it was comedian Mo Amer’s turn. Amer chose to go after what he considered to be Islamophobia in right-wing America, but while he accused other people of using “lazy tropes” to justify bombing people, it was actually him who was lazily analyzing the situation.

Amer began his conclusion by trying to argue that Muslims and Christians aren’t that different, “And that brings me to my final critique. Islamophobes, do your research! Because I have, and here it is. Muslims invented algebra, hospitals, universities, the camera, even algorithms, just to name a few! And if you right-wing Christians dislike Middle Eastern people and eating with your hands and teaching people about kindness, I have terrible news for you about Jesus.”

Mo Amer stopped by The Daily Show because Americans don't like Muslims or something, "So stop using lazy tropes to divide people so you can bomb other countries, creating even more refugees, making you more upset at Muslims in America being doctors or engineers, lawyers, or… pic.twitter.com/xyvKBZBuXy
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 30, 2026

He added, “He was Middle Eastern! From Palestine. Spoke Aramaic, a Semitic language. And handed people bread with his hands! And by the way, most Muslims aren't even Arab. And most Arab-Americans are actually Christians! And while we're at it—Muslims also believe in Jesus Christ, he's mentioned in the Quran, which has an entire chapter named after his mother, Mary, and we also believe in the virgin birth.”

Jesus was from Judea, but Amer kept rolling, “So stop using lazy tropes to divide people so you can bomb other countries, creating even more refugees, making you more upset at Muslims in America being doctors or engineers, lawyers, or selling you street meat out of delicious halal carts!”

Ironically, Amer’s point about most Muslims not being Arab actually undermines his point. If conservatives were the caricatures he is trying to portray, American foreign policy would look very different. Amer is of Palestinian ancestry but grew up in Kuwait until his family fled when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990. It was the United States, led by a Republican president, that liberated Kuwait while Saddam’s only friend in the world at the time was Yasser Arafat. As a response, Kuwait expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians after war. So, who is using “lazy tropes” now?

Here is a transcript for the April 29 show:

Comedy Central The Daily Show

4/29/2026

11:21 PM ET

MO AMER: And that brings me to my final critique. Islamophobes, do your research! Because I have, and here it is. Muslims invented algebra, hospitals, universities, the camera, even algorithms, just to name a few! And if you right-wing Christians dislike Middle Eastern people and eating with your hands and teaching people about kindness, I have terrible news for you about Jesus.

He was Middle Eastern! From Palestine. Spoke Aramaic, a Semitic language. And handed people bread with his hands! And by the way, most Muslims aren't even Arab. And most Arab-Americans are actually Christians! And while we're at it—Muslims also believe in Jesus Christ, he's mentioned in the Quran, which has an entire chapter named after his mother, Mary, and we also believe in the virgin birth. So stop using lazy tropes to divide people so you can bomb other countries, creating even more refugees, making you more upset at Muslims in America being doctors or engineers, lawyers, or selling you street meat out of delicious halal carts!

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Nightly Newscasts OMIT Major DoJ Charges Against Cartel-Compromised Mexican Officials #Political

2026-04-30T04:31:26.528-07:00

https://ift.tt/6rUtxYP

The Elitist Media Evening News hid a major story from the American public on Wednesday night, by failing to report on the indictment of 10 senior officials from the Mexican state of Sinaloa- home of the major drug cartel once headed by “El Chapo” Guzman. This omitted story has major ramifications on both sides of the border and with regard to our national security.

The only over-the-air national evening newscast to carry the indictment was PBS News Hour. Here is that brief in its entirety, as aired on Wednesday, April 29th, 2026:

WATCH: PBS News Hour was the only over-the-air national evening newscast (English-language) to cover the DoJ indictment of senior Sinaloa officials including the governor, who is a member of President Sheinbaum's MORENA party.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Justice Department is charging 10… pic.twitter.com/mOurFj3O6N
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 30, 2026

AMNA NAWAZ: The Justice Department is charging 10 current and former Mexican officials with conspiring with a powerful cartel to import drugs into the U.S. Among those named in today's indictment is Sinaloa state governor Rubén Rocha. He's accused of protecting Sinaloa cartel members in exchange for bribes and political support, which he denies. Rocha is a member of the political party led by President Claudia Sheinbaum. She has said her government is cracking down on corruption, though President Trump has insisted that more needs to be done. None of those charged today are currently in custody.

It’s a wee bit more than “ten government officials” including the governor, though, Per Fox News:

The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York claims officials took millions in bribes from the "Chapitos" faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, allowed the cartel to operate with total impunity and helped transform the region into the global epicenter of the deadly narcotics trade.

In a public statement, Mexico's SRE confirmed the U.S. Embassy in Mexico received the extradition requests Tuesday night. However, after a legal review, the Mexican government said the U.S. documents "do not have evidentiary elements" to determine the officials are responsible for the alleged crimes.

You have a major indictment, and the Mexican government is pushing back. The allegations are eye-watering. Per the indictment:

As alleged, the defendants have been most closely aligned with the faction of the Cartel run by the sons of Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera, a/k/a “El Chapo,” the Cartel’s notorious former leader, who are themselves known collectively as the “Chapitos.” The defendants have operated at all levels of government and law enforcement in Sinaloa and each abused their positions of trust and authority to help facilitate the Chapitos’ operations. For example, ROCHA MOYA was elected Governor of Sinaloa, a position he has held since on or about November 1, 2021, after the Chapitos allegedly helped him get elected by, among other things, kidnapping and intimidating his rivals. In exchange, both before and after he became Governor, ROCHA MOYA allegedly attended meetings with the Chapitos, at which he promised to protect the Chapitos as they distributed massive quantities of drugs to the United States and, as Governor, ROCHA MOYA has allowed the Chapitos to operate with impunity in Sinaloa. Similarly, the other defendants have directly and repeatedly helped the Chapitos in exchange for massive drug-fueled bribes. For example, ZAAVEDRA, who is the Deputy Attorney General for the Sinaloa State Attorney General’s Office, has received approximately $11,000 U.S. dollars each month from the Chapitos and, in exchange, has protected Chapitos members from arrest and informed the Chapitos of planned U.S.-backed law enforcement operations.

Certain of the defendants are also alleged to have themselves directly participated in the Cartel’s campaign of violence and retribution. For example, MILLAN, a high-level commander in the Culiacan Municipal Police, allegedly received more than approximately $1,600 U.S. dollars each month from the Chapitos. In exchange, MILLAN gave the Chapitos unfettered access to the Culiacan Municipal Police and used officers from the police force to help the Chapitos maintain their control over Culiacan, including through arrests, kidnappings, and murder. In or about October 2023, MILLAN allegedly helped the Chapitos kidnap a DEA confidential source and the source’s relative, who the Chapitos then had tortured and killed, because the source was suspected of providing information to the Government in connection with this investigation.

It isn’t just the governor that appears to be compromised, but the state’s deputy attorney general and senior police commanders. Given what has been published about cartel activity within the United States and their potential collaboration with malign foreign actors, how is this not an A-block story?

What happens when the U.S. seeks extradition of the governor? Does the Mexican government continue to push back? Do they hand him over and risk him singing like a canary and potentially revealing the extent to which the current and prior administrations are/were compromised by the cartels? A proper media would be asking these questions. Instead, they will likely feign surprise and blame President Trump if the U.S. escalates its efforts to secure the suspects.

It staggers the mind that NONE of the Big Three networks bothered with the story. The networks universally covered Queen Camilla hanging out with Sarah Jessica Parker, the unruly passenger that opened the hatch on a United flight, and Ed Sheeran’s shingles. But they had zero time for a major national security story. Many such cases, unfortunately.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Jimmy Kimmel Falsely Says Trump Wants Him Fired Despite Telling Same Joke #Political

2026-04-29T07:31:46.777-07:00

https://ift.tt/yoa5swi

On Tuesday, President Trump joked about his old age during an event with King Charles, which greatly upset ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel because, according to him, that is the same he did on Thursday that led the Trumps to call for his firing on Monday. Of course, they were not the same because Trump didn’t suggest Melania is looking forward to his death.

Kimmel began by introducing a clip of Trump, “Trump was very excited about hosting the king, and a lot of it is because Trump's mom was a great fan of the royal family.”

Jimmy Kimmel doesn't see the difference between his Melania "expectant widow" joke and Trump joking about his age, "Wait a minute. Did he just make a joke about his death? My god. He should be fired for that. Only Donald Trump would demand I be fired for making a joke about his… pic.twitter.com/1N8kFsJ8WL
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 29, 2026

In the video, Trump was shown declaring, “My wonderful mother, Mary MacLeod… She came to America at 19, met my incredible father. We loved him so much. We all loved him. We loved her. We loved him. Fred and—they were married for 63 years, and excuse me, if you don't mind. That's a record we won't be able to match, darling. I'm sorry. Just not going to work out that way.”

Afterwards, Kimmel reacted, “Wait a minute. Did he just make a joke about his death? My god. He should be fired for that.”

Raising his voice quite a bit, Kimmel continued, “Only Donald Trump would demand I be fired for making a joke about his old age, and then a day later, go out and make a joke about his own old age.”

The two jokes were not the same. Trump’s joke could be summarized as “I’m old.” For Donald and Melania to reach 63 years of marriage, he would have to get to his 121st birthday in 2068. By contrast, Kimmel’s “expectant widow” remark could be summarized as “Melania hates her husband and is looking forward to his death.”

Here is a transcript for the April 28 show:

ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live!

4/28/2026

11:38 PM ET

JIMMY KIMMEL: Trump was very excited about hosting the king, and a lot of it is because Trump's mom was a great fan of the royal family.

DONALD TRUMP: My wonderful mother, Mary MacLeod. [jump cut] She came to America at 19, met my incredible father. We loved him so much. We all loved him. We loved her. We loved him. Fred and—they were married for 63 years, and excuse me, if you don't mind. That's a record we won't be able to match, darling. I'm sorry. Just not going to work out that way.

KIMMEL: Wait a minute. Did he just make a joke about his death? My god. He should be fired for that. Only Donald Trump would demand I be fired for making a joke about his old age, and then a day later, go out and make a joke about his own old age.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

‘Masterclass’ by a ‘Headmaster’; CNN, MS NOW Cheer Anti-Trump Jabs in King’s Speech #Political

2026-04-29T02:31:48.260-07:00

https://ift.tt/xvN6j97

On Tuesday afternoon, CNN and MS NOW swooned over King Charles III’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress, choosing not to focus on the historical lessons and shared values that kept the West alive (although its current state is debatable), but on the moments regarding climate change, checks and balances, NATO, and Ukraine to name a few the left has declared outright jabs at President Trump.

The two networks trumpeted Charles as a “headmaster” delivering an “extremely political” but “vivid” “masterclass” with a set of values “in complete opposition” that were “batted for” embattled Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

CNN led the way in its proverbial weak knees over the moments Charles III seemed to be voicing disagreement with President Trump.

The Lead and State of the Union host Jake Tapper — a virulent Trump hater — almost immediately remarked afterward: “[T]here were some items in that speech that I think it’s fair to say were included that, you know, are — I wouldn’t call them zingers against President Trump — but points of disagreement.”

Political director David Chalian gushed Charles “did not hide from” the anti-Trump jabs “at all” and instead gave “a speech that was putting democratic values, the rule of law, the power of alliances, even a specific on the support of Ukraine’s defense” on display “in complete opposition” to the White House.

“King Charles doesn’t come in here itching for a fight on it...It’s not that he was trying to get in a fight with President Trump, but he couldn’t have seized the opportunity more to really stand clear on the importance of these things with a value system underneath it that is in contrast to a lot of what Donald Trump has been presenting on the world stage as it comes to these alliances,” he gleefully added.

WATCH: CNN was giddy over King Charles III’s speech and the instances when he took veiled shots at Donald Trump and MAGA...

CNN’s Jake Tapper: “There were some items in that speech that I think it's fair to say were included that, you know, are I wouldn't call them zingers… pic.twitter.com/xVoIyjiMly
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

CNN special correspondent and Swamp denizen Jamie Gangel focused on the nods to one of the King’s passions, climate change.

Always ready to get his juices flowing by making everything about attacking Trump, Tapper went to CNN International host and chief Royal correspondent Max Foster by highlighting past comments Trump has made about the state of the British military (click the X post to see the full transcript):

CNN’s Jake Tapper on King Charles III’s speech to Congress: “I also couldn’t help but notice that in the wake of President Trump referring to the royal Navy as — as having just a bunch of toys, King Charles talked about the immense pride he feels for the Royal Navy.”

Max Foster:… pic.twitter.com/UdOvIdpvGv
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

CNN royal historian Kate Williams offered reaction from back in the U.K. that “many commentators have been surprised by King Charles’s speech because, for a monarch, this was an extremely political speech” and how much he implicitly defended Starmer:

CNN Royal historian Kate Williams on King Charles III’s speech before Congress: “I think many commentators have been surprised by King Charles’s speech because, for a monarch, this was an extremely political speech. We saw Charles encouraging President Trump to safeguard nature,… pic.twitter.com/35du9mhbD4
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

Later, international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson closed out the special coverage by concurring with Williams that the King gave a “very political speech...getting to his core issues, be it on the climate, be it on democracy, but also this sort of sense of shared responsibility...of what we do today affects our children” on matters such as Ukraine.

Pivoting over to MS NOW, weekday afternoon host Katy Tur declared the King “did sneak in some sharp lines for the United States, stuff that needs to be heard, he believes, right now” about isolationism and NATO

MS NOW contributor, liberal presidential historian, and former Biden speechwriter Jon Meacham was in a state of ebullience. He declared Charles III delivered a “masterclass” speech as though he were “a headmaster speak[ing] to a school...remind[ing] us of what matters, of what’s important, of what has endured, not simply because it is old, but because it is true and has been of utility.”

Meacham claimed ignorance as to “whether this smooths over immediate diplomatic relations, but I do know that read even not even particularly carefully here” as “a king reminding a democracy and a republic of what matters.”

Presidential historian/Biden speechwriter Jon Meacham celebrates King Charles III’s “masterclass” speech as “like having a headmaster speak to a school” having “to remind us of what matters” and warning against “nationalism” because it’s a “perilous” path....

“It’s sort of like… pic.twitter.com/JpFgnWV95N
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

The woke historian continued to spin his valentine for the King’s “elegant,” “thoughtful,” and “vivid...warning and inspiration” to reject “a populist, isolationist, nationalistic moment.” In other words, Meacham claimed the King called on Americans to reject Trump and his movement (click “expand”):

He said, our words matter. Our deeds matter. As you pointed out, don’t look inward. Remember that there are checks on executive power. Note the climate. This is a kind of masterclass in how a non — how — how someone not tied to the minute-to-minute political realities, popular politics — this is what this thoughtful man believes is important across the Atlantic. And I think that it’s a vivid and elegant in many ways, warning and inspiration as well, about not losing ourselves in a populist, isolationist, nationalistic moment. One final point here. There’s a difference between nationalism and patriotism, alright? Nationalism is an allegiance to your own kind. Patriotism is an allegiance to a creed. And he very — the King very deftly laid out the roots of the American creed, which is comes grows out of both a biblical understanding of human equality and also came through the British Isles. Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights in 1688 and 89 informed what happened here in the late 18th century. And what we can’t do is lose that in the 21st. And I think that was his central warning, is that this is perilous. These things are fragile, and they require our attention.

Newsweek’s Jack Royston said “this very speech was written to reflect Britain’s strategic priorities” “batt[ing] for Keir Starmer” including “seven or eight points that Charles has wandered into that are potential zones of conflict with Trump,” such as Europe, NATO, Ukraine, Iran, Trump’s tough rhetoric, and a suspended tech trade deal to name a few.

Tur’s second post-speech block concerned the Magna Carta as she and New York Times correspondent/Resistance keyboard warrior Peter Baker marveled at Republicans cheering the ancient document:

MS NOW’s Katy Tur and NYT’s Peter Baker are struck by how Republicans stood and applauded King Charles III talking about the Magna Carta and checks and balances when they’ve “done very little to check” Donald Trump... pic.twitter.com/INpwHIOieb
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

Baker boasted “it’s rather striking to have a King remind us of what democracy is all about, but that’s what he was doing, and I think, of course, it’s only read in the context of today, a moment when the question of executive power and whether there are in fact, checks and balances on it, is so animating our — our national conversation right now.”

Tur finally went to former longtime BBC journalist Jon Sopel

On MS NOW, former longtime BBC News journalist Jon Sopel says the King’s speech was proof there’s, “among the British public,” a feeling of “sadness” that the King has “to deliver those messages that, in another era, would have seemed utterly unremarkable about checks and… pic.twitter.com/bcFleKteUa
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

Over on the broadcast network side, NBC covered it in a Special Report. Nightly News anchor Tom Llamas observed there was “a maybe not-so-subtle message” to President Trump “when he said ‘America’s words carry weight and meaning and they have since the independence the actions of this great nation matter even more.’”

Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles agreed, saying “I don’t see how you could not interpret it as such,” and that those lines drew “hush, almost gasp you would describe from the Democratic side,” so it “clearly resonated” with them:

NBC’s Tom Llamas: “I wonder, Ryan, if [King Charles III] was sending a subtle message — a maybe not-so-subtle message — to our President in he said ‘America's words carry weight and meaning and they have since the independence the actions of this great nation matter even more.’”… pic.twitter.com/tEJ2bBpjzm
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 28, 2026

“And there were multiple opportunities for him to use his subtle nature to drive home a point,” Nobles continued.

ABC also broke in as well and, surprisingly, they didn’t wade in the same waters as the others did in celebrating the progressive moments. These excerpts were the closest they came to punditry, but even this was simply restating back what he told Congress (click “expand”):

DAVID MUIR: The King did not shy away from some heavy issues. At one point in the speech, talking about how leadership of this country and back home leadership, not above the law, not should always be subject to questions referencing the Magna Carta, the foundation of law, and pointing out that the Supreme Court over many decades has pointed back to the early findings and words of Magna Carta, talking about how power should be held to account. He talked about the war in Ukraine and about NATO’s influence in the world, and that just as NATO was there for the United States after 9/11, that we must be there to support Ukraine through this conflict with Russia. He talked about climate, the natural wonders of the United States as we approach this 250th birthday, saying they are not just the natural wonders, they are also the foundation that allows us to have an economy and to have prosperity, and that they too must be protected.

(....)

MUIR: [A]gain, taking note there of the room, the bipartisan support for the King, the standing ovations, even with him addressing some of the some of the most challenging issues of these times.

JAMES LONGMAN: Yeah, David, I think it goes to show it’s not what you say. It’s often how you say it. And the message that Charles gave, it’s been received there in the sort of sense of unity. But I mean, he did not shy away from some pretty pointed messages. I mean, talking about the importance of NATO, the fact that it was the United States that triggered Article V after 9/11. I recall Donald Trump denigrating allied veterans, joking about how they didn’t perhaps fight as hard. That was a British veiled reference to that. On Ukraine, we know that this is a divisive issue in the United States. Support for Ukraine is falling away. He was clear Ukraine needs to be supported. He — he quoted the prime minister, Keir Starmer, the man that Donald Trump has spent months denigrating — he actually just used the same words. The British government put the prime minister’s words in the King’s mouth to repeat. To say that this is an indispensable partnership. We must not disregard everything that has sustained us for the last 80 years. The King showed today what monarchy can do[.]

To see the relevant transcripts from April 28, click here (for ABC), here (for CNN), here (for MS NOW), and here (for NBC).

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

MS NOW's Scarborough Slams Ballroom Plea, Lemire Still Upset with "Fraught' WHCD #Political

2026-04-28T06:31:45.031-07:00

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

On Monday’s Morning Joe on MS NOW, the show opened with a discussion on the White House Correspondents Dinner shooting, where Joe Scarborough explained how he always felt the Washington Hilton was not secure. He later flaunted his disdain for the “MAGA sphere” posts about a White House Ballroom after the shooting. Also, co-host Jonathan Lemire chose to display his dislike for the event’s place during Trump’s presidency, similar to Friday’s show before the event, as he still called the event “fraught and misguided.” Lemire said the President was “never in danger himself,” as he also pointed out the calls for a ballroom after the shooting. The show discussed the shooting for 12 minutes in the 6 AM hour, before it spent the other segments being against Trump on the Iran War, the administration’s strategy about Russia’s War on Ukraine, and a story that bashed the Supreme Court on “shadow dockets.” On Monday's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough called the Washington Hilton the "most unsecure place," as he then complained of "coordinated" ballroom posts from the "MAGA-sphere" after the shooting. Mika Brzezinski also said cabinet presence at the event was a Trump Admin mistake. pic.twitter.com/af34aiezIS — Nick (@nspin310) April 27, 2026 Scarborough started his discussion on the shooting and its location, as he said he knew the building was not secure: “It's never made sense to me. It's never made sense to Mika. We haven't been in, I don't know, maybe a decade. I can't remember the last time, but it seems like such an un-secure place.” He then turned to a narrative being used in conspiracies about the shooting online. Scarborough pointed to “coordinated posts” from “MAGA-sphere” X accounts that called for a White House Ballroom after the shooting: And by the way, this whole idea, and you know, of course, how crazy that like everybody in MAGA-sphere all like within three seconds started posting the same post, right? That was so coordinated about the ballroom. Scarborough opined that the accounts must have received an email from the White House press team to post about a ballroom. He also seemed worried about cabinet members being at the Washington Hilton, a place that, he says, could not be a “dumber place” to hold an event. Mika jumped in to blame the White House for the decision to allow Executive Branch attendance of the event: “I would say that's still on the Trump Administration, the White House, whatever - White House is in power to make that decision, to have that concentration of power in one place at a time of war. Five weeks after we decapitated Iran's government.” Morning Joe's Jonathan Lemire continued his comments from Friday about the WHCD being a "highly problematic" dinner due to Trump's attendance, as he still called it "fraught and misguided this year, in particular, for the correspondents and the administration to be together." pic.twitter.com/wrfqRPZtJP — Nick (@nspin310) April 27, 2026 Lemire chimed in to discuss security and picked up on Mika’s point regarding attending the event during war. He returned to his comments from Friday, when he called the event “highly problematic” (which it turned out to be). Lemire said, “I did not go to the event this year either. I spoke on Friday. I thought it was fraught and misguided this year, in particular, for the correspondents and the administration to be together. But I have been in the past.” After Lemire’s comments, reporter Ken Dilanian, on for most of the 12-minute opening segment, gave more information on the shooter and his education, as he described his radicalization: So, it really fits the pattern of what we've seen with Luigi Mangione, accused of killing the United Health Care CEO, or Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk, of the sort of people on the on the far left fringes who have become radicalized, who are living in a world of unreality, bombarded by conspiracy theories, who decide that they have to take violent action. The radicalization of left-wing voters had been on display for the past few years, amid, now, three assassination attempts on the current President. The conversation might be better served with more discussion about radicalization and security concerns, not more talk of a press relationship, “MAGA-sphere,” media “talking points,” and the “fraught” thought of a WHCD with the President’s attendance. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe April 27, 2026 6:06:00 AM Eastern (...) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. And Jonathan Lemire, I've got to say, and we've said it before, and you and I have talked about this before, Mika and I certainly have said it for years. It just seems extraordinarily stupid to use an open hotel and get State of the Union type concentration of power in the United States, especially at a time of war against a country that's been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979, and have have them walking around, going in, in and out of parties, standing, standing to, to get their their pictures taken before they go in. It's never made sense to me. It's never made sense to Mika. We haven't been in, I don't know, maybe a decade. I can't remember the last time, but it seems like such an un-secure place. And by the way, this whole idea, and you know, of course, how crazy that like everybody in MAGA-sphere all like within three seconds started posting the same post, right? That was so coordinated about the ballroom. This event, as Sam Stein and others said, will never be held in the white house because it is not about the White House, it is about correspondents. All that being said, it seems all these coordinated, it's remarkable how quickly they came right after. They must have received an email from the White House or from the press operation. But I just can't think of a dumber, dumber place to have this than at the Washington Hilton. I know it's history, but history be damned when you're putting your Secretary of Defense, you're putting your FBI Director, you're putting the Secretary of the Treasury, putting the Vice President, you're putting the president putting - MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I would say that's still on the Trump Administration, the White House, whatever - White House is in power to make that decision, to have that concentration of power in one place at a time of war. Five weeks after we decapitated Iran's government. SCARBOROUGH: Right. And it's always been that way. But just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it needs to be that way ever again. Anybody that has been there understands you aren't securing the entire hotel. You're not checking people's bags. You're not doing the basic things that would be done, like at the State of the Union address. So, I don't know, there's so much to go here, but what is the verdict right now based on The Washington Post story and everything else about the security at this event, again, especially in light of how heinous, heinous the security was in Butler, Pennsylvania. LEMIRE: Yeah, that’s going to be one of the questions in these next few days is, should there have been more security there, especially this is the first year President Trump has decided to attend this event. We know there have been attempts on his life previously. Obviously, we're a nation at a time of of war. I did not go to the event this year either. I spoke on Friday. I thought it was fraught and misguided this year, in particular, for the correspondents and the administration to be together. But I have been in the past. And Ken hit on a really important point here, the hotel remains open you walk in through the main doors and like hotel guests often are lingering in the lobby or at the bar because they want to get a look at some of the reporters or dignitaries who walk in or not. That part is still open, and the gunman had free access there, reporting that he stayed at the hotel, but the gunman was nowhere near where the president was. Trump himself was never in danger here. There were several layers of security between him and where the president was sitting. Certainly, you're right, Joe. To highlight the immediate call for the ballroom, Trump himself has said so. He said in his news conference later that night, he said again on Truth Social yesterday. This event would never have been in the ballroom. I know they've talked about rescheduling it in the next month or so. I'm not sure that's the best idea because I think the site needs to be reevaluated. I think this can be skipped, and I wonder about the future of the event altogether. But Ken, you know, this is still a very obviously scary moment for everyone in there who did not know that there were still layers of security. As you just said, those gunshots were loud. I know so many people in that room who were terrified. And credit to the journalists, by the way, who continue to do their jobs in that room. Credit to security personnel who did so well to get people to safety. The Secret Service and the police deserve an extraordinary amount of credit for what happened. But Ken, tell us more what we know about the suspect here. The person that Mika just identified - the police have in custody what may have motivated him? You know, what has he said or written? What can you tell us about why he did this? KEN DILANIAN: Jonathan, it's really extraordinary. This is a person who attended one of the most prestigious STEM universities in the country, the California Institute of Technology, CalTech. Got an engineering undergrad degree, got a master's in computer science, and was working, as Mika said, early on, he was working as a part-time teacher, but he described himself as a game developer. You can find video online of him touting a wheelchair invention that allowed wheelchairs to be more stable. This was an accomplished, articulate person with a with a with a loving family, apparently, who went down a path of radicalization. And the reason we know that is he's written a thousand-word document where he describes exactly why he did this, and he describes President Trump as a and a pedophile and a rapist. He doesn't explicitly say he was targeting Donald Trump. He says he was targeting Trump Administration officials. He apologizes to his family in this post. There's some evidence that he attended or was associated with a ‘No Kings’ protest. So, it really fits the pattern of what we've seen with Luigi Mangione, accused of killing the United Health Care CEO, or Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk, of the sort of people on the on the far left fringes who have become radicalized, who are living in a world of unreality, bombarded by conspiracy theories, who decide that they have to take violent action. And it's contributing to a climate of political violence in this country that we have not seen since the 1960s. So, more questions will be asked. And, you know, the FBI is poring over this man's writings and his social media. They served a search warrant on it. They were at his house in Torrance, California, yesterday. So, a lot more investigating still being done. But that thousand-word document that's being that's been widely published. (...)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Tapper Plays Defense Lawyer for Nasty Jimmy Kimmel and His Comedic 'Coverage' of Trump #Political

2026-04-28T01:31:50.274-07:00

https://ift.tt/Kr7NSGi

CNN host Jake Tapper is a repeat guest on the late-night comedy shows on all the broadcast networks. These fiercely anti-Trump comedians are his pals. Last year, Tapper became especially fierce in defending Jimmy Kimmel’s vicious lie that Charlie Kirk’s killer was a Trump fan.

Tapper hosted an hour-long CNN special titled No Laughing Matter: Free Speech Under Attack. Tapper falsely claimed in that special that Kimmel “wasn’t calling the shooter MAGA.” He told NBC’s Seth Meyers that Kimmel’s suspension was “pretty much the most direct infringement by the government on free speech that I've seen in my lifetime.” (That’s not counting the free speech of Charlie Kirk.)

On Monday's The Lead, Tapper crusaded for Kimmel again after he was condemned by Melania Trump, followed by President Trump again calling on ABC to dump Kimmel after he created a fake Correspondents Dinner routine on Thursday night where he said to Melania: "So beautiful, Mrs. Trump. You have a glow like an expectant widow."

Tapper lamented "what was perhaps inevitable that the Trump administration would try to use Saturday’s horrific act of violence to try to clamp down on criticism and free speech." In other words, Tapper didn't object to Kimmel's joke half as much as to criticism from the Trumps.

It's quite obvious that Tapper acts as a defense lawyer for Jimmy Kimmel when he makes nasty jokes about Dead Trump. His client cannot be judged for mean-spirited dumb cracks after the shooting. (How about before the shooting?)

Tapper REALLY objects to anyone seeking to curb… pic.twitter.com/7BmybkKCNa
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 28, 2026

TAPPER: Today, the President and the first lady, Melania Trump, citing a joke that comedian Jimmy Kimmel made last Thursday on his show, tried to connect that joke with the assassination attempt. Now, there is zero evidence — zero evidence that the would-be, alleged assassin heard the joke....is it fair to judge Jimmy Kimmel’s joke in light of what happened at the dinner two nights later?...

Does anyone out there think that Karoline Leavitt had any idea what would happen? I don’t. Does anyone out there think that Jimmy Kimmel had any idea what happened? What would happen? I don’t know, do I think both, in retrospect, would choose their words differently in retrospect, given what happened on Saturday night? Of course. But this crusade against Kimmel was predictable because the Trump administration’s attempt to use Saturday’s shooting as justification to stop all critical coverage, whether journalistic or comedic, of Donald Trump.

This entire formulation makes excuses for Kimmel and crusades against stopping "all critical coverage," including "comedic" coverage of the Trumps. It's somehow unfair to judge Kimmel after the fact. Wasn't it easy to judge Kimmel as a crude jerk before Saturday night? Is Tapper incapable of imagining that he wouldn't like a "joke" about Dead Jake Tapper and his beautiful widow?

Then Tapper lamented how Trump appointee Kari Lake attacked CNN at their table for causing the shooting with their rhetoric, and Tapper said she "trailed me for about a block I was trying to ignore her. She was saying that I was responsible for what happened. CNN’s responsible for what happened, and that unhinged rant by someone who, frankly, obviously needs help."

Notice again: Tapper defensively says Kimmel might have chosen different words, but he was not guilty of an "unhinged rant" like the apparent psycho stalker Kari Lake.

Ultimately, Tapper thinks the attempted censorship is worse than the crude talk of Trump being murdered: “It is a big problem of calls for violence and dehumanization, and it’s getting worse. But it is not a problem to be wielded like a cudgel to try to stop journalism or jokes. Journalism and jokes are not calls for violence, calls for violence are calls for violence, and far too many Americans in positions of power and influence are too blasé and too glib about those who make them.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper says journalists and comedians like Jimmy Kimmel are not the ones hurling incendiary rhetoric and are not irresponsible for the rise of political violence...

“It is a big problem of calls for violence and dehumanization, and it’s getting worse. But it is not a… pic.twitter.com/AoWGCcZYO0
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 27, 2026

If there is ANYONE who is too blase and glib right now about violent talk like Trump being killed, it's Jimmy Kimmel. Journalism and jokes CAN be dehumanizing. Just because the "establishment" does it doesn't make it right.

CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper
04/27/26
5:41:17 p.m.
5 minutes and 17 seconds

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking News; Trump Admin Labels Criticism, Jokes as Calls For Violence After Would-Be Assassin Target Admin Officials Saturday]

JAKE TAPPER: Let us discuss now two important aspects of what has happened in the United States since the horrific attempted assassination on President Trump and members of the Trump administration. And let me be clear at the very outset that the violence is horrific and should be condemned by everyone. I’ll get into the responsibility that we all have to help bring down the temperature in a second. But first, let me touch on the news today and what was perhaps inevitable that the Trump administration would try to use Saturday’s horrific act of violence to try to clamp down on criticism and free speech.

Today, the President and the first lady, Melania Trump, citing a joke that comedian Jimmy Kimmel made last Thursday on his show, tried to connect that joke with the assassination attempt. Now, there is zero evidence — zero evidence that the would-be, alleged assassin heard the joke. In fact, authorities say the suspect left California for Washington, D.C., by train on Tuesday, so his trip to D.C. started long before Jimmy Kimmel told this joke on Thursday night, airing this pretend correspondents dinner skit.

JIMMY KIMMEL [on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, 04/23/26]: Then, of course, our First Lady, Melania, is here. Look at — so beautiful Mrs. Trump. You have a glow like an expectant widow.

TAPPER: Earlier today, the First Lady tweeted: “Kimmel’s...monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America...It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.” This in response to a joke she did not like.

This afternoon, President Trump followed with a Truth social post that said, ‘this is something far beyond the pale. Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.’ There was more, but let us just take this moment and say, is it fair to judge Jimmy Kimmel’s joke in light of what happened at the dinner two nights later? White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday, shortly before the shooting, that President Trump’s speech would be funny and there would be ‘shots fired,’ which of course would not taken literally refers to humorous insults.

Does anyone out there think that Karoline Leavitt had any idea what would happen? I don’t. Does anyone out there think that Jimmy Kimmel had any idea what happened? What would happen? I don’t know, do I think both, in retrospect, would choose their words differently in retrospect, given what happened on Saturday night? Of course. But this crusade against Kimmel was predictable because the Trump administration’s attempt to use Saturday’s shooting as justification to stop all critical coverage, whether journalistic or comedic, of Donald Trump.

That started even before the ballroom emptied. Because Kari Lake, the election denier who’s currently in charge of voice of America, she approached a CNN table after the shooting and blamed journalists for the attempted attack and personally insulted one of our correspondents as a “midget.” She then went outside and trailed me for about a block I was trying to ignore her. She was saying that I was responsible for what happened. CNN’s responsible for what happened, and that unhinged rant by someone who, frankly, obviously needs help, is now being matched with social media posts and more from the White House trying to use this horrific tragedy to demonize any criticism as calls for violence.

And the President has been making literal calls for violence since 2015. I’m not even going to go into them. You’re familiar with them, but literal calls for violence. Now, a reminder that the President’s tone immediately after the attack on Saturday was praised by Democrats and Republicans, and it was far more conciliatory.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP [on 04/25/26]: I ask that all Americans recommit with their hearts in resolving our differences peacefully. We have to. We have to resolve our differences.

TAPPER: That sentiment clearly did not last long. And let us turn now to this deranged alleged, would-be assassin whose writings clearly seem to be from someone on the left. And there is a problem with violence on the left in the United States. And there is a problem with violence on the right in the United States and to — to debate which one is worse is honestly to avoid the problem. It’s all awful. It all needs to stop now. Now, there was a time when people who tried to justify violence against anyone were considered fringe lunatics. Today, a lot of them are called influencers. Social media companies have figured out how to commodify the hate that they push. It’s pushed by these twisted algorithms too. And politicians and pundits are increasingly lending their credibility to these influencers. And those politicians and pundits are playing a role in this, too.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

The View Is Happy Trump & His Cabinet 'Felt the Fear' for Their Lives, Hope for Gun Control #Political

2026-04-27T12:31:36.362-07:00

https://ift.tt/jaJrDzI

The pure evil co-hosts of ABC News’s The View were openly happy that President Trump and the present cabinet officials were in fear for their lives during the assassination attempt at Saturday’s White House Correspondents Dinner. During their Monday discussion of the attack, co-host Ana Navarro was glad the officials feared they would be killed because they finally knew what school students felt like during an active shooter. The rest of the cast provided ZERO pushback, only agreement was expressed.

Before sharing her happiness for Trump fearing his murder, Navarro falsely claimed Trump never called for unity nor for people to remain peaceful after the third attempt to kill him:

You know, it's crazy to me that one of the first things Trump did after this was -- and all of the people, his choir, is go push for a ballroom and use this instead of calling to our better angels and calling for unity, use it to call for the building of his ballroom.

Navarro falsely claims that Trump never called for unity at the post-shooting press conference. Instead she suggests he's to blame for people thinking it was stage and she claims the only thing he did at the presser was push for the ballroom:

"I'll tell you what really hit me,… pic.twitter.com/ivtl6IzWcf
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

Fact check: Disinformation. During his press conference back at the White House shortly after the attack, Trump did call for peace and unity: “But in light of this evening's events, I ask that all Americans recommit with their hearts in resolving our differences peacefully.”

Navarro eventually got around openly expressing her glee at their fear. “Now they know, they've lived it in their own flesh, the fear that our school children go through,” she touted. “Now they know what it's like to have to jump under a table the way that school children jump under a desk.”

Navarro is happy that Trump and his cabinet experienced the fear of a shooter coming for them because "now they know" what students go through in active shooter situations and "maybe now that they have felt the fear themselves they will do something on gun reform":

NAVARRO: But,… pic.twitter.com/EZRgNQSwXJ
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

Invoking the Sandy Hook school shooting, Navarro hoped they would finally do away with gun rights after nearly being killed themselves:

I still don't understand how Congress took no action after Sandy Hook, after 20 children between the ages of six and seven were killed. But maybe now that they have felt the fear themselves they will do something on gun reform!

In her final comments on the topic, Navarro scoffed at those who blamed the left for the third attempt to kill Trump. She did the “both sides” thing then blamed Trump himself (Click “expand”):

Taking it back to the serious aspect and what you were just referring to, I also have seen a lot of people on TV blaming this on the left. And if we are going to be honest about this, the heated political rhetoric is going on on both sides.

(…)

We shouldn't be getting into a contest of who is better or who is worse, but the one thing that we can't argue about is that the guy with the biggest bully pulpit is Donald Trump and I beg of him after three close calls to take time to reflect and give us an example. Lead by example.

After just proclaiming how happy she was that Trump and his cabinet felt fear for their lives, Navarro tries to claim political violence was a "both sides" issue and blames Trump for the attempt on his life:

"Taking it back to the serious aspect and what you were just referring… pic.twitter.com/rX4vwLvuNq
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

Navarro also clownishly claimed they could have found themselves at the event, “but for the grace of God.” That was a lie. On the Friday show before the event, The View bragged about how they chose not to go because Trump would be there. Navarro even compared Trump to a “cannibal.”

Other hot takes from the cast included Sunny Hostin calling for more gun control, and insanely suggesting that America didn’t have any gun control laws (Click “expand”):

This political violence that is going on must be confronted. This divisiveness in this country in terms of politics must be confronted. And what we also must confront is that our country is a country that has more guns than people. More personal guns than people.

So, if we are not going to do something about the proliferation of guns and about the lack of gun control in this country, then we must do something to protect our citizenry -- citizens and we must do something to protect our political public servants.

Because, let's remember, this guy got on a train with firearms and was able to travel from California to Washington, D.C. was able to check into a hotel… And so, the fact that he was able to move about so easily with loaded firearms should be terrifying to us and should be, again, an inflection point in this country for gun control, for safety, and for us all to come together as a people We really need to do more.

Sunny Hostin takes ZERO accountability for her incendiary rhetoric against Trump on The View. Instead she blames guns and wants your Second Amendment rights and right to carry stripped from you. She claims there's no gun control in America:

HOSTIN: So the President, thank God,… pic.twitter.com/ysG5mziRyL
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin scolded those who would blame the political left for the attack, but suggested that if you did, you’d be responsible for the next one:

I have already seen some folks on the right saying the left did this. The left did not do this. One individual actor who has his own agency, his own decision-making, who got radicalized however he may have did this. And I reject that language because it makes these things more likely to happen in the future.

Alyssa Farah Griffin wants to wash the left's hands of how their rhetoric led to the third assassination attempt on Trump. She says if you say that, you're personally responsible for the next one:

"I have already seen some folks on the right saying the left did this. The left… pic.twitter.com/I3UJCIgGBq
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

Meanwhile, moderator Whoopi Goldberg was off in la la land. According to her, Trump should build a new hotel to host the White House Correspondents Dinner and not a new ballroom at the White House, which could host the event (Click “expand”):

I'm sorry. Here is something you-know-who always talks about he is a builder, he knows how to do this. Maybe he needs to build a new hotel there that has a big enough ballroom where they don't have to go to the Hilton, where the ballroom is the building.

This is what he says he does well. Forget destroying the White House. I'm saying maybe it's time someone built a hotel with a bigger ballroom, because the ballroom -- you're never going to have enough seats for everybody. You're just not. It's always going to be more people show up, less people -- you're never going to know. Maybe that's something when he stops being president.

And as their executive producer Brian Teta recounted being in the ballroom during the attack, Goldberg seemed to take issue with the Secret Service tactical response team entering with guns to secure President Trump and the cabinet officials.

Whoopi says Trump should build a new hotel in DC with a ballroom instead of just building a ballroom for the White House:

"I'm sorry. Here is something you-know-who always talks about he is a builder, he knows how to do this. Maybe he needs to build a new hotel there that has a… pic.twitter.com/8tD3Qfi7Hn
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

“I will be interested to hear why they made that particular choice to go into the room when people in the room didn't know what was happening. So suddenly the doors fly open and these guys with [guns],” she chided.

Joy Behar wasn’t present. That’s not unusual since she typically had Mondays off, just as Goldberg had Fridays off.

Whoopi takes issue with how the Secret Service tactical response team went into the ballroom with guns drawn to secure President Trump and the cabinet members:

BRIAN TETA (executive producer): The scary thing really was when the Secret Service charged into the room.

GOLDBERG:… pic.twitter.com/aTwekj8hAf
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 27, 2026

The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:

ABC’s The View
April 27, 2026
11:04:42 a.m. Eastern

(…)

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I know we will talk a lot about this so I won't steal the microphone, but we have a problem with political violence in this country. It is not right that it almost becomes like, okay, I'm scrolling to the next thing on Instagram. Of course there was a shooting.

People are becoming desensitized to this, it's not like it was 20 years ago. If this had happened, if it was Reagan's assassination attempt at the Hilton as well, that was news for weeks on end. And I feel like we're sort of just this is what happens now. People get radicalized and try to kill people in our politics.

It is not right and leaders need to come together, condemn it and come up with actual solutions.

(…)

11:05:53 a.m. Eastern

ANA NAVARRO: And to hear [CNN’s] Wolf [Blitzer] talk about how scary this was, to hear Wolf say that he was three or four feet away from the shooter, got tackled down, that really hit me because that -- that room is somewhere where we but for the grace of God, we could have been in, and there were so many people that we love and respect in our parts of our lives who were there.

I'll tell you what really hit me, though, was later that night when I was on social media or the next morning, a good chunk of the country thinks this was staged.

And where -- I don't think that. Let me just be clear, I don't think that.

But where are we in America? When Reagan was shot in 1981, nobody would have thought about that. And so, you know, I think we've got to -- I think people have to take stock of just the level of influence that misinformation, that the lies have had on the American psyche that the first conclusion so many people reach, because of the polarization and because of some of the things that our elected officials have done, frankly.

You know, it's crazy to me that one of the first things Trump did after this was -- and all of the people, his choir, is go push for a ballroom and use this instead of calling to our better angels and calling for unity, use it to call for the building of his ballroom.

You know, I just think school children have as much a right to have safe schools as politicians do to have a secure ballroom.

(…)

11:08:04 a.m. Eastern

SUNNY HOSTIN: So the President, thank God, wasn't -- he wasn't close to the president. But I think we should all be outraged that someone tried to allegedly kill the president of the United States and members of his cabinet.

This political violence that is going on must be confronted. This divisiveness in this country in terms of politics must be confronted. And what we also must confront is that our country is a country that has more guns than people. More personal guns than people.

So, if we are not going to do something about the proliferation of guns and about the lack of gun control in this country, then we must do something to protect our citizenry -- citizens and we must do something to protect our political public servants.

Because, let's remember, this guy got on a train with firearms and was able to travel from California to Washington, D.C. was able to check into a hotel, which journalists actually call the Hinckley hotel because of the Hinckley --

SARA HAINES: Assassination.

HOSTIN: Assassination attempt on President Reagan and the almost mortal injury of Brady, of James Brady.

And so, the fact that he was able to move about so easily with loaded firearms should be terrifying to us and should be, again, an inflection point in this country for gun control, for safety, and for us all to come together as a people We really need to do more.

(…)

11:09:57 a.m. Eastern

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: We talk about this all the time. We talk about guns, we say all the stuff, and then it goes away. People forget. So, you know, we will talk more about all of this when we come back.

(…)

11:15:38 a.m. Eastern

BRIAN TETA (executive producer): The scary thing really was when the Secret Service charged into the room.

GOLDBERG: Right.

TETA: Because I didn't know what was happening. They were going for -- they were going to remove all the cabinet members, which makes complete sense, but at the time I thought maybe they were trying to find somebody, a perpetrator in the room, and that's what was really scary.

HAINES: It's terrifying.

GOLDBERG: That to me would have been the thing. It's interesting and I will be interested to hear why they made that particular choice to go into the room when people in the room didn't know what was happening. So suddenly the doors fly open and these guys with --

TETA: I think they had to secure everybody. I think that's the protocol to make sure the line of succession even. There was a lot of line of succession in the room.

(…)

NAVARRO: But, you know, now - So, that room was full of some of the most important political leaders in the country right now.

GOLDBERG: Right.

NAVARRO: Now they know, they've lived it in their own flesh, the fear that our school children go through.

HOSTIN: Yes.

NAVARRO: Now they know what it's like to have to jump under a table the way that school children jump under a desk.

HOSTIN: Yes.

NAVARRO: And we are a country that is vulnerable to this. We have now seen shootings in malls, in churches, in temples, in Walmarts --

GOLDBERG: Baseball fields -

NAVARRO: Baseball fields

GOLDBERG: We saw it with Republicans.

HOSTIN: Steve Scalise.

NAVARRO: You know, it's - I still don't understand how Congress took no action after Sandy Hook, after 20 children between the ages of six and seven were killed. But maybe now that they have felt the fear themselves they will do something on gun reform!

(…)

11:18:24 a.m. Eastern

GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. Here is something you-know-who always talks about he is a builder, he knows how to do this. Maybe he needs to build a new hotel there that has a big enough ballroom where they don't have to go to the Hilton, where the ballroom is the building.

This is what he says he does well. Forget destroying the White House. I'm saying maybe it's time someone built a hotel with a bigger ballroom, because the ballroom -- you're never going to have enough seats for everybody. You're just not. It's always going to be more people show up, less people -- you're never going to know. Maybe that's something when he stops being president.

(…)

11:25:24 a.m. Eastern

FARAH GRIFFIN: I have already seen some folks on the right saying the left did this. The left did not do this. One individual actor who has his own agency, his own decision-making, who got radicalized however he may have did this. And I reject that language because it makes these things more likely to happen in the future.

(…)

11:27:12 a.m. Eastern

NAVARRO: Taking it back to the serious aspect and what you were just referring to, I also have seen a lot of people on TV blaming this on the left. And if we are going to be honest about this, the heated political rhetoric is going on on both sides.

Look, just last week after -- after Trump was attacking the pope, the pope's brother, who lives in Chicago, who lives in Illinois, had a bomb threat at his house.

So, you know, this is a moment for people to take stock on what we can do and what the people we support and like can do, not just the people that we don't like and support are doing.

It's -- We shouldn't be getting into a contest of who is better or who is worse, but the one thing that we can't argue about is that the guy with the biggest bully pulpit is Donald Trump and I beg of him after three close calls to take time to reflect and give us an example. Lead by example.

(…)

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

After WHCD Shooting, NBC’s Kristen Welker Pushes ‘The Atlantic’s’ Hit Job Against Kash Patel #Political

2026-04-27T06:31:51.336-07:00

https://ift.tt/Lf5MwQD

The gravity of the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner significantly altered the trajectory of the Sunday political affairs shows, which went from the usual talking points and “conventional wisdom” to tracking breaking news in real time. However, some of the shows found an opportunity to conduct themselves in their usual manner.

Watch as NBC’s Kristen Welker gets an interview with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on a very fast-moving day where most of these agency heads have been working through the night on a complex bicoastal case, only to pinch off a question on the Kash Patel hitjob published by The Atlantic:

OF COURSE: With the investigation into the WHCD shooting still ongoing, NBC's Kristen Welker finds time to ask Acting AG Todd Blanche about The Atlantic's hit job on Kash Patel. pic.twitter.com/KLaNBZVW4F
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 26, 2026

KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. Acting Attorney General, the security breach does come amid reporting in The Atlantic that FBI Director Kash Patel has alarmed some of his colleagues with episodes of what The Atlantic describes as “excessive drinking, unexplained absences.” Does President Trump still have confidence in Kash Patel to lead the FBI at this critical moment?

TODD BLANCHE: That article was full of unnamed sources and should be completely discounted. I was with Director Patel last night. I was with him at the crime scene. I was with him in the Oval Office. I was with him afterwards. I was on the phone with him late into the evening. He was at the command center of leading the investigation along with our great U.S. Attorney from D.C. Jeanine Pirro, and that’s what he’s doing. So there are all these fake articles with unnamed sources claiming things, and then there’s the reality of what’s happening, and what we all saw last night. And so I’m not going to speak for President Trump but I certainly have confidence in Director Patel, and also the men and women working with him that worked through the night, will work through the day and through the night tonight, to investigate this crime. And it’s something that I’m very proud of, and everybody in this country should be proud about as well.

WELKER: Okay. And you’re saying that — The Atlantic has stood by its reporting. I do want to ask you: looking forward, what specific steps is the Department of Justice taking to monitor or disrupt more potential acts of violence, and potentially political violence?

BLANCHE: We work every day to protect this country. There’s thousands of agents that are working every day to protect this country. And it’s regular investigative steps, it’s tips coming in from members of the public, it’s us doing the investigative work that we have done for decades that we continue to do. And you’ve seen that in the results. You’ve seen that in the charges that we’ve brought, in the attempts of terrorism that have been stopped by the FBI, and by DHS agents as well. And so this is an all-government approach to make sure that our country is safe, not only within our borders but also outside as well. And that’s the work that we have always done, and not withstanding the noise that comes from some parts of this country about the work that we’re not doing, it’s not true. And so I think that the work that happened last night is something that the whole world got to see. But that’s what happens every day inside the FBI, the Department of Justice, and DHS.

This is who the Elitist Media are. In the immediate aftermath of what could have been a national tragedy, Welker chooses to push a story with no on-the-record sources, and which is very clearly part of an ongoing agenda to undermine the Trump administration.

Blanche addressed the story in one sentence and then went on to express his full confidence in Patel. Welker very stunningly and bravely stands cites The Atlantic as standing by their reporting. In so doing, she demonstrates everything that is currently wrong with the journalistic profession and why there is such low overall confidence in the media.

Lest anyone think this is an isolated problem, here’s CNN’s Dana Bash doing the exact same thing on State of the Union. What’s different here is that Bash merely alludes to the article by asking Blanche whether President Trump still has faith in Patel:

WATCH: CNN's Dana Bash asks Acting AG Todd Blanche whether President trump still has confidence in Kash Patel to lead the investigation of the WHCD shooting, for some reason:

DANA BASH: Does President Trump still have faith in Kash Patel enough to lead this investigation?

TODD… pic.twitter.com/lWo66fcVWr
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 27, 2026

DANA BASH: Does President Trump still have faith in Kash Patel enough to lead this investigation?

TODD BLANCHE: Kash Patel was with the president last night, as everybody saw- he was up. I was on the phone with him after 1:00 in the morning. His men and women, and he was on site with our U.S. Attorney and the prosecutors. The- until late in the evening, if not all night, at the command center. And so this- this is a testament to hard work. And Director Patel did a great job last night. I spoke with him this morning already about the investigation. He's leading this investigation, as you would expect. And- and I feel very confident and comforted in the work that the FBI is doing. And it's not just me. Every American should feel comfort in the work that we’ve done over the past 12 hours and in the work that we’re going to be doing in the coming days.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Brian Stelter Toe-Taps the Lib Line on WHCD Shooting: America Has a Gun Access Problem #Political

2026-04-26T17:31:45.725-07:00

https://ift.tt/rauOh3q

Brian Stelter came out of his reporting at the White House Correspondents Dinner with the usual liberal spin. His special "Reliable Sources" newsletter reliably toe-tapped the line.

The headline was "An all-too-common American story." The foiled shooting at this exclusive Washington party was "extraordinary," and yet, it's the last example of Americans have too much access to guns.

But we need to say out loud that it was actually all too ordinary. In America this is all too common – a shots-fired moment, a chaotic lockdown, a spasm of violence interrupting a peaceful gathering.

Thousands of media and political elites have now gone through what countless millions of other Americans have experienced in their schools, offices, malls and churches.

And on most of those occasions, there were no Secret Service agents.

As I crouched underneath a table last night, I knew that waves of law enforcement officials were pouring into the room, leaping from chair to chair, securing the scene. A man near me seemed hurt, or at least dazed, and a police officer helped him limp away.

Everyone in the room gave thanks to the agents, bodyguards and officers who responded. But I couldn't help but think that most of the Americans who have found themselves in the middle of a shots-fired emergency feel much more exposed, much more vulnerable.

And I think we should keep acknowledging that during the follow-up news coverage of this incident.

As CNN's Victor Blackwell put it, when I joined him on air this morning, "The people in that room were confronted with what schoolchildren and moviegoers and congregants and people at grocery stores have been confronted with, and that is the threat of gun violence."

The shooting revealed how political violence has become a "feature of American life," The Guardian's Rachel Leingang wrote.

The president "is the highest-profile target of political violence," the NYT's Luke Broadwater wrote, "but the threats for years have affected officeholders at local, state and federal levels," and "the violence has taken the lives of members of both major political parties."

That was followed by the notion that Wild West America looks crazy to the rest of the world:

During our overnight coverage on CNN, Jim Sciutto pointed out that people watching in other countries are baffled by this American attribute.

"One thing we know," Sciutto said, "is that there will be a lot of discussion afterwards about security measures. (Discussion about) rhetoric, perhaps, as well. There won't be any substantive discussion about access to weapons, right? There just won't."

I told him that Americans skip that part of the conversation, and then the rest of the world looks at us and thinks we're crazy.

This morning, my 6-year-old son [Story Stelter] texted me, "Are you OK?" Yes, we're all OK. I FaceTimed him and said I'll be home soon. But I worry that one day I'll be texting that same question to him, because it seems that in America, everyone eventually winds up too close to a terrible convulsion of violence.

Stelter had a version on TV as well overnight, that this is the wrong kind of American exceptionalism: "This is unfortunately very normal in America."

So.... no Second Amendment pocket square? https://t.co/xvugisJUgI
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 26, 2026

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Credit Where It’s Due: CBS’s Jiang Delivered as WHCA President Amid Shooting Chaos #Political

2026-04-26T03:31:49.579-07:00

https://ift.tt/lT2qEjC

Saturday night marked an unfathomable turn of events as, minutes after the beginning of dinner being served at the 2026 White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD), a rabid gunman began shooting and attempted to breach the room. What normally serves as the White House Correspondents Association president’s last major act became a nightmare for its current title holder, CBS senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang.

But prior to and after the chaos, Jiang kept the audience and viewers abreast of the details and didn’t genuflect or overinflate the importance of this or that group in the Washington Hilton. Rather, she kept the focus on the necessity of everyone’s safety and how one person cannot dictate our lives.

While we at NewsBusters never pull our punches when the elite media show us their deep-seated liberal bias on issue after issue and candidate after candidate, Jiang and many others showed their mettle Saturday as people when serious, life-altering moments happen.

It seemed like a lifetime ago when, at 8:21 p.m. Eastern, Jiang took the stage for brief opening remarks, thanking the President and the First Lady for attending as well as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt “for everything you and your team does to work with us every day, whether you like it or not.”

Here @WHCA President @Weijia Jiang’s full opening remarks at the start of the #WHCD: “Good evening to everyone. President Trump, Madam First Lady, on behalf of the White House Correspondents Association. Thank you for being here. It is meaningful that you are with us tonight. And… pic.twitter.com/VtuRU5PwEC
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2026

She praised the White House beat without making it seem sanctimonious, acknowledging the reality that covering President Trump is “the biggest story in the world every single day” with “the speed…exhilarating, demanding, and…offer[ing] a crucial public service.”

She thanked her CBS News bosses, the WHCA board, past WHCA President Kelly O’Donnell of NBC, “the mentors and other friends who have kept me balanced this year and always, and of course, to my family” who “are my calm and I love you.”

Moments later, the shooting shattered the jovial mood and, as the President admitted later, a brutal roasting of the press he had lined up.

Roughly 24 minutes after the shots rang out, Jiang returned to the dais with details what had hoped to be a resumption of the evening’s proceedings:

CBS's @Weijia Jiang at 858pm Eastern on the #WHCD shooting: "We have an announcement. I know everyone's going to want as many details as possible. And right now, we don't have that. But I can tell you that our program is going to resume momentarily. And we will have more details… pic.twitter.com/lbJ1EyHFYu
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2026

Jiang made her final address for the evening at 9:39 p.m. Eastern, revealing “law enforcement has requested that we leave the premises, consistent with protocol, and [the President] wanted to emphasize that nobody was hurt”:

CBS correspondent and @WHCA President @Weijia Jiang announcing the #WHCD will be postponed following the shooting in the lobby: “This is a room full of reporters, so I know you've already seen the President's tweet -- my apologies, his post on Truth Social. And law enforcement… pic.twitter.com/MNJA0Rj44w
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2026

Jiang then offered some levity and elicited some genuine laughter in divulging some more news: “He – the President – will be having a press briefing at the White House in 30 minutes. [LAUGHTER] That is not a joke – and he insists that we will reschedule this event in the next 30 days – [APPLAUSE] – that he wanted to do it tonight. He wanted to continue despite the news, but has to follow security protocol.”

Once again, she spoke in awe of her colleagues, but definitely didn’t sound like how some other folks that frequent NewsBusters readers could probably fill in the blank with:

I said earlier tonight that journalism is a public service because when there is an emergency, we run to the crisis, not away from it. And on a night when we are thinking about the freedoms in the First Amendment, we must also think about how fragile they are. I saw all of you reporting, and that’s what we do. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] So, thank God everybody is safe. And thank you for coming together tonight. We will do this again. Thank you.

Prior to President Trump speaking in the White House Briefing Room, Jiang emotionally spoke on the phone during a CBS News Special Report about what was going through her mind when she addressed a shaken room of thousands (and millions watching elsewhere) (click “expand”):

Well, what was going through my mind is my seven-year-old daughter was there, my husband was there, my parents were there. And it just is a huge reality check. And I think, you know, on a night where we all came together to celebrate the freedoms in the First Amendment, we also have to think about how fragile they are in this country because, you know, shootings and would-be shootings happen every day and it doesn't matter if it’s, you know, the White House Correspondents Dinner or anywhere else in this country. Nobody should have to feel that way. Nobody should have to feel scared to be anywhere in a public place. And that is not what this country is about, so I think that I was just pretty rattled because we were still waiting for more information and details.

(….)

This dinner is all about acknowledging how vital the First Amendment is to our democracy. So, every year, the Correspondents Association comes together to do that and honor award winners and scholarship recipients who want to be reporters like us. It’s also a chance for the press and the President to get together in a different context and recognize the important relationship, despite how complicated it might be. So, that’s what we were doing. And unfortunately, you know, this traumatic event unfolded and thank goodness everybody is safe. And that’s the most important thing out of all of this[.]

Trump arrived at 10:33 p.m. Eastern and, following extensive remarks forcefully denouncing this attack on the press, himself, his Cabinet, and people inside the room representing every possible political ideology, let Jiang have the first question.

“[W]e go to the chief. Madam Chairman, I just want to say you did a fantastic job. What a beautiful evening. And we’re going to reschedule. [APPLAUSE] And after that, it’s very tough for her to ask a killer question. Right. But you have done a fantastic job. Please,” Trump said.

President Trump to @WHCA president/CBS correspondent @Weijia Jiang: “We'll do a couple, and then we go to the chief – Madam Chairman, I just want to say you did a fantastic job. What a beautiful evening. And we're going to reschedule. [APPLAUSE] And after that, it's very tough… pic.twitter.com/B5w9csVuNG
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2026

Jiang still asked a question, focusing on how this was the third time Trump has faced Secret Service agents rushing towards him:

As you mentioned, it all happened so quickly and I wonder, especially because unfortunately you have experience with these sorts of threats in that moment when you realize there was a threat and Service agents were telling us to get down. Can you describe what was going through your mind, how you were feeling in that moment?

Trump even praised her for the “very good question, actually,” saying “it’s always shocking when something like this happens” and even he “thought it was a tray…going down.”

He later said First Lady Melania Trump “was very cognizant, I think, of what happened” and “I think she knew immediately what happened…saying, that’s a bad noise.”

Before going to Fox’s Peter Doocy, Trump emphasized both he and Jiang wanted the evening to resume, but understood the security concerns.

In Trump fashion, he joked he had “the most inappropriate speech ever made” if the evening had gone on without the chaos and thus “I’ll be very boring next time”:

And you wanted to too – you very much wanted to continue it because I don’t like to let these sick people, these thugs, these horrible, horrible people change the fabric of our life, change the course of what we do. So, we held out. You were there. We held out right till the end. But they didn’t want to take a chance. And I understand it was protocol, but we’re going to be doing one hopefully within the next 30 days or sooner. And I am ready, willing and able. And I was all set to really rip it. And I said to my people, this would be the most inappropriate speech ever made if I said – so I’ll have to save it. I don’t know if I can ever be as rough as I was going to be tonight. I think I’m going to be probably very nice. I’ll be very boring the next time, but we’re going to have a great event. And you did a fantastic job. Thank you very much.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

The Media's Self-Presumed Cool Kids Gather For The White House Correspondents Shindig #Political

2026-04-25T14:31:48.370-07:00

https://ift.tt/9JpoPNm

As President Reagan might say, “Well, there they go again.”

The “they” in this formulation is the laughably self-regarding “in crowd” of media who belong to the White House Correspondents Association - aka the “WHCA.” The “cool kids” of the media who will be in attendance at the their annual glitzy black-tie dinner this weekend.

To make sure their self-regard is noted, an “open letter” signed by over 250 journalists was released that said in part, the following, with bold print supplied for emphasis.

“The dinner has long served as a symbol of the vital and irreplaceable role of a free press in American democracy and a celebration of the First Amendment and the journalists who uphold it. President Trump’s systematic, sustained, and unprecedented attacks on the free press (detailed below) render his presence at such an event a profound contradiction of its purpose.

The collective weight of the administration’s actions – retaliatory access bans, coercive regulatory investigations, frivolous lawsuits against the press, defunding of public broadcasting, dismantling of international broadcasting, physical restrictions on journalists, personal verbal attacks on reporters, assaults on the media in official White House press releases and social media posts, the arrest of journalists, and the pardoning of those who committed violence against the press represent the most systematic and comprehensive assault on freedom of the press by a sitting American president.”

Stop right there. Full stop.

Again, notice the letter was condemning “defunding of public broadcasting, dismantling of international broadcasting, physical restrictions on journalists, personal verbal attacks on reporters, assaults on the media in official White House press releases and social media posts….”

And right there is a decidedly unconscious show-and-tell of exactly why the American people have such a low regard for today’s media.

To begin, there is no provision from the First Amendment in the Constitution that mandates the federal government -- or any state or local government -- fund public broadcasting or support “international broadcasting.” Not to mention there is no provision in the First Amendment that opposes so-called “physical restrictions on journalists” or is restricted from limiting journalistic access to this or that government function.

As someone who has worked at all levels of government -- local, state and federal -- it is completely normal that this or that government body or agency holds various meetings that bar attendance from the press, that are closed to the public. I have personally been in meetings at all three levels of government where there was not a single journalist allowed in the room. Once a specific meeting is completed, it is up to the government body holding the private meeting whether it will or will not issue a press release on the substance of the meeting in question. And it is up to the media to cover or even attack the government meeting closed to the press if they so desire. That kind of thing happens with regularity all the time. These journalists don't mind it when it's their favorite pols -- like Hillary Clinton's secret health-care task force in 1993.

And to take umbrage, as the letter from these Washington journalists does, on “personal verbal attacks on reporters” when the media of today is perpetually slinging all kind of personal attacks at President Trump (and yes, on some of his conservative predecessors) is, to put it mildly, hilarious.

Particularly in the Trump era the media has been out there repeatedly attacking the President. But in fact this kind of treatment of a President is decidedly not new. Good heavens, there is a reason President Trump recently said: “Abraham Lincoln and many of our greatest presidents fought with the media.”

Indeed they did. In comparison with no less than Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln scholar and historian Harold Holzer long ago noted that “No president ever cracked down on the press more than Abraham Lincoln did,” adding that the media “was completely and openly partisan in Lincoln's day, with Democratic and Republican newspapers," and that "Lincoln followed the Republican press with the same intensity with which Donald Trump watches Fox News and Breitbart." Holzer added that Lincoln was also a master at manipulating the media with leaked stories, courting the favor of certain editors, and releasing private letters to the press.

One could go on -- and on and on -- with similar stories and quotes about Trump’s predecessors and how they treated and/or dealt with the press. Joe Biden's team could stiff-arm them for weeks and months at a time.

But safe to say, as the White House Correspondents Association gathers for their annual black tie cocktails-and-dinner this weekend hang out, there is nothing new here under the Washington political sun.

And on a personal note? Yes, I have been to this dinner on a couple of occasions. A night of fun. But taking umbrage at the President because he shows up -- or even when he doesn’t show up -- is nothing more than a sign of too much self-regard.

A balloon of self-regard this President in particular finds it all too easy to burst.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

CNN Flashes Alleged Trump-Epstein Letter, Brings On Colbert Comic to Rip Trump #Political

2026-04-25T00:31:52.505-07:00

https://ift.tt/xKnBCRc

On Friday, CNN This Morning previewed Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner by spotlighting a highly questionable choice by the White House Correspondents' Association—then compounding it with a guest selection that ensured a one-sided Trump-bashing fest.

Substitute host Jessica Dean noted that the Wall Street Journal will receive the WHCA’s top honor for its report on a letter Donald Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. Dean acknowledged that Trump has denied sending the letter and sued the newspaper over the story.

But CNN didn’t stop at describing the report. It chose to display a graphic of the explicit letter—even as it described it as merely “alleged”—including the crude image formed by Trump’s signature.

Instead of inviting a WHCA official or media reporter to discuss the dinner and the award, CNN chose Pete Dominick, a longtime warm-up comedian for The Colbert Report and an acidulous Trump hater. Dominick quickly launched into a tirade, calling Trump a “thin-skinned, insecure, immature, sad, mean, terrible president.”

Dominick went on to insist—repeatedly—that the role of comedians is to “speak truth to power,” lamenting that no comic had been invited to perform at this year’s dinner. And here we thought the role of a comedian is to make people laugh.

Dominick argued that the WHCA’s decision not to include a comedian was...injustice. "It won't be anywhere positive for democracy or a real celebration of the First Amendment because, Jessica, they didn't invite a comedian....There should be a comedian there. The fact that there's not a comedian there is injustice. It looks like they're trying to kiss his butt and appease him."

The man was very upset they're bringing on a mentalist instead of a comedian. He absurdly alleged that Trump had “canceled Colbert,” a claim Dean did not challenge. "It's really bad for America and bad for democracy, especially because he's tried to cancel comedians. He canceled Colbert. He tried to cancel Kimmel and he couldn't."

Throughout the segment, Dean offered no pushback to any of Dominick’s assertions. Instead, she teed up the discussion with a clip of Barack Obama mocking Trump at the 2011 dinner. He insisted "it's such an important moment, element of this dinner, to have a comedian there to speak truth to power, to make fun of the president to his face." But CNN didn't show someone mocking Obama. They showed Obama mocking Trump, the future president.

The result was a revealing reflection of CNN’s liberal bias: an award centered on a disputed, denied claim, amplified by the show’s display of the letter itself, followed by commentary from an ardently anti-Trump comic—all without a hint of skepticism.

Here's the transcript.

CNN This Morning
4/24/26
6:53 am EDT

JESSICA DEAN: Some of that reporting on Epstein will take center stage at the White House Correspondents' Dinner tomorrow night. The Wall Street Journal will receive the group's top honor for their report on a letter Trump allegedly sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. You'll remember the president called the story fake and sued the paper for $10 billion. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed. The reported author of that note will also be in attendance.

President Trump is set to attend and speak at the dinner for the first time as president. Joining us now, Pete Dominick, comedian and host of the Stand Up with Pete Dominick podcast. Pete, great to have you. I think I just kind of laid it out in terms of all the competing dynamics that are gonna be happening at that dinner tomorrow night. Trump obviously has been attacking the media, suing them constantly. What might tomorrow night be like?

PETE DOMINICK: Well, unfortunately, It won't be anywhere positive for democracy or a real celebration of the First Amendment because, Jessica, they didn't invite a comedian.

And the reason why they didn't invite a comedian is because they knew our thin-skinned, insecure, immature, sad, mean, terrible president wouldn't come.

And why shouldn't they? I mean, comedians are there to speak truth to power. I was at that dinner five years in a row. And I also worked for Stephen Colbert at The Colbert Report. And every night, at every taping of the Colbert Report, there was always an audience member who remembered his performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, I believe in 2006, when he questioned George W. Bush while he was right by his side, and his failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

It put Colbert on the maps, meant that his legacy, because he spoke truth to power in a way, right to the president at the time, that too many journalists weren't doing.

And the same is the case for now.

. . .

DEAN: And look, you mentioned past dinners. Obviously, Trump has his history with this event. There is that moment. And I think it is a key moment when then-President Obama joked about him. He was in the audience. This was in 2011. I just want to play a quick clip.

BARACK OBAMA: In an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, at the steakhouse, the men's cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. You didn't blame Little John or Meatloaf. You fired Gary Busey. And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night.

DEAN: And later on, there was a lot of talk that, like, that moment really affected President Trump and pushed him toward potentially running.

But this, to your point, this dinner has the potential to create moments over the years like Stephen Colbert with George W. Bush, as you mentioned, like that.

DOMINICK: Yeah, I mean, it's such an important moment, element of this dinner, to have a comedian there to speak truth to power, to make fun of the president to his face, and journalists and journalism as well.

For the White House Correspondents Association to not invite a comedian is to, it looks like, to appease the president. And there's already so much erosion and faith in journalism, especially corporate journalism. It doesn't do them any favors either.

There should be a comedian there. The fact that there's not a comedian there is injustice. It looks like they're trying to kiss his butt and appease him, the only way they could get him to go.

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters

Daily Show Labels Opposition To Drag Queens In Recruitment Videos 'Extremist' #Political

2026-04-24T11:31:54.336-07:00

https://ift.tt/RdbzY0i

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show host-of-the-week Michael Kosta joined forces with Jordan Klepper on Thursday to dumb down the definition of what it means to be an “insane extremist” as they condemned new acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao for opposing the use of drag queens in recruitment videos.

Kosta also attacked Cao for remarks he made during his 2024 Senate campaign where he said there was an increase in witchcraft activity in Monterey, California, and that should not be allowed to happen in Virginia. Witches aside, Kosta wondered, “Why—I mean—why is everybody they appoint so [bleep]ing crazy? Can they just find a normal person with a normal head on his shoulders who believes normal things? What kind of sailors does this guy even want to recruit?”

In a clip of his debate with Sen. Tim Kaine, Cao was shown alluding to a 2023 Navy recruitment campaign when he declared, “When you are using a, you know, drag queen to, you know, recruit for the Navy, that's not the people we want. What we need is alpha males and alpha females.”

Kosta reacted by retorting, “Alpha females. Right, so, drag queens. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's right. Maybe we need alpha males who will beat the shit out of our enemies and alpha females who will mock their insecurities so precisely they'll never leave the house again. But what exactly will the alpha males and females do that others can't?”

A second clip of Cao showed him adding, “What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them and ask for seconds. That—those are young men and women that are gonna win wars.”

The point was obviously that the military requires a certain mindset and that the drag queen community is perhaps not the best place to look for that mindset. Nevertheless, Kosta decided to take the clip extremely literally, “You want alpha males and females who eat their own ripped-out guts? Maybe I don't know what war is? I mean, I guess it might freak the enemy out if they see your alpha soldiers pulling out their own stomachs and eating them. But that's only gonna work once. Also, not to be nitpicky, but if you eat your own guts, where do they go?”

Kosta then introduced Klepper by alluding to the fact that the recently fired John Phelan was a Trump donor, “For more on Hung Cao and his new leadership at the Navy, let's go live to Jordan Klepper in Arlington, Virginia. Jordan, was there no one else who could have filled this role that wasn't a Trump donor or an insane extremist?”

Earlier, Kosta at least mentioned that Cao had a naval career of over 20 years, but Klepper simply quipped, “Nope, back to you, Michael.”

Kosta replied, “But, come on, surely there was one person who was a little more qualified.”

Klepper insisted that “I’ve seen the entire list of candidates, Michael, and "Man afraid of witches" was indeed their best option. There were really only two types of candidates for this: donors or the loonies. I mean, all the more experienced candidates were hesitant about ‘committing war crimes’ or ‘holding Pete Hegseth's hair back after happy hour at Ruby Tuesday's.’"

While Kosta and Klepper want to focus on witches and drag queens, Cao reportedly has built a reputation of being a quick learner when it comes to bureaucratic management and the minute details of shipbuilding.

Here is a transcript for the April 23 show:

Comedy Central The Daily Show

4/23/2026

11:06 PM ET
MICHAEL KOSTA: Why—I mean—why is everybody they appoint so [bleep]ing crazy? Can they just find a normal person with a normal head on his shoulders who believes normal things? What kind of sailors does this guy even want to recruit?

HUNG CAO: When you are using a, you know, drag queen to, you know, recruit for the Navy, that's not the people we want. What we need is alpha males and alpha females.

KOSTA: Alpha females. Right, so, drag queens. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's right. Maybe we need alpha males who will beat the shit out of our enemies and alpha females who will mock their insecurities so precisely they'll never leave the house again. But what exactly will the alpha males and females do that others can't?

CAO: What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them and ask for seconds. That—those are young men and women that are gonna win wars.

KOSTA: You want alpha males and females who eat their own ripped-out guts? Maybe I don't know what war is? I mean, I guess it might freak the enemy out if they see your alpha soldiers pulling out their own stomachs and eating them. But that's only gonna work once. Also, not to be nitpicky, but if you eat your own guts, where do they go?

For more on Hung Cao and his new leadership at the Navy, let's go live to Jordan Klepper in Arlington, Virginia. Jordan, was there no one else who could have filled this role that wasn't a Trump donor or an insane extremist?

JORDAN KLEPPER: Nope, back to you, Michael.

KOSTA: But, come on, surely there was one person who was a little more qualified.

KLEPPER: I’ve seen the entire list of candidates, Michael, and "Man afraid of witches" was indeed their best option. There were really only two types of candidates for this: donors or the loonies. I mean, all the more experienced candidates were hesitant about "committing war crimes" or "holding Pete Hegseth's hair back after happy hour at Ruby Tuesday's."

Adblock test (Why?)

from Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing Follow News Busters

Red Pill Pharma A psychological pharmaceutical that unlocks logic and reason offering a second chance at individualism.

via Newsbusters - Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing - News Busters