ABC Claims Trump Misled In Verdict Rebuttal Speech, Offers No Proof

For Saturday’s Good Morning America on ABC, White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks denounced Donald Trump’s Friday speech, where he attacked the process that ended with him being found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records for “including misleading claims.” Unfortunately for ABC viewers, Parks never specified what these misleading claims were. In studio, Parks began by recalling that, "Yesterday, we saw President Trump absolutely raging about this case, airing grievances, attacking everyone involved. Republicans then piling on. All of it prompting President Biden to break his silence.”     Who is "we"? ABC didn't show the speech live. That aside, Parks transitioned to a recorded report and added that Trump is “Promising to appeal his conviction” and that he took to “microphones to fume and rail about the case against him, calling it a scam.” Trump was then shown declaring that “it was a rigged trial. We wanted a venue change where we could have a fair trial. We didn't get it. We wanted a judge change. We wanted a judge that wasn't conflicted, and obviously he didn't do that.” Parks dismissed Trump’s venue claim, “Trump convicted as charged on all 34 felony counts, the jury selected by both the prosecution and the defense, buying the prosecution's argument that Trump illegally worked to falsify business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels and keep her story from voters before the 2016 election.” However, she also opined that the speech was “unapologetic and aggressive. Trump's remarks also rambling, at times, hard to follow, including misleading claims about how the case unfolded and attacks against President Biden, the prosecuting team, and judge. At one point, calling him a ‘devil’ and a ‘tyrant.’” It is hard to tell what specific claims Parks is trying to refute. Other fact-checkers have tried to do opinion-checking, claiming former Biden DOJ number three official Matthew Colangelo’s presence on Alvin Bragg’s team was no big deal. Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post argued Judge Juan Merchan’s donation to Biden was also a nothingburger because the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics said so, which is hard to take seriously from the media, including Parks, because it has spent the past several weeks having a collective freakout over Martha-Ann and Justice Samuel Alito’s flags. The fact-checkers also took issue with Trump calling the falsificiation of a misdemeanor because Trump was accused of also trying to cover up some other crime, but that other crime was never specified, leading to serious Sixth Amendment concerns. For Parks, details were not important as she proceeded to hype Biden’s response to Trump’s speech. Here is a transcript for the June 1 show: ABC Good Morning America 6/1/2024 7:02 AM ET MARYALICE PARKS: Yesterday, we saw President Trump absolutely raging about this case, airing grievances, attacking everyone involved. Republicans then piling on. All of it prompting President Biden to break his silence. DONALD TRUMP: Oh, we're going to fight. PARKS: Promising to appeal his conviction, former President Donald Trump taking to the microphones to fume and rail about the case against him, calling it a scam. TRUMP: It was a rigged trial. We wanted a venue change where we could have a fair trial. We didn't get it. We wanted a judge change. We wanted a judge that wasn't conflicted, and obviously he didn't do that. PARKS: Trump convicted as charged on all 34 felony counts, the jury selected by both the prosecution and the defense, buying the prosecution's argument that Trump illegally worked to falsify business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels and keep her story from voters before the 2016 election. Unapologetic and aggressive, Trump's remarks also rambling, at times, hard to follow, including misleading claims about how the case unfolded and attacks against President Biden, the prosecuting team, and judge. At one point, calling him a ‘devil’ and a ‘tyrant.’”

'Sounds Like Politics': PBS Mourns GOP Attacking Trump Verdict

PBS NewsHour’s weekly recap with New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart had a lot to discuss on Friday as they discussed former President Donald Trump being found guilty in New York. The common thread throughout, however, was that in “the before times” Republicans and conservatives would have lined up to simply accept what happened and that now institutions are under assault because they will not. Host Geoff Bennett turned to Brooks and repeated what Capehart had mentioned in his initial reaction, “Somber and solemn. How does it strike you?”     Brooks is supposed to be the conservative half of the duo and began by giving his credentials, “Yeah, I will go back to Jonathan's phrase, 'the before times.' In the before times, I was working at National Review, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, The Weekly Standard, a lot of conservative places, and there were pillars of conservatism.” He proceeded to give his take on why conservatives should accept the verdict, “The first is moral character, that character's destiny, and if there's — if private virtue falls apart, the public order collapses. And we shouldn't forget the fact this case was about a president, a former president, paying hush money to a porn star. I mean, in what world do we enter that?” That is a moral and a political argument, not a legal one, but Brooks rolled on, “The second is institutions and the power of institutions to safeguard society and hold off barbarism.” After oozing about the jury looking “at the judge with a rapt reverence” as he read the “very dry and technocratic language” of the law, Brooks lamented, "If he wins in the fall, the attack on the institutions won't only be to the justice system. It'll be to the Defense Department. It'll be to the attorney general's office. It'll be a comprehensive assault on American institutions. And that's sort of what's at stake” before offering up some hope, “Can those institutions hold? And, in my view, yesterday, they did.” Later, Brooks did manage to unintentionally admit that, despite whatever his past employers’ politics are, he is still PBS’s idea of a conservative, “And so they are way more fired up than I anticipated. And these are people from Susan Collins, who's a moderate Republican from Maine, over to the right.” At the end of the segment, Bennett played a clip of Speaker Mike Johnson denouncing the case and turned to Capehart for his reaction, “And it's not just him. Senate Majority Leader — Senate Minority Leader, rather, Mitch McConnell, who has had a frosty relationship with Donald Trump, says, in his view, this case never should have been brought in the first place. How do you view the ways in which Republicans are circling the wagon here, even when it comes to this felony conviction.”     Capehart thought Johnson should simply shut up, “I find it reprehensible, and when it comes to Speaker Johnson, I just find what he says basically as dangerous as what Donald Trump said today during that press conference at Trump Tower. Speaker Johnson is the second in line to the presidency. He should be, if not silent on this, as responsible and measured, while disagreeing, as the president was today, President Biden was today, in talking about the case.” He added, “If anything gives me pause, it is the vociferous reaction of Republicans, particularly of Republicans who in the before times would be saying the exact opposite of what they're saying now.” Brooks agreed, “Yeah, I mean, I — I think it's crazy. Listen, I had some doubts about an elected Democrat prosecutor going after Donald Trump in New York. Of course, anybody has doubts. But you have got to take the jury system seriously.” As for Johnson, “The jury is the core of our legal system. And for Johnson to sort of wave the jury aside and say, I know better than the people who actually sat in the room and listened to the charges, that's — that sounds like politics to me.” The jury is composed of laypeople who listen to the evidence presented to them and follow the instructions they are given. It isn't their job to offer opinions on the appropriateness of those instructions or whether the D.A. violated the Constitution.  Here is a transcript for the July 31 show: PBS NewsHour 5/31/2024 7:42 PM ET GEOFF BENNETT: Somber and solemn. How does it strike you? DAVID BROOKS Yeah, I will go back to Jonathan's phrase, “the before times.” In the before times, I was working at National Review, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, The Weekly Standard, a lot of conservative places, and there were pillars of conservatism. The first is moral character, that character's destiny, and if there's — if private virtue falls apart, the public order collapses. And we shouldn't forget the fact this case was about a president, a former president, paying hush money to a porn star. I mean, in what world do we enter that? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right. BROOKS: The second is institutions and the power of institutions to safeguard society and hold off barbarism. And there was a moment that some of the people who were in the courtroom described when the jury asked the judge to read back some of the technical fineries of the indictment and of how they should think about the law. And, apparently it was very dry and technocratic language. And yet the members of the jury looked at the judge with a rapt reverence. And I’ve always found in juries that juries take their responsibilities very seriously. And so these are character institutions. And Donald Trump is, if nothing else, a transgressor. And if he wins in the fall, the attack on the institutions won't only be to the justice system. It'll be to the Defense Department. It'll be to the attorney general's office. It'll be a comprehensive assault on American institutions. And that's sort of what's at stake. Can those institutions hold? And, in my view, yesterday, they did. … BENNETT: Well, David, picking up on that point, what does all of this reveal about Donald Trump, the space he occupies in American life, and the degree to which he has really shifted the center of our politics? DAVID BROOKS: Well, he tells a story. The story is, they're out to get you and the system is fundamentally broken. And that's a story a lot of people agree with, and a lot of people think was vindicated yesterday. I was very struck by my friends in the Republican Party, some of them Trump supporters, some more Nikki Haley types, I was struck by how vociferous their reaction was. A lot of them saw this as the equivalent of January 6, that this was the day the justice system was perverted to launch a political attack and the fundamental institutions of society are under threat. And so they are way more fired up than I anticipated. And these are people from Susan Collins, who's a moderate Republican from Maine, over to the right. … BENNETT:  That was Johnson on Fox News this morning, in fact. And it's not just him. Senate Majority Leader — Senate Minority Leader, rather, Mitch McConnell, who has had a frosty relationship with Donald Trump, says, in his view, this case never should have been brought in the first place. How do you view the ways in which Republicans are circling the wagon here, even when it comes to this felony conviction. JONATHAN CAPEHART: I just — I find it reprehensible, and when it comes to Speaker Johnson, I just find what he says basically as dangerous as what Donald Trump said today during that press conference at Trump Tower. Speaker Johnson is the second in line to the presidency. He should be, if not silent on this, as responsible and measured, while disagreeing, as the president was today, President Biden was today, in talking about the case. If anything gives me pause, it is the vociferous reaction of Republicans, particularly of Republicans who in the before times would be saying the exact opposite of what they're saying now. BENNETT: David, final word? BROOKS: Yeah, I mean, I — I think it's crazy. Listen, I had some doubts about an elected Democrat prosecutor going after Donald Trump in New York. Of course, anybody has doubts. But you have got to take the jury system seriously. And whether you like what Alvin Bragg did or not, he was — Trump was convicted on 34 counts by a jury.

'They Know Trump Is Guilty': Kimmel Alleges Outrage At Verdict Is Fake

During a rare Friday edition of his ABC show, legal non-expert Jimmy Kimmel asserted that Republicans who claim to be outraged at the conviction of former President Donald Trump are lying. For Kimmel, Republicans are simply scared of Trump, “And then we have our leaders in the GOP who could not care less about Americans and how important it is that we have faith in our legal system. They know Trump is guilty. They don't even like Donald Trump, but they're so scared of him. Ted Cruz was on our show back in, I think it was, 2016. He told me, and this is a quote, he said this on television, he said, ‘If I were in my car and getting ready to reverse and saw Donald in the backup camera, I'm not confident which pedal I'd push.’"      Teeing up a montage of various Republicans denouncing the outcome, Kimmel continued, “Okay? But that primal urge to run Trump over didn't stop Sweaty Teddy and all the other pathetic sycophants jockeying for lip space on his big, pimply ass from pretending to be outraged by this outrageous attack on their beloved Baron Von Shitzenpants.” What does not liking Trump have to do with anything? CNN legal analyst Elie Honig is a reliable liberal who has written books on his strong dislike of Trump’s presidency. Yet, he reacted to the verdict by arguing that any liberal who doesn’t have a problem with Judge Juan Merchan being a Biden donor is a hypocrite and that there is a compelling argument to be made that Trump was denied his Sixth Amendment right to be fully informed of the charges brought against him. Of course, Jimmy Kimmel doesn’t care about any of that because for the late night comedians, the case was simply about getting Trump and to the extent that the details of the case mattered, they only did so insofar as they could make it about sex. Here is a transcript for the May 31 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 5/31/2024 11:39 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: And then we have our leaders in the GOP who could not care less about Americans and how important it is that we have faith in our legal system. They know Trump is guilty. They don't even like Donald Trump, but they're so scared of him. Ted Cruz was on our show back in, I think it was, 2016. He told me, and this is a quote, he said this on television, he said, "If I were in my car and getting ready to reverse and saw Donald in the backup camera, I'm not confident which pedal I'd push."  Okay? But that primal urge to run Trump over didn't stop Sweaty Teddy and all the other pathetic sycophants jockeying for lip space on his big, pimply ass from pretending to be outraged by this outrageous attack on their beloved Baron Von Shitzenpants.

ABC and CBS Skip Trump's Post-Verdict Speech

Former President Donald Trump gave a speech on Friday to denounce his conviction and the preceding trial, but of the three main networks, only NBC bothered to break into their regular scheduled programming and carry it live and give their audience Trump’s perspective. Trump began speaking at 11:06 a.m. Eastern and included a special report from anchor Lester Holt and correspondent Hallie Jackson. Trump spoke for 20 minutes until they cut him off to analyze his remarks with senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett. At the same time, ABC stuck with the liberal ladies of The View and CBS remained with Drew Carey and The Price is Right. CBS reporter Kathryn Watson tweeted the network would only break in if Trump took questions. Later in the day, it would cover President Joe Biden's press conference about Israel's latest ceasefire proposal. While CBS literally mused over the price of peanuts, MSNBC carried Trump’s speech from 11:06 through 11:27 as co-host Ana Cabrera interrupted to begin fact-checking with fellow co-host Jose Diaz-Balart proceeding to kick off a panel discussion alongside video of Trump speaking. Trump’s speech ended at 11:39, but CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett interrupted him at 11:24 in order to bring on resident fact-checker Daniel Dale while also showing silenced video of Trump on the side. The price of the trial might be right for Trump opponents, but the price is wrong for Trump and his supporters, and the media owe it to the American people to hear Trump make his case for why the whole thing was a sham.

NBC's Example Of a Hysterical Trump Supporter Was a Liberal Kimmel-Employed Actor

When NBC went on the air on Thursday for their special coverage of former President Donald Trump’s conviction in New York, legal analyst Laura Jarrett touched on the reaction the verdict received from his supporters. The only problem for NBC was that the footage they showed alongside Jarrett of a hysterical Trump supporter who could be heard yelling and screaming throughout her report was of a Jimmy Kimmel-employed liberal actor. The man’s name is Tony Barbieri, who does a bit for ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live! where he calls himself Jake Byrd and travels across the country acting like a caricatured conservative, and NBC is hardly the first media outlet to treat him as an actual conservative. In 2022, CNN actually interviewed him pretending to be a Herschel Walker supporter.     Jarrett reported that “You can hear the crowd here. There’s a lot of Trump supporters out here that you can hear, are very worked up as I was reading the verdict, I could hear the crowd. Emotion growing behind me. I'm only a couple yards away from the area that you can see on your screens right there, sort of, the First Amendment area, if you will. Just a stone's throw away from the press area. It’s been growing as the day went on.” Just as CNN should’ve been tipped off by Barbieri’s Hillary Clinton-inspired “I’m with Herschel” shirt, NBC should’ve been tipped off by his “Free Father Teresa” sign, which is a reference to a comment Trump made earlier in the trial that amused Kimmel. Kimmel confirmed it was a bit later on his show where the production team put together a montage of Barbieri’s antics that naturally showed the NBC clop. It also showed him being unironically interviewed by TV3CAT out of Catalonia, with the reporter asking, “Why are you here today?” Barbieri was shown, on air, answering, “It's not that we think Trump is innocent. It's that we don't care.”  CBS’s eye-in-the-sky footage also picked up Barbieri as correspondent Robert Costa reported, “Trump supporters across the country, there's anger and frustration right now. And Trump campaign officials are arguing this is going to make Trump stronger inside the party.” Meanwhile, he was also shown telling a British reporter, “They say he's guilty of fraud. What does fraud even mean? What's it mean? I don't know, do you know?” After the reporter explained, “Election fraud is what they found him guilty of. By hiding information that voters might have used to vote differently. That's essentially what they found him guilty of,” Barbieri continued in his role as the dumb MAGA voter, “Okay, well, maybe he did that, but he’s not guilty.” Other outlets that got fooled include Mediaite, which ironically first reported the CNN-Walker prank, the Guardian, and even Fox News. Here are transcripts for the May 30 shows: NBC News Special 5/30/2024 5:08 PM ET: LAURA JARRETT: Savannah, it’s a resounding victory for the prosecution in a case that they pitched as something far greater than about hush money. The way they tried to cast this case was about the subversion of democracy. And today the jury agreed with them, Savannah. The former president has tried to cast this as a political prosecution. A political hit job by a Democrat-elected D.A., by a judge that was biased against him. But these 12 jurors, these 12 New Yorkers have come to a different conclusion, an independent conclusion that the former president of the United States is guilty of 34 felony counts.  You can hear the crowd here. There’s a lot of Trump supporters out here that you can hear, are very worked up as I was reading the verdict, I could hear the crowd. Emotion growing behind me. I'm only a couple yards away from the area that you can see on your screens right there, sort of, the First Amendment area, if you will. Just a stone's throw away from the press area. It’s been growing as the day went on. It’s growing after they heard that this verdict was coming in. A lot of emotions running very high in the city right now. Again, this is the presumptive GOP nominee in the middle of an election year for things that he did that the prosecution said that he did to try to corrupt the last election. A remarkable scene playing out right here in Lower Manhattan.   *** ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 5/30/2024 11:43 PM ET FOREIGN REPORTER: Why are you here today? TONY BARBIERI [AS JAKE BYRD]: We're here to support the real president, Donald Trump.  [ON TV3CAT]: It's not that we think Trump is innocent. It's that we don't care.  LIDIA HEREDIA SOLER: [Speaking Foreign Language] BARBIERI: Up top. Thank you. SOLER: Thank you … ROBERT COSTA [CBS]: Trump supporters across the country, there's anger and frustration right now. And Trump campaign officials are arguing this is going to make Trump stronger inside the party. … BARBIERI: They say he's guilty of fraud. What does fraud even mean? What's it mean? I don't know, do you know? BRITISH REPORTER: Election fraud is what they found him guilty of. By hiding information that voters might have used to vote differently. That's essentially what they found him guilty of. BARBIERI: Okay, well, maybe he did that, but he’s not guilty.

Kimmel Wants to Put Trump Jury on SCOTUS, Hails Him Getting 'Some Comeuppance'

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel had the distinction of being the only late night host on the air on Thursday to react to former President Donald Trump’s New York conviction. Naturally, he and his audience were quite thrilled with Kimmel dreaming about putting the jury on the Supreme Court and being thankful that “this guy” got “some comeuppance.” Kimmel began his show by reporting, “We have a verdict in the case of the people versus O.J., I mean, D.J. Donald John Trump is guilty of 34 felony charges! After seven long weeks, the courtroom is empty and Donald Trump's diaper is full.”     Since there were no cameras allowed in the courtroom, Kimmel donned a robe and did a sketch with sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez pretending to be the jury foreman, “On the first charge of falsifying business records?” Rodriguez dutifully reported back “guilty,” which the pair repeated a couple more times before Kimmel asked, “On the next 31 charges?” to which Rodriguez gladly reported back, “Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty!” Kimmel then took off the robe to add, “Poor Donald Trump. Seven weeks of sleep-farting all down the drain. All for nothing.” Later, after playing a clip of Trump denouncing the whole thing and vowing to fight on, Kimmel mocked, “The only thing you're going to be fighting to win is the Jell-O cup on your prison cafeteria tray.”     He also mused that “We should automatically make those jurors the new Supreme Court.” Moving on to the sentencing, Kimmel noted, “Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, which happens to be the day Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. And it's the day El Chapo escaped from prison. But this is not El Chapo, this is Pork Chopo we're talking about and this is not Mexico, this is New York.” After dreaming about Trump on the side of the road picking up ketchup packets as part of a community service sentence, Kimmel reported, “As if the day wasn't rough enough for Trump, the only family member who was there with him when the verdict was read was Eric. No Melania. No Ivanka. Just stupid Eric. Actually, there was a sweet moment when the verdict was read. They say Eric, who was sitting behind his father, put his arm around his dad and he leaned in close and Trump whispered, ‘I wish this had happened to you.’” Kimmel then took glee in Trump and his supporters misfortune, “Eric did his best though to give it -- he wrote – ‘May 30th, 2024 might be remembered as the day Donald J. Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election.’ Or it will be remembered as the day a jury in New York spanked your dad even harder than Stormy did with that Forbes magazine. I think-- I guess we'll have to wait to find out. It was very satisfying to finally see this guy get some comeuppance. And even more satisfying to see all the bloodsucking jellyfish who feed off his essence lose their minds.” At least Kimmel admitted that his interest in Trump’s case was not one of following the law, but of achieving a desired result against people he doesn’t like. Here is a transcript for the May 30 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 5/30/2024 11:35 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: Thank you for joining us here in Los Angeles on what was a big afternoon in New York, and for the United States of America. We have a verdict in the case of the people versus O.J., I mean, D.J. Donald John Trump is guilty of 34 felony charges! After seven long weeks, the courtroom is empty and Donald Trump's diaper is full. The decision was unanimous. The jury wasted no time. They started deliberating yesterday. They got right to it. It played out in a strange way. At 4:15 this afternoon, reports said there would be no verdict. The judge was sending jurors home. Then, about twenty minutes later, they announced a verdict had been reached. We had to rewrite the whole monologue, it was a mess, but the decision was not televised, but it went something like this. I'll play the judge. Guillermo, you play the foreman. Okay? GUILLERMO RODRIGUEZ: Okay, okay. KIMMEL: All right. Let me put my judge's robe on real quick. There we go. Now, imagine we're in court. Foreman, have you reached a verdict? RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we have, your honor. KIMMEL: With one quick thing, the foreman is from Ireland. Do it like an accent. RODRIGUEZ [BAD IRISH ACCENT]: Oh. Yes, we have, your honor. [NORMAL VOICE] Something like that. KIMMEL: Okay. On the first charge of falsifying business records? RODRIGUEZ: Guilty. KIMMEL: On the second charge? RODRIGUEZ: Guilty. KIMMEL: On the third charge? RODRIGUEZ: Guilty. KIMMEL: On the next 31 charges? RODRIGUEZ: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty!  KIMMEL: That's right. Poor Donald Trump. Seven weeks of sleep-farting all down the drain. All for nothing. … KIMMEL: Listen, the only thing -- I have bad news. The only thing you're going to be fighting to win is the Jell-O cup on your prison cafeteria tray. Thirty-four felony charges. That's 34. That's 34. That's 34, folks. We should automatically make those jurors the new Supreme Court. Now the big question is, will he do time? After he is sentenced, he'll be allowed to appeal. Sentencing is scheduled for July 11, which happens to be the day Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. And it's the day El Chapo escaped from prison. But this is not El Chapo, this is Pork Chopo we're talking about and this is not Mexico, this is New York. Will the judge send him to Rikers Island? Will he get probation? Maybe they’ll put him under house arrest? Oh man, for Melania, that would be -- that is a double whammy with cheese is what that is. Apparently he could even be sentenced to community service. The judge could make him pick up trash along the side of the road. No joke. I vote for that. That is a beautiful image. Imagine Trump with a hefty bag picking up ketchup packets with one of those grabber pole things. Big truck goes by, blows that cotton candy hair flap to the other side of his head!  As if the day wasn't rough enough for Trump, the only family member who was there with him when the verdict was read was Eric. No Melania. No Ivanka. Just stupid Eric. Actually, there was a sweet moment when the verdict was read. They say Eric, who was sitting behind his father, put his arm around his dad and he leaned in close and Trump whispered, "I wish this had happened to you."  Eric did his best though to give it -- he wrote -- "May 30th, 2024 might be remembered as the day Donald J. Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election." Or it will be remembered as the day a jury in New York spanked your dad even harder than Stormy did with that Forbes magazine. I think-- I guess we'll have to wait to find out. It was very satisfying to finally see this guy get some comeuppance. And even more satisfying to see all the bloodsucking jellyfish who feed off his essence lose their minds.

MSNBC Waxes Poetic About Democracy's 'Shining Moment' After Trump Conviction

The cast of characters that made up the Thursday edition of Deadline: White House were provided the opportunity to give MSNBC’s first response to the news that former President Donald Trump had been convicted in New York. Host Nicolle Wallace and panelists Rachel Maddow and legal analyst/former Mueller probe prosecutor Andrew Weissmann all reacted by waxing poetic about democracy’s “shining moment” and how it withstood attempts by Trump and his allies to delegitimize the rule of law. Maddow had the first reaction, “Listen, it’s a unanimous jury verdict, unanimous on all counts. This is a definitive and, you know, this is an irreversible verdict. He can appeal. I'm sure he will appeal. But this is everything that the prosecution asked for, from a jury that by all counts took this thing very, very seriously. We counted the deliberation hours down here.”     Fun fact: MSNBC’s deliberation clock was wrong. That aside, Maddow continued, “The test here for us, as a country, is not about what happens on appeal. And is not about what happens on sentencing. The test for us now as a country is whether or not this former president and his allies will have succeeded in trying to undermine the rule of law so that people reject this as a legitimate function of the rule of law in our country. They have tried to delegitimize this judge. They have tried to delegitimize the court. They have tried to delegitimize these proceedings; they have even tried to delegitimize the laws that he's charged under.” Having concerns about D.A. Alvin Bragg’s novel theories is not the same thing as delegitimizing “the laws.” Still, Maddow repeated herself, “Those efforts are the test we now have as a country. The people involved in bringing this case have been threatened and intimidated and had everything brought to bear against them in a way that was designed to delegitimize the process in the eyes of the American people. It's now in the hands of the American people to decide if we will accept those efforts or whether we will stand by the rule of law and recognize this as a fair proceeding.” Wallace launched into an ode to the prosecution, while also patting Maddow on the back, “Well, a wise woman said a few nights ago, two Mondays ago that the rule of law is mortal. It needs to be protected. It isn’t an abstract thing and today the people have names that we've come to know. They're named Joshua Steinglass, they're named Alvin Bragg, they're named Susan Hoffinger.” Later, Weissmann tried to hail the verdict as not just a victory for the rule of law, but a foreign policy victory as well, “Jurors take it so seriously. And yes, it can be scary because of it, but, you know what, they did their job and I think that this is a testament to our joining so many other democracies in the international community who have managed to hold political leaders to account and we have shown we can do that as well in a fair process where the defendant got extremely good counsel, an incredibly fair process from this judge, in spite of his attacking the witnesses, the judge, the judge's family, the jurors.”     Further along in the program, Weissmann took a shot at the case’s critics, “Just to be clear, the attack on the rule of law is also something you have seen, which is the attack on journalism, this is all of a piece that is undermining our institutions and then flipping the script to say that somehow this is a nation in decline. No one can be happy today, but this is a day of seeing the rule of law.” He then returned to his global perspective, “I think Rachel has it totally right that this really about our democracy in a shining moment, led by a really eminent, wonderful judge who was completely dispassionate and as we said before the verdict, this was a fair process, so you have to live with it. And that is, I think, bringing our country into the modern era. I mean, there are so many countries: England, France, Italy, Israel, Argentina, that have done all of this. And they've done it much better than we have. And, you know, we think of ourselves as this first world country that is a shining, you know, beacon on the hill. Today is an example of that.” Towards the end of the 5:00 Eastern hour, former Clinton-era U.S. attorney Harry Litman stopped by to add, "We've been holding our breath as a country for a long time waiting for the cavalry to arrive in the form of the rule of law, and it did arrive today and it's a majestic day and we are rightly saying the system worked like clockwork and the jury was diligent and attentive and the judge was firm and gentle." During the first 30 minutes of MSNBC’s reaction to Trump’s conviction, the network suddenly decided that attacking a judge for their family’s political beliefs is beyond the pale and that Israel's legal system makes it a model country. Time will tell if such beliefs survive the next time the network talks about Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, or the International Criminal Court. Here is a transcript for the May 30 show: MSNBC Deadline: White House 5/30/2024 5:08 PM ET RACHEL MADDOW: Listen, it’s a unanimous jury verdict, unanimous on all counts. This is a definitive and, you know, this is an irreversible verdict. He can appeal. I'm sure he will appeal. But this is everything that the prosecution asked for, from a jury that by all counts took this thing very, very seriously. We counted the deliberation hours down here. The test here for us, as a country, is not about what happens on appeal. And is not about what happens on sentencing. The test for us now as a country is whether or not this former president and his allies will have succeeded in trying to undermine the rule of law so that people reject this as a legitimate function of the rule of law in our country. They have tried to delegitimize this judge. They have tried to delegitimize the court. They have tried to delegitimize these proceedings, they have even tried to delegitimize the laws that he's charged under.  Those efforts are the test we now have as a country. The people involved in bringing this case have been threatened and intimidated and had everything brought to bear against them in a way that was designed to delegitimize the process in the eyes of the American people. It's now in the hands of the American people to decide if we will accept those efforts or whether we will stand by the rule of law and recognize this as a fair proceeding. NICOLLE WALLACE: Well, a wise woman said a few nights ago, two Mondays ago that the rule of law is mortal. It needs to be protected. It isn’t an abstract thing and today the people have names that we've come to know. They're named Joshua Steinglass, they're named Alvin Bragg, they're named Susan Hoffinger. … ANDREW WEISSMANN: Jurors take it so seriously. And yes, it can be scary because of it, but, you know what, they did their job and I think that this is a testament to our joining so many other democracies in the international community who have managed to hold political leaders to account and we have shown we can do that as well in a fair process where the defendant got extremely good counsel, an incredibly fair process from this judge, in spite of his attacking the witnesses, the judge, the judge's family, the jurors. … Just to be clear, the attack on the rule of law is also something you have seen, which is the attack on journalism, this is all of a piece that is undermining our institutions and then flipping the script to say that somehow this is a nation in decline. No one can be happy today, but this is a day of seeing the rule of law. I think Rachel has it totally right that this really about our democracy in a shining moment, led by a really eminent, wonderful judge who was completely dispassionate and as we said before the verdict, this was a fair process, so you have to live with it. And that is, I think, bringing our country into the modern era. I mean, there are so many countries: England, France, Italy, Israel, Argentina, that have done all of this. And they've done it much better than we have. And, you know, we think of ourselves as this first world country that is a shining, you know, beacon on the hill. Today is an example of that. ... HARRY LITMAN: But, look, I want to say that the battle that Ari's referring to was always going to go forward. They'll always be a political, social reckoning. We've been holding our breath as a country for a long time waiting for the cavalry to arrive in the form of the rule of law, and it did arrive today and it's a majestic day and we are rightly saying the system worked like clockwork and the jury was diligent and attentive and the judge was firm and gentle.

Burnett to Raskin: 'You Would Hope' Alito Caves To Recusal Pressure

On Wednesday, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin wrote a truly insane New York Times op-ed where he argued that the Justice Department has the right to force Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves and in the evening, he went on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront to discuss it. Burnett was not interested in challenging his looney theories, instead claiming that “you would hope” the justices would recuse themselves because the public needs to trust institutions that are under attack, not caring to notice it was her guest who was undermining that trust. Burnett began by reading from a letter Justice Alito wrote back to Raskin about his flags nontroversy, “He wrote to Congress and part of that, quote: ‘My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flag poles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years.’”     After introducing Raskin, she snickered, “I don't know if my reaction was apparent to anyone watching, but 'my wife is fond of flying flags' and he asked her for several days to take it down and she didn't. What's your reaction to that? He's written a letter to Congress essentially tripling down on it's all his wife's fault.” The media doesn’t seem to appreciate the difference between blaming and explaining. Alito is simply explaining that his wife is her own person and that the upside-down and Appeal to Heaven flags were her ideas. At the end of the interview, Burnett appeared to again take Raskin’s side, “Well, it also seems, at the very least, just the perception of it, right, that you would hope the Supreme Court justices would care so deeply about that and to preserve institutions in this country, especially at a time when they're under such assault, that he may come to a different conclusion.” The Supreme Court is under attack from Democrats like Raskin because it is possible it will not rule the way they want. Therefore, they've concocted a conspiracy theory that alleges Mrs. Alito’s response to nasty neighborly abuse or flying a flag that was in the title credits of HBO’s John Adams miniseries and a desktop prop in NBC’s Parks and Recreation shows bias in favor of January 6 rioters. Burnett’s great solution to this is for Alito to cave, which would only encourage Raskin and his supporters to come up with even dumber allegations. Burnett added, “He says actually, Congressman, in his letter, quote, ‘any reasonable person’ he says who is not motivated by politics, or again, I quote, ‘or a desire to affect the outcome of the Supreme Court cases,’ any reasonable person who would conclude he doesn't need to recuse himself. Alito is correct because Jamie Raskin is not a reasonable person, but he did reply, “Well, it's interesting he uses that language because any reasonable person is basically the standard that's used in terms of recusal. The Supreme Court says, it's not a subjective test. Alito and Thomas, who's involved arguably in an even more complicitous situation in terms of his wife's political activities, but they seem to think that it's up to them. They can decide for themselves.” Underneath the surface of this story is a media contradiction that says that the January 6 rioters were insurrections out to destroy democracy, but that they should be powerful enough to appropriate a Revolution-era symbol and claim it as their own. Here is a transcript for the May 29 show: CNN Erin Burnett OutFront 5/29/2024 7:31 PM ET ERIN BURNETT: Tonight, defiant Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a rare letter to Congress saying he won't recuse himself from January 6-related cases. Alito fighting back against critics who say an upside down American flag flying over his home in January of 2021, as well as the second flag on the property, another one of his properties used by insurrectionists on January 6 show bias. Now, Alito says that his wife flew those flags without his awareness and actually in the case of the inverted American flag, which was sort of a standard bearer for the January 6 crowd, he says his wife actually refused for several days to take it down after he asked her to. He wrote to Congress and part of that, quote: “My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not. My wife was solely responsible for having flag poles put up at our residence and our vacation home and has flown a wide variety of flags over the years.” Okay. OutFront now, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, also a lawyer and a former constitutional law professor, right, and he's written an op-ed arguing that there is a way to force Alito to recuse himself from January 6 cases. And, Congressman, I so much appreciate your time and obviously, I want to get to your op-ed, that's the heart of this. But, first, I just as I was reading that, I don't know if my reaction was apparent to anyone watching, but “my wife is fond of flying flags” and he asked her for several days to take it down and she didn't. What's your reaction to that? He's written a letter to Congress essentially tripling down on it's all his wife's fault. … BURNETT: Well, it also seems, at the very least, just the perception of it, right, that you would hope the Supreme Court justices would care so deeply about that and to preserve institutions in this country, especially at a time when they're under such assault, that he may come to a different conclusion. But he got -- he says actually, Congressman, in his letter, quote, “any reasonable person” he says who is not motivated by politics, or again, I quote, “or a desire to affect the outcome of the Supreme Court cases,” any reasonable person who would conclude he doesn't need to recuse himself. RASKIN: Yeah. BURNETT: What do you say to that? RASKIN: Well, it's interesting he uses that language because any reasonable person is basically the standard that's used in terms of recusal. The Supreme Court says, it's not a subjective test. Alito and Thomas, who's involved arguably in an even more complicitous situation in terms of his wife's political activities, but they seem to think that it's up to them. They can decide for themselves. But what the Supreme Court has said is that this is an objective test, not a question of subjective introspection and will on the part of the particular judge. And any reasonable person would look at this situation and say, these judges at the very least have a deep appearance of bias in these cases, you know? And if you look at the Pennsylvania case which I discussed, that the Supreme Court decided, there, again, the court said it's not a subjective test. It's an objective test. And then in looking at it, there are a whole series of criteria that are borrowed from the ABA. And then they also said, finally, that it's not enough to say, well, it's just one justice out of nine because it's not just their vote, which would be unethically, unconstitutionally cast. It's their ability to influence the other justices as well, which is so problematic.

Amanpour Mispresents CNN's Own Report To Urge Weapons Halt To Israel

Christiane “Be Truthful, Not Neutral” Amanpour lied by omission on Wednesday's edition of Amanpour and Company, which airs globally on CNN and domestically on PBS. She reported that American munitions were used recently in an Israeli strike that “killed more than 45 people,” but omitted that the warhead on the bomb was not big enough to create the massive fire that caused all those deaths by itself. Amanpour kicked off the show by attacking President Joe Biden from the left, “Israel's assault on Rafah is intensifying, but the U.S. president, Joe Biden, is not changing tack. The White House asserts it hasn't yet seen a major ground operation there. But that's done nothing to temper global outrage after an Israeli airstrike killed more than 45 people in a displacement camp in Southern Gaza on Sunday.”     She then added, “A CNN analysis has found that U.S.-made munitions were used in that attack.” Here’s what the CNN report says in greater detail: “In video shared on social media, which CNN geolocated to the same scene by matching details including the camp’s entrance sign and the tiles on the ground, the tail of a US-made GBU-39 small diameter bomb (SDB) is visible, according to four explosive weapons experts who reviewed the video for CNN.” CNN reported that its conclusion matches Israel’s: [IDF Spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel] Hagari told reporters the strike – which he said targeted senior Hamas commanders – used two munitions with small warheads containing 17 kilos of explosives, adding these bombs were ‘the smallest munitions that our jets could use.’ The traditional GBU-39 warhead has an explosive payload of 17 kilos. Hagari said the deadly fire which occurred following the strike was not caused solely by weapons used by the Israeli military. Biden’s previous halt on weapons shipments to Israel was over 500-2,000 pound bombs. Israel listened to his concerns about larger munitions in Rafah and used a much smaller bomb with a 37 pound warhead, but Amanpour omitted all that. Instead, she welcomed Sen. Chris Van Hollen and asked him, “Does the United States have leverage? I mean, it does, but is it prepared to use it? It appears – I mean, again, this is, you know, the impression we get that all the admonitions and recommendations from Israel's biggest backer, i.e., the United States, the president of the United States, don't seem to have affected action on the ground, and we keep seeing civilian casualties. Prime Minister himself, Netanyahu, called it a tragic mistake the other day that would be investigated. Are you confident that the United States is able to use its leverage or should be using more leverage?” Van Hollen replied: Oh, Christiane, I think we should and can be using more leverage in order to pursue our interests, which I believe are also in the best interests of Israel, both in terms of the Rafah operation, but also what's next. I mean, after all, Benny Gantz said he's going to leave the war cabinet shortly if he doesn't see a post-war plan for governing Gaza. So, you would think that the United States could take the position that, you know, we're not going to continue to provide a blank check until we see a post-war plan that meets our concerns and meets the interests that the president has announced. Instead, we see Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly and repeatedly rebuffing the president of the United States, whether it's on having the P.A. having a governance role in Gaza, whether it's for a two-state solution, to provide some light at the end of the tunnel as part of the normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia and others. Time and again, we see Prime Minister Netanyahu rebuffing the position and requests of the United States. And so, yes, we should be doing more to exercise our influence. Amanpour, the self-appointed champion of truthfulness over neutrality, couldn’t be bothered to mention that Gantz, Van Hollen’s great hope, wanted to attack Rafah earlier and also opposes the creation of a Palestinian state.

PBS Uncritically Hypes ICC Allegations To Paint Netanyahu As Out Of Touch

PBS ran an updated version of their December Frontline documentary on the Gaza War on Tuesday by concluding with a montage of soundbites intended to portray Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as out of touch with the world, the International Criminal Court, and even his own country. No rebuttals were included. The original 2023 documentary was something of an anti-Netanyahu screed meant to equate him with Hamas and Palestinian dead-enders like Yasser Arafat's actions at Camp David in 2000. The revised 2024 version ended with narrator Will Lyman recalling Netanyahu and President Joe Biden’s embrace, “Now, the two men who’d embraced on the tarmac are at a critical juncture as the consequences of the war accumulate.”     That kicked off a montage of news reports, including “The calls for accountability are now growing” and “Israeli forces admit they killed seven aid workers delivering food to starving Palestinians.” Lyman also recalled that “President Biden recently took the extreme step of pausing a shipment of bombs to Israel,” before another reporter was heard declaring that “Biden warned Israel against authorizing a military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.” Another news report relayed the news that “the International Criminal Court has announced it is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” That included a clip of Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan adding, “It’s alleged that these crimes were committed in the context of the ongoing armed conflict.” As for Israel itself, Amos Harel of the left-wing Haaretz declared, “We have a leader who's mistrusted by most of the Israeli voters, and yet he's leading us through our worst crisis since this country was established 75 years ago. And this is part of the tragedy. We may be facing not only our worst security situation, but also a huge political crisis with no kind of solution on the horizon.” PBS really did its viewers a disservice. The changes were sold as an update to the previous version, but in reality, it just threw spaghetti at Netanyahu to see what it could get to stick. It didn’t note, for instance, that the IDF did more after strike that killed seven food aid workers PBS highlighted than Joe Biden did after the Kabul drone strike in 2021, despite Khan justifying his decision to seek Netanyahu’s arrest on the premise that Israel refuses to investigate itself. Furthermore, Khan apparently lied to Israeli and American officials of both parties when he told them he would go to Israel to consult with the government before making any decisions. Instead, he went on CNN to announce the decision to seek arrest warrants. As for Harel, PBS ignores some key facts. For instance, Netanyahu has been under pressure by Benny Gantz, an opposition leader who joined a unity war cabinet after October 7, to come up with a post-war strategy and has threatened to resign if Netanyahu fails to come up with one. Gantz is portrayed in the American media as a more reasonable and centrist politician, but in presenting his demands, his office criticized Netanyahu for waiting too long to attack Rafah. For the media, the last point is critical. Not all Israeli criticism of Netanyahu is the same and projecting the American political spectrum onto Israeli domestic politics is a mistake. Netanyahu’s American critics, and some of his Israeli critics accuse him of prolonging the war for his own political benefit or accuse him of being too reckless in prosecuting the war. Yet, when he listens on the latter, he is accused by non-right-wing rivals of being too timid, but discussing that would undermine PBS’s narrative that Netanyahu is an irredeemable right-winger who is just as much to blame for the current situation as Hamas. Here is a transcript for the May 28 show: PBS Frontline: Netanyahu, America & the Road to War in Gaza (2024 Version) 5/28/2024 11:21 PM ET WILL LYMAN: Now, the two men who’d embraced on the tarmac are at a critical juncture as the consequences of the war accumulate. FEMALE NEWSREADER: The calls for accountability are now growing. FEMALE NEWSREADER 2: Israeli forces admit they killed seven aid workers delivering food to starving Palestinians. LYMAN: President Biden recently took the extreme step of pausing a shipment of bombs to Israel. JOE BIDEN: We’re not walking away from Israel’s security. We’re walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas. FEMALE NEWSREADER 3: Biden warned Israel against authorizing a military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. LYMAN: Netanyahu has not backed down. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: [Speaking Hebrew] If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone. I have said that if necessary we will fight with our fingernails. But we have much more than fingernails. LYMAN: But he is increasingly under pressure. FEMALE NEWSREADER 4: Breaking this morning, the International Criminal Court has announced it is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. MALE NEWSREADER: They’re all charged for war crimes or crimes against humanity. KARIM KHAN: It’s alleged that these crimes were committed in the context of the ongoing armed conflict. LYMAN: And he's facing challenges at home. AMOS HAREL: We have a leader who's mistrusted by most of the Israeli voters, and yet he's leading us through our worst crisis since this country was established 75 years ago. And this is part of the tragedy. We may be facing not only our worst security situation, but also a huge political crisis with no kind of solution on the horizon.

Ruhle Cheers 'Politically Neutral' Ken Burns Claiming Trump Is 'National Suicide'

Using a non-political event like a college graduation ceremony to push your views that democracy will end if the candidate you do not like wins, to most people, seems inappropriate, but to MSNBC’s host of The 11th Hour, Stephanie Ruhle on Tuesday, famous PBS documentarian Ken Burns doing just that recently was a cause for celebration. Ruhle began, “The last thing before we go, wise words from Ken Burns. Award-winning documentary filmmaker and historian Ken Burns has done his best to remain politically neutral over the years. That is, until now. He explained this to the graduating students of Brandeis University on why he cannot stay silent about this upcoming presidential election. Watch this.”     Ruhle wants to portray Burns as the guy who made a baseball documentary in the 90s, but, unfortunately for her, he is also the guy who compared Florida under Ron DeSantis to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. As for Burns’s actual remarks, he waxed poetic about the upcoming election, “There is no real choice this November. There is only the perpetuation, however flawed and feeble you might perceive it, of our fragile 249-year-old experiment or the entropy that will engulf and destroy us if we take the other route. When, as Mercy Otis Warren would say, ‘the checks of conscience are thrown aside and a deformed picture of the soul is revealed.’” He also referred to Donald Trump as “is the opioid of all opioids. An easy cure for what some believe is the solution to our myriad pains and problems. When in fact, with him, you end up re-enslaved with an even bigger problem, a worse affliction, and addiction. A bigger delusion, James Baldwin would say, the author and finisher of our national existence. Our national suicide, as Mr. Lincoln prophesizes.” He urged the graduates to “not be seduced by easy equalization. There is nothing equal about this equation. We are at an existential crossroads in our political and civic lives. This is a choice that could not be clearer.” After the clip, Ruhle returned to add, “Strong words from the soft-spoken and great Ken Burns for taking us off the air tonight.” Like many in public broadcasting, Burns may have spoken in a relatively hushed tone, but “soft” is not an appropriate way of describing Republicans as drugs that will deliver “national suicide,” especially at a commencement address.  Here is a transcript for the May 28 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour 5/28/2024 11:58 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, wise words from Ken Burns. Award-winning documentary filmmaker and historian Ken Burns has done his best to remain politically neutral over the years. That is, until now. He explained this to the graduating students of Brandeis University on why he cannot stay silent about this upcoming presidential election. Watch this. KEN BURNS: There is no real choice this November. There is only the perpetuation, however flawed and feeble you might perceive it, of our fragile 249-year-old experiment or the entropy that will engulf and destroy us if we take the other route. When, as Mercy Otis Warren would say, “the checks of conscience are thrown aside and a deformed picture of the soul is revealed.”  The presumptive Republican nominee is the opioid of all opioids. An easy cure for what some believe is the solution to our myriad pains and problems. When in fact, with him, you end up re-enslaved with an even bigger problem, a worse affliction, and addiction. A bigger delusion, James Baldwin would say, the author and finisher of our national existence. Our national suicide, as Mr. Lincoln prophesizes Do not be seduced by easy equalization. There is nothing equal about this equation. We are at an existential crossroads in our political and civic lives. This is a choice that could not be clearer.  [Jump Cut] Remember what Louis Brandeis said. The most important political office is that of the private citizen. Vote, you indelibly—please vote.  You indelibly underscore citizenship and most important, our kinship with each other when you do. Good luck and Godspeed RUHLE: Strong words from the soft-spoken and great Ken Burns for taking us off the air tonight.

60 Minutes Wonders If Abbott's Border Fight Is About Secession

CBS’s Cecilia Vega recently traveled to Texas to interview Gov. Greg Abbott for a 60 Minutes profile on the state’s fight with the federal government over border enforcement. Vega immediately reached for the most hysterical explanation she could think of, asking Abbott if the dispute was about secession. Before any questions, Vega set the scene as she narrated over some video footage: We were on the banks of the river before dawn with soldiers from the Texas National Guard. We heard the cries of people before we could see their faces. It wasn't until we moved closer that we realized how many people had just crossed from Mexico. The soldiers told them it was dangerous to cross here. ‘Help us,’ they begged. Some of the women cried, ‘we have children.’ We heard groans and found this young man twisting in the wire. He kept going. ‘Stay calm,’ they told each other, as families pushed their children through. Nearly everyone we saw made it across and into the United States. Thousands of people a day crossed here in late December, a record for this section of the Texas border. There were so many people, the U.S. Border Patrol had to transform Shelby Park into an open-air holding center.      Still narrating, Vega moved on to Abbott, “Weeks later, once the surge died down, Governor Abbott ordered his Texas National Guard to block the federal government's border patrol from entering the park without permission. Governor Abbott argued the federal government had failed to fulfill its obligation to the states. And in that, some heard echoes of Texas' history of rebellion and threats of secession.” Now sitting across from Abbott, she asked, “I can't believe, governor, I'm going to ask you this question. But I'm going to ask you. Do you believe that Texas has the right to secede? Is that what we're talking about here?” Abbott quickly batted the idea away, “Those are false narratives. What Texas and the United States have the right to do and that's to enforce the law.” Vega followed up, “You heard the argument against what you're doing out here. Each state can't control its own border policy. You're looking at a completely chaotic system. That's the job of the federal government.” Again, Abbott rejected the premise, “We’re not imposing a Texas border policy. Texas is very simply is enforcing the laws that are the policy of the United States Congress.” The rest of the segment tried to pain the situation at the border as inherently complex and even included former Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz criticizing Abbott and President Joe Biden, but if it is really that complex, why did Vega lead off by wasting everyone's time by asking about secession? Here is a transcript for the May 26 show: CBS 60 Minutes 5/26/2024 7:06 PM ET CECILIA VEGA: We were on the banks of the river before dawn with soldiers from the Texas National Guard. We heard the cries of people before we could see their faces. It wasn't until we moved closer that we realized how many people had just crossed from Mexico. The soldiers told them it was dangerous to cross here. “Help us,” they begged. Some of the women cried, “we have children.” We heard groans and found this young man twisting in the wire. He kept going. “Stay calm,” they told each other, as families pushed their children through. Nearly everyone we saw made it across and into the United States. Thousands of people a day crossed here in late December, a record for this section of the Texas border. There were so many people, the U.S. Border Patrol had to transform Shelby Park into an open-air holding center.  Weeks later, once the surge died down, Governor Abbott ordered his Texas National Guard to block the federal government's border patrol from entering the park without permission. Governor Abbott argued the federal government had failed to fulfill its obligation to the states. And in that, some heard echoes of Texas' history of rebellion and threats of secession. I can't believe, governor, I'm going to ask you this question. But I'm going to ask you. Do you believe that Texas has the right to secede? Is that what we're talking about here? GREG ABBOTT: Those are false narratives. What Texas and the United States have the right to do and that's to enforce the law. VEGA: You heard the argument against what you're doing out here. Each state can't control its own border policy. You're looking at a completely chaotic system. That's the job of the federal government. ABBOTT: We’re not imposing a Texas border policy. Texas is very simply is enforcing the laws that are the policy of the United States Congress.

WashPost Reveals It Passed On Alito-Upside Down Flag Story In 2021

The conservative reaction to the freakout over Justice Samuel Alito’s flags has been to argue that this is a phony scandal ginned up by liberals and journalists (but we repeat ourselves) to delegitimize the Supreme Court. A Saturday report from the Washington Post appears to confirm those beliefs, as Justin Jouvenal and Ann Marimow reported that the Post passed on the story in 2021. The duo began, “The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was ‘an international signal of distress’ and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute.” They also report that the Post, at the time, saw no reason to view the upside flag as being connected to sympathy for the January 6 rioters and the belief that Samuel and Martha-Ann are different people, “The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said.” Back in 2021, since-retired Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes went to the Alito home where “the justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it.” Jouvenal and Marimow further recall Martha-Ann imploring Barnes to ‘“Ask them what they did!’ She said yard signs about the couple had been placed in the neighborhood. After getting back in the car, she exited again and then brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would typically decorate a garden. She hoisted it up the flagpole. ‘There! Is that better?’ she yelled.” They also note Alito’s statement to the Post back then was “almost identical” to what he told The New York Times when the story broke. The rest of the article is spent giving biographical details on the Alitos or rehashing the liberal case that Alito did something wrong and should recuse himself from all January 6-related cases, even going so far as to get former federal judge Nancy Gertner, the words "Clinton-appointed" being nowhere to be found, to imply Alito was lying, “The ‘notion that [Justice Alito] let it happen or didn’t pay attention is extraordinary,’ Gertner said. ‘He understood the context. They were having a political battle, and this was a political statement.’”  In 2021, the Post saw nothing newsworthy in the case of the Alitos’ upside down flag, but in 2024, they threw themselves under the bus in order to fall in line with the rest of the media trying to make something into a bigger deal than it is.

ABC, NBC, and CBS Mislead On Court Ruling To Portray Israel As Lawless

The Saturday network morning shows consisting of ABC’s Good Morning America, NBC’s Today, and CBS Saturday Morning all discussed the International Court of Justice’s Friday ruling against Israel by portraying the country as defying the court’s order to halt its battle against Hamas in Rafah. However, what the court actually ruled was more complicated, leaving viewers unaware that Israel may not be in violation of the ruling at all. CBS was the worst offender. Host Dana Jacobson began, “The United Nations’s highest court has ordered Israel to immediately end its military operations in Rafah in southern Gaza, but it stopped short of demanding a full cease-fire. The court itself has no enforcement powers, but the U.N. measure is the latest of legal and diplomatic challenges for Israel.”     Of the 13 judges in the majority opinion, two wrote additional opinions, echoed by the two dissenters, stating they believe they are ruling that Israel can continue to operate in Rafah, it just needs to comply with its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Israel claims it is already doing. Only one, the ad hoc judge from South Africa, interpreted the ruling as saying Israel must completely stop. The other ten remained silent. By contrast, the ICJ’s ruling against Russia was much clearer, ordering it to “immediately suspend” its operations against Ukraine. Correspondent Imtiaz Tyab added to the confusion, “Israel's response was ferocious. Making it clear it won't stop its military operation in Rafah. The court, which is also investigating Israel for, quote, ‘plausible genocide,’ also said 800,000 Palestinians have been displaced since Israeli forces launched an offensive there two weeks ago. Triggering a humanitarian situation the ICJ called disastrous.” Retired Judge Joan Donoghue was on the court during the “plausible genocide” ruling Tyab mentioned and she recently criticized the media in a BBC interview, claiming it is misrepresenting that ruling. The court ruled that it is “plausible” that Palestinians are a protected class under the Genocide Convention, not that it is "plausible" that Israel is committing genocide. Over at ABC, host Whit Johnson also oversimplified the ruling, “This morning, international pressure on Israel is intensifying after the U.N.’s top court called for a halt to the offensive in Gaza.” Correspondent Britt Clennett also got in on the action, “The fighting rages on in Gaza despite the ruling by the U.N.'s top court urging Israel to stop its very controversial military operation in Rafah… Even though the ICJ can make legally binding rulings in disputes between countries. In this case, it has no way of enforcing those orders. So, instead, it has to rely on tools from other governments like sanctions or even arms embargoes to really press Israel into compliance, but this ruling is symbolic, it is largely symbolic, it does add to Israel’s increasing isolation we're seeing on the world stage.” Meanwhile, at NBC, host Peter Alexander similarly avoided the court’s ambiguous ruling, “Now to the war in Gaza, despite an international court ordering Israel to stop its assault on Rafah, the Israelis say that they will continue their operations.” Correspondent Meagan Fitzgerald echoed those sentiments, “The International Court of Justice issued a three pronged order here telling Israel to immediately stop its offensive in Rafah, to open the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, and to allow in humanitarian aid, and ordering Israel to provide access to the enclave so investigators can determine if Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While this is a significant ruling, Israel is showing no signs that they're willing to comply with stopping their offensive, and in fact, our teams on the ground in Gaza have seen air strikes since the ruling came down.” The ICJ’s ambiguity on Rafah is not a defense of the ICJ. On one hand, it wants to claim Israel needs to do more to protect civilians and on the other, as Tyab reported, it calls the evacuation of civilians from the combat zone disastrous. It holds Israel accountable for Egypt holding up aid, and it should’ve simply ruled Rafah is a legitimate target under Article 51, Section 7 of the Additional Protocol of the Geneva Convention, but it does show that Israel isn’t the rogue state the Saturday shows portrayed it as. Here are transcripts for the May 25 shows: ABC Good Morning America 5/25/2024 7:08 AM ET WHIT JOHNSON: We turn now between the war between Israel and Hamas. This morning, international pressure on Israel is intensifying after the U.N.’s top court called for a halt to the offensive in Gaza. Britt Clennett joins us from Tel Aviv with the latest. Britt, good morning. BRITT CLENNETT: Good morning, Whit, yeah. The fighting rages on in Gaza despite the ruling by the U.N.'s top court urging Israel to stop its very controversial military operation in Rafah. Now, Israel said the court ruling was outrageous. It said it was morally repugnant, it said it was disgusting, and it said that claims that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza are false, that it is acting within international law.  Even though the ICJ can make legally binding rulings in disputes between countries. In this case, it has no way of enforcing those orders. So, instead, it has to rely on tools from other governments like sanctions or even arms embargoes to really press Israel into compliance, but this ruling is symbolic, it is largely symbolic, it does add to Israel’s increasing isolation we're seeing on the world stage. *** NBC Today 5/25/2024 7:08 AM ET PETER ALEXANDER: Now to the war in Gaza, despite an international court ordering Israel to stop its assault on Rafah, the Israelis say that they will continue their operations, they’re looking to root out terrorists in the heavily populated city and it all comes as Egypt says it’s agreed to send United Nations humanitarian trucks into Gaza through a critical crossing. NBC’s Meagan Fitzgerald joins us with the very latest this morning. Meagan, good morning. MEAGAN FITZGERALD: Peter, good morning. The International Court of Justice issued a three pronged order here telling Israel to immediately stop its offensive in Rafah, to open the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza, and to allow in humanitarian aid, and ordering Israel to provide access to the enclave so investigators can determine if Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.  While this is a significant ruling, Israel is showing no signs that they're willing to comply with stopping their offensive, and in fact, our teams on the ground in Gaza have seen air strikes since the ruling came down. The Israeli government has released a statement Friday saying they embarked on a just defensive war following the attacks on October 7th, and it's acting to reduce as much harm as possible to civilians.  Now, keep in mind, while the order is binding, there's no way for the court to enforce it, but there’s no doubt this is a blow to Israel’s international standings, and it’s one that adds even more pressure to prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  *** CBS Saturday Morning 5/25/2024 8:10 AM ET DANA JACOBSON: The United Nations’s highest court has ordered Israel to immediately end its military operations in Rafah in southern Gaza, but it stopped short of demanding a full cease-fire. The court itself has no enforcement powers, but the U.N. measure is the latest of legal and diplomatic challenges for Israel. The increasingly isolated government has been facing pressure on all sides to end the war and bring the hostages home, but so far they show no signs of complying with the world court's order. Imtiaz Tyab has more. IMTIAZ TYAB: Israel's response was ferocious. Making it clear it won't stop its military operation in Rafah. The court, which is also investigating Israel for, quote, “plausible genocide,” also said 800,000 Palestinians have been displaced since Israeli forces launched an offensive there two weeks ago. Triggering a humanitarian situation the ICJ called disastrous. 

MSNBC Claims 'The Through Line' Between Alito And Thomas Is Opposing Voting Rights

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal joined MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes on Friday for a profoundly unenlightening conversation about all of the Supreme Court’s recent news and nontroversies. In Mystal’s mind, “the through line” between Justice Samuel Alito’s flags and Clarence Thomas’s “coup story” is that they don’t support voting rights for black people. Hayes kicked things off by stating, “I want to start on what we got from the Court today and the fact it was an Alito-authored decision. It was an Alito-authored decision from the Trump majority, 6-3 majority, liberals in dissent, holding up a Republican gerrymander.”     Mystal wasted no time in getting to the hysteria, “Yeah, the through line between the Alito flag story, the Clarence Thomas coup story, and their wives, and what we saw today from the Supreme Court in this gerrymandering decision, the through line is that they don't want black people's votes to count equally.” Hayes interrupted to ask, “Do you think that is true of Clarence Thomas?” Implying that Thomas married a white woman out of some sense of self-loathing, Mystal affirmed that he does, “I know that's true from Clarence Thomas, alright. Their idea and Clarence Thomas today wrote straight up, that he does not think the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment can be used to protect the voting rights of black people. I mean, he's ain’t married to Ginni Thomas for nothing, alright, that's what the man thinks, he wrote it today.” That is not what Thomas wrote and no matter how many times MSNBC claims it is, it will not become true.  Getting back to his original point, Mystal continued, “The through line, understand this, Chris, when these people like Alito and Thomas support the insurrection, right, what are they really saying? They’re saying that Trump won-- lost the election, but won the white vote which is true, he did, he won the white vote by a lot, white people should probably do something about that, but he won the white vote by a lot and what Alito and Thomas are saying is that white vote that Trump won is—that’s the only votes that matter.” He added, “That we should do what the white voters want and when they write these decisions like they are doing in the gerrymandering case, what they are saying is that black voters can be diluted, can have their voting rights taken away, simply because black voters happen to vote Democrat.” Thomas and Alito believe that voting rights apply to all people, they just reject the notion that voting rights are synonymous with Mystal’s preferred candidate always winning, which is ironic as he accuses them of delegitimizing elections. Here is a transcript for the May 24 show: MSNBC All In With Chris Hayes 5/24/2024 8:13 PM ET CHRIS HAYES: I want to start on what we got from the Court today and the fact it was an Alito-authored decision. It was an Alito-authored decision from the Trump majority, 6-3 majority, liberals in dissent, holding up a Republican gerrymander. ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah, the through line between the Alito flag story, the Clarence Thomas coup story, and their wives, and what we saw today from the Supreme Court in this gerrymandering decision, the through line is that they don't want black people's votes to count equally. HAYES: Do you think that is true of Clarence Thomas? MYSTAL: I know that's true from Clarence Thomas, alright. Their idea and Clarence Thomas today wrote straight up, that he does not think the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment can be used to protect the voting rights of black people.  HAYES: Yes. MYSTAL: I mean, he's ain’t married to Ginni Thomas for nothing, alright, that's what the man thinks, he wrote it today. The through line, understand this, Chris, when these people like Alito and Thomas support the insurrection, right, what are they really saying? They’re saying that Trump won-- lost the election, but won the white vote which is true, he did, he won the white vote by a lot, white people should probably do something about that, but he won the white vote by a lot and what Alito and Thomas are saying is that white vote that Trump won is—that’s the only votes that matter. That we should do what the white voters want and when they write these decisions like they are doing in the gerrymandering case, what they are saying is that black voters can be diluted, can have their voting rights taken away, simply because black voters happen to vote Democrat.

Mitchell Spreads Disinformation About Thomas Condemning Brown v. Board

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell spread straight-up disinformation on her Friday show as she accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of condemning the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education that ruled segregation unconstitutional because, apparently, nobody at MSNBC knows how to read. The context was the Court ruling that South Carolina did not do anything illegal in not drawing a second district where black voters would’ve made a substantial portion of the electorate. Addressing the NCAAP’s Janai Nelson, Mitchell read, “something that really was striking to me is Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion with the majority, he also went after Brown v. Board of Education, saying quote ‘such extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.’”     Flabbergasted, she continued, “Now, Clarence Thomas took the seat of Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board for the Legal Defense Fund. This landmark case that changed America forever. So, I’m just-- I can't get over that. Tell me what your reaction is.” Most people know Brown was decided in 1954 and banned segregation, but fewer people are aware of a second case decided in 1955 with the same name. It was that one Thomas was criticizing. Here’s what he wrote in full context: The Court’s ‘impatience with the pace of desegregation’ caused by resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, … ‘led us to approve . . . extraordinary remedial measures,’ … In the follow-on case to Brown, the Court considered ‘the manner in which relief [was] to be accorded’ for vindication of ‘the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional.’ Brown v. Board of Education, … (1955) (Brown II). In doing so, the Court took a boundless view of equitable remedies, describing equity as being “characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. That understanding may have justified temporary measures to 'overcome the widespread resistance to the dictates of the Constitution' prevalent at that time, but, as a general matter, ‘[s]uch extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.’” Thomas clearly wrote “Brown II” and was clearly not condemning desegregation. Of course, Nelson wasn’t going to call Mitchell out on her disinformation. Instead, she also claimed Thomas was talking about Brown I and accused Thomas of being the one spreading fake news, “Well, we know Justice Thomas took the seat, but he did not fill it and what he did in disseminating disinformation about a landmark decision whose commemoration we just honored this past Friday, 70 years since Brown we see a Supreme Court justice who benefitted from Brown, as did every American, castigating that case, misconstruing it and suggesting that it stands for something that it does not.” Andrea Mitchell has been forced to issue multiple corrections for spreading fake news. It is time she does so again. Here is a transcript for the May 24 show: MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports 5/24/2024 12:49 PM ET ANDREA MITCHELL: And also, Janai, something that really was striking to me is Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion with the majority, he also went after Brown v. Board of Education, saying quote “such extravagant uses of judicial power are at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.” Now, Clarence Thomas took the seat of Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown v. Board for the Legal Defense Fund. This landmark case that changed America forever. So, I’m just-- I can't get over that. Tell me what your reaction is. JANAI NELSON: Well, we know Justice Thomas took the seat, but he did not fill it and what he did in disseminating disinformation about a landmark decision whose commemoration we just honored this past Friday, 70 years since Brown we see a Supreme Court justice who benefitted from Brown, as did every American, castigating that case, misconstruing it and suggesting that it stands for something that it does not. Brown requires that we provide equal access to our democracy through education, and it's anchored in the idea of citizenship. Brown said that one of the most important functions of local and state government is to provide an education for purposes of citizenship, and citizenship could not be more clearly exercised than through the voting process, and what the Supreme Court has done in Alexander v. South Carolina is completely distort that process, manipulate it, and allow partisan actors to completely capture that process in a way that directly harms black voters. It’s an invitation to exploit black voters for partisan gain.

CNN: Latinos Voting For Trump Have 'A Very Stupid Attitude'

CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta and senior political commentator and occasionally co-host of The View Ana Navarro sought on Friday to explain the “disconnect” between former President Donald Trump’s “rhetoric… about migrants” and minority support for him. Navarro claimed such voters have “a very stupid attitude” and suggested they are on a doomed mission to appease racists who shoot up Walmarts. Acosta took it for granted that a disconnect exists, “I mean, you and I've talked about this many times about his rhetoric, the rhetoric he uses to talk about migrants and so on and I just have to ask you, Ana, I mean, when you look at the poll numbers and you see, if you break out the demographics, Trump is doing better among Latinos. He is doing better among African American voters and it's certainly is a threat to the president's reelection campaign. Is there a disc— I mean what do you make of this disconnect.”     Navarro rattled off a number of things, starting with: I think America has a little bit of amnesia when it comes to Donald Trump and frankly, being in a courtroom for the last 20 days, I think, has helped him because he's not been out in rallies saying the stupid stuff he says and the incendiary, outrageous things he says on a daily basis. We've been focusing on Michael Cohen, we’ve been focusing on Stormy Daniels. We haven't been focusing on the things that Donald Trump says. Another thing is, I think at this point in 2024, this is kinda baked in, people already know the guy’s a misogynist, they already know he's a racist, they already know he says divisive things and they seem not to take him literally or seriously. They think it’s, kind of, part of a clown act, entertainment.” She also claimed, “this is the truth and you and I know this as Latinos, there are some Latino immigrants who forget they came here as immigrants and who want to shut the door behind them, and who think being anti-immigrant somehow is going to make them pass as more American, pass as whatever.” Navarro kept rolling, “And that's a very stupid attitude to have because what folks don’t realize is that when the guy drives thousands of miles to go hunt down Latinos in a Walmart in Texas. He doesn't care when you came here he doesn't care what your accent is, what he's looking for is “Does it look like me, does it sound like?” That's what he's looking for. So, you know, when people are anti-something, they're not asking for your papers, they're just anti-that group.” While decent people may consider it outrageous that Navarro appeared to put Trump voters into boxes of either racists or self-haters who are trying to appease racists, Acosta was not going to bring sanity to the conversation. Instead, the anchor agreed, muttering “right” and “yeah” as Navarro rambled. Here is a transcript for the May 24 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 5/24/2024 10:26 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: I mean, you and I've talked about this many times about his rhetoric, the rhetoric he uses to talk about migrants and so on and I just have to ask you, Ana, I mean, when you look at the poll numbers and you see, if you break out the demographics, Trump is doing better among Latinos. He is doing better among African American voters and it's certainly is a threat to the president's reelection campaign. Is there a disc— I mean what do you make of this disconnect.” ANA NAVARRO: Well, a few things. One is I think America has a little bit of amnesia when it comes to Donald Trump and frankly being in a courtroom for the last 20 days, I think, has helped him because he's not been out in rallies saying the stupid stuff he says and the incendiary, outrageous things he says on a daily basis. We've been focusing on Michael Cohen, we’ve been focusing on Stormy Daniels. We haven't been focusing on the things that Donald Trump says. Another thing is, I think at this point in 2024, this is kinda baked in, people already know the guy’s a misogynist, they already know he's a racist, they already know he says divisive things and they seem not to take him literally or seriously. They think it’s, kind of, part of a clown act, entertainment and then the third thing, Jim, and this is the truth and you and I know this as Latinos, there are some Latino immigrants who forget they came here as immigrants and who want to shut the door behind them and, who think being anti-immigrant somehow is going to make them pass as more American, pass as whatever. And that's a very stupid attitude to have because what folks don’t realize is that when the guy drives thousands of miles to go hunt down Latinos in a Walmart in Texas. He doesn't care when you came here he doesn't care— ACOSTA: Right. NAVARRO: -- what your accent is, what he's looking for is “Does it look like me, does it sound like?” That's what he's looking for. ACOSTA: Yeah. NAVARRO: So, you know, when people are anti-something, they're not asking for your papers, they're just anti-that group.

Colbert, Daily Show Smear Alito as Trying To Overthrow The Government

CBS’s Stephen Colbert and Comedy Central’s Michael Kosta and Troy Iwata continued the left-wing efforts to smear Justice Samuel Alito as some sort of insurrectionist or theocrat on their respective Thursday installments of The Late Show and The Daily Show for flying a Revolution-era Appeal to Heaven flag at his home. Colbert was especially bad because, while he admitted the flag’s original purpose had nothing to do with January 6, he just doesn’t care, “The Appeal to Heaven flag is not a new flag. It was first carried during the American Revolution, but it's more recently been co-opted by Christian nationalists, specifically championed by a right-wing Christian author named Dutch Sheets.”     After some jokes about Sheets’s name, Colbert got back on track and threw Speaker Mike Johnson into the conversation as well, “Mr. Sheets made it his mission to promote this flag among right-wing nutjobulists, and it's working because Speaker Johnson has also hung the flag outside his office. When asked about it, Johnson said, ‘It's George Washington's flag... It has nothing to do with stop the steal.’” Colbert was not happy, “Yes, it does! When a nearly forgotten symbol is brought back and widely co-opted, you don't get to use it in the old way. If a guy named Brandon says, ‘Actually, this swastika above my bed is referring to the ancient sanskrit symbol for good luck,’ he's a Nazi, Cheryl!” Despite his loathing of the January 6 rioters and the Stop the Steal movement, Colbert sure is willing to give them a lot of power to redefine Revolution-era symbols. Furthermore, mature people can differentiate between actual Nazis and people from South Asia using the swastika in its traditional context, just like mature people can differentiate between Revolutionary War and Founding-era history buffs and Stop the Steal followers. Circling back to Alito, Colbert added, “Sam Alito keeps saying that everyone on the Supreme Court is completely unbiased and non-political! I mean, there's nothing wrong if Aaron Judge wears a Yankees jersey, but it's different if the umpire does it! Balls and strikes, right? Balls and strikes.” Over at Comedy Central, Kosta huffed, “Look, I'm not an expert, but I always thought a judge was supposed to be impartial and neutral and I'm not naive, I know he's not, but can he at least respect us enough to pretend to be? It's not like he's a judge on American Idol. He's a Supreme Court judge. But he's stunting on us like a soccer player popping his jersey after a goal. ‘I killed Roe v. Wade, bitches! I killed Roe v. Wade, bitches!’"     Kosta also introduced Iwata who pretended to be reporting outside Alito’s home. Part way through the bit, the flag behind Iwata changed, leading him to report, “Oh, okay, so it's a big blue wave? I'm guessing that means Alito likes surfing? Or maybe they're fans of that Japanese wave painting that white people put in their first apartment. I'm going to look it up. Okay, so the wave is Noah's flood washing away the Sodomites, and drowning them in an ocean of tears.” Iwata claimed that Alito could clear up any confusion over his flags’ meanings by putting up flags that have clear messages, such as “a flag like Saudi Arabia. I can't read Arabic, but I know what a sword is. Like, message received! Maybe Samuel Alito should hire Saudi Arabia's flag guy.” It’s not really the sword that brought Iwata to the Saudi flag, it’s the fact that Saudi Arabia is a model society for the left’s straw man version of Alito. If it was literally about weapons, why didn’t Iwata choose Mozambique for having an AK-47 on its flag? The flag behind Iwata then changed again in case viewers were still confused over whether The Daily Show thinks Alito is a theocrat or simply a George Washington fan, “Okay... It's a Bible... Holding a gun? Oh, my god. I love it! See, I get that! Straight to the point! I am pissing my pants in fear, but I know why! Yes! Thank you, Justice Alito!” Just because the left is unfamiliar with Founding-era flags doesn’t mean other people are and waving their flags doesn’t make them a theocrat, an insurrectionist, or a Nazi. Here are transcripts for the May 23 shows: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/23/2024 11:39 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: The Appeal to Heaven flag is not a new flag. It was first carried during the American Revolution, but it's more recently been co-opted by Christian nationalists, specifically championed by a right-wing Christian author named Dutch Sheets. Dutch Sheets, of course, named after someone who's been hit in the head with a brick trying to remember the name of IKEA. "We gotta go to the place, uh, the Dutch one with the sheets. After that, I think we should go to the hospital."  We liked the name Dutch Sheets so much that we have another joke we want to do. Dutch Sheets, of course, also what it's called when you fart over the covers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Peabody, please.  Mr. Sheets made it his mission to promote this flag among right-wing nutjobulists, and it's working because Speaker Johnson has also hung the flag outside his office. When asked about it, Johnson said, "It's George Washington's flag... It has nothing to do with stop the steal."  Yes, it does! When a nearly forgotten symbol is brought back and widely co-opted, you don't get to use it in the old way. If a guy named Brandon says, "Actually, this swastika above my bed is referring to the ancient sanskrit symbol for good luck," he's a Nazi, Cheryl! Get out of there! I don't care if his haircut is crisp. You know, the crisp haircut. Besides, Mike Johnson is a political figure. It's one thing if he wants to fly the team flag. Sam Alito keeps saying that everyone on the Supreme Court is completely unbiased and non-political! I mean, there's nothing wrong if Aaron Judge wears a Yankees jersey, but it's different if the umpire does it! Balls and strikes, right? Balls and strikes.   *** Comedy Central The Daily Show 5/23/2024 11:09 PM ET MICHAEL KOSTA: Look, I'm not an expert, but I always thought a judge was supposed to be impartial and neutral and I'm not naive, I know he's not, but can he at least respect us enough to pretend to be? It's not like he's a judge on American Idol. He's a Supreme Court judge. But he's stunting on us like a soccer player popping his jersey after a goal. "I killed Roe v. Wade, bitches! I killed Roe v. Wade, bitches!"  But if you're upset about this, the good news is, the Supreme Court has a code of ethics. Now, the bad news is, they wrote that code of ethics, and they don't follow it. So, I guess there is no good news, and the bad news is even worse. For more on the flag controversy with Justice Alito, we turn to Troy Iwata! Troy! Troy, you're outside Justice Alito's house at the Jersey shore right now. What's the mood down there? TROY IWATA: It's awful, Michael. It's the Jersey shore. Stop sending me here! It's like if Florida wore too much cologne. KOSTA: Okay, but what can you tell us about the flags at Alito's house? They're very provocative! IWATA: Well, it's worse than that, Michael. These flags are very confusing! I don't know what any of these weird right-wing symbols mean. One is upside down. This one has a clip-art pine tree on it. I don't get the message! The first time I saw that Blue Lives Matter flag, I thought the Smurfs finally got citizenship. KOSTA: Well, right-wing nationalists use this pine tree flag to symbolize how God gave them the divine right to violently overthrow the government. IWATA: Then [bleep] say that! Write "This is a reference to whatever shit Michael just said" on the flag. Because right now, this is just an ugly flag with a Christmas cookie on it. KOSTA: I think the bigger question is what Justice Alito thought the flag meant. IWATA: I'm going to stop you there, Michael, because he just put up a new flag. Oh, okay, so it's a big blue wave? I'm guessing that means Alito likes surfing? Or maybe they're fans of that Japanese wave painting that white people put in their first apartment. I'm going to look it up. Okay, so the wave is Noah's flood washing away the Sodomites, and drowning them in an ocean of tears. KOSTA: Troy, that's terrible. That's a terrible flag. IWATA: I know. I did not get any of that from the fun wave flag. If you're going to be hateful, stop being so subtle! Add a tiny gay person drowning under the wave. Or something! You know what flag works? That Don't Tread on Me flag with the angry snake. I get that. I know where not to tread. Or the punisher skull? When someone is wearing that on their shirt, I know that they're saying, "I'm divorced," you know? Or you can have a flag like Saudi Arabia. I can't read Arabic, but I know what a sword is. Like, message received! Maybe Samuel Alito should hire Saudi Arabia's flag guy. KOSTA: Okay, Troy, hold up, there appears to be a new flag up behind you. IWATA: Okay... It's a Bible... Holding a gun? Oh, my god. I love it! See, I get that! Straight to the point! I am pissing my pants in fear, but I know why! Yes! Thank you, Justice Alito! God, it must be nice to own a home.

Daily Show Mocks Harris Word Salads While Claiming Biden Fights 'Fascism'

When compared to its network counterparts, Comedy Central’s The Daily Show is more likely to acknowledge that Democrats provide plenty of comedic material as evidenced by Tuesday’s show where Desi Lydic pretended to be Vice President Kamala Harris’s “holistic thought advisor” who is responsible for her various word salads. However, Wednesday’s show reverted back to the norm as Troy Iwata found the one man in America who is part of the Joe Biden personality cult, which naturally turned the show into a Biden 2024 commercial. Lydic played the role of Dahlia Rose Hibiscus and introduced herself in some zen-like cave with some Harris-style ramblings, “My name is Dahlia Rose Hibiscus and I am vice president of Kamala Harris's holistic thought advisor. What is a holistic thought advisor? Well, it is holistic, yes? And I am advising. And what do we mean when we say that? It means that I am the one by whom the thoughts are being advised. From a place of advisement, and then once advised, communicated, holistically.”     She claimed, “It’s a process I call speaking without thinking. It's not about the destination of the thought. It's about the journey. And how many words you use to describe the journey.” Lydic’s story was intertwined with clips of real examples of Harris’s brain wanderings and after one such example, she added, “Whenever the vice president gives a speech from her staff, the first thing I do is cut out all the words individually, and then I take those words to my word cave. That’s where I wait to learn what order of the universe wants them to be in. Words have vibrations. The feeling they give you is so much more powerful than what they mean.” Concluding, Lydic added, “I hear the counterarguments all the time. People should be able to understand what their leaders are saying when they talk., but I prefer to leave Kamala's thoughts open to interpretation, like a work of modern art that you look at and go, ‘I wonder what that was all about.’” While Lydic’s segment had a certain cleverness to it, it also did illustrate how the comedy shows generally make fun of Democrats. Democrats are mocked for being old or for their bloopers, but rarely for their liberalism. The Daily Show still exists to promote left-wing perspectives and Iwata’s segment the following day proved that.     On the surface, Iwata was joking about how unpopular Biden is and how strange it is that he was able to find Dakota Galban, Joe Biden’s number one fan. But beneath the surface, it was a chance to remind The Daily Show’s liberal audience to vote for him despite any potential misgivings they may have. Iwata asked, “Let's talk about the cardboard cutout. Why do you keep it in your trunk? Don't you want to see them in the morning and say, ‘what's up, Joe?’” Galban, who is also the chairman of the Davidson County Democratic Party in Tennessee, claimed, “Well, my boyfriend isn't as-- he's less enthusiastic about having him watch us at all times.” In a voiceover, Iwata wondered, “Okay, setting aside the question of whether the boyfriend was also a cardboard cutout, when did Dakota first realize he was Biden curious?” Galban explained, “I was a senior in high school in 2012 and I had just come out of the closet and Joe Biden had announced his support for marriage equality… this man literally came out of retirement to save our country from white supremacists and fascism.” After Iwata noted that Biden has managed to unite pro and anti-Israel protestors with “[bleep] Joe Biden” chants, Iwata hyped the inflation-causing “American Rescue Plan” as another Biden achievement, as well as “a bipartisan infrastructure act” and “the CHIPS and Science Act.” Here are transcripts for the May 21 and 22 shows: Comedy Central The Daily Show 5/21/2024 11:16 PM ET DESI LYDIC [AS DAHLIA ROSE HIBISCUS]: My name is Dahlia Rose Hibiscus and I am vice president of Kamala Harris's holistic thought advisor. What is a holistic thought advisor? Well, it is holistic, yes? And I am advising. And what do we mean when we say that? It means that I am the one by whom the thoughts are being advised. From a place of advisement, and then once advised, communicated, holistically. PRODUCER: Um, What? LYDIC: You get it.  I lead the vice president on not so much sentences as idea voyages. KAMALA HARRIS: You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you. LYDIC: It’s a process I call speaking without thinking. It's not about the destination of the thought. It's about the journey. And how many words you use to describe the journey. HARRIS: That's on top of everything else that we know and don't know yet, based on what we just have been able to see, and because we have seen it or not, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. LYDIC: Whenever the vice president gives a speech from her staff, the first thing I do is cut out all the words individually, and then I take those words to my word cave. That’s where I wait to learn what order of the universe wants them to be in. Words have vibrations. The feeling they give you is so much more powerful than what they mean. HARRIS: We have the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been, and then to make the possible actually happen.  LYDIC: I hear the counter-arguments all the time. People should be able to understand what their leaders are saying when they talk., but I prefer to leave Kamala's thoughts open to interpretation, like a work of modern art that you look at and go, “I wonder what that was all about.” HARRIS: See the moment in time in which we exist in our present and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history, and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future. *** 5/22/2024 11:18 PM ET TROY IWATA:  Let's talk about the cardboard cutout. Why do you keep it in your trunk? Don't you want to see them in the morning and say, “what's up, Joe?” DAKOTA GALBAN: Well, my boyfriend isn't as-- he's less enthusiastic. IWATA: Oh, my god. GALBAN: About having him watch us at all times. IWATA: You have a boyfriend? GALBAN: I do. IWATA [VOICEOVER]: Okay, setting aside the question of whether the boyfriend was also a cardboard cutout, when did Dakota first realize he was Biden curious? GALBAN: I was a senior in high school in 2012 and I had just come out of the closet and Joe Biden had announced his support for marriage equality. IWATA: And you thought to yourself, he's a little young right now to be president but maybe in eight years, he'll be ready? GALBAN: At the time, not so much, but this man literally came out of retirement to save our country from white supremacists and fascism. IWATA: So, you like him more than when he was just Obama’s white friend? GALBAN: Absolutely. IWATA: Oh. [VOICEOVER]: That’s a strong endorsement at a time when Joe Biden is so unpopular that somehow, hating him is uniting pro-Israel. PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTORS: [Bleep] Joe Biden. IWATA [VOICEOVER]: And pro-Palestine protesters. ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTORS: [Bleep] Joe Biden. IWATA: So what does Dakota see in this guy? [LIVE]: His swag, his whispery voice, what is left of his hair? GALBAN: Mostly his policies. They’re so many to choose from. IWATA: Really? See, I can't even think of any, so go off. GALBAN: I would think when he came into office, he immediately got to work with the American Rescue Plan, he followed it up with a bipartisan infrastructure act, the CHIPS and Science Act. IWATA: The Chips and Salsa Act? GALBAN: The CHIPS and Science IWATA: Oh, you know, maybe we need to make policy more fun. GALBAN: I think you are right. There was his 80th birthday when he had all the candles on his cake.

Colbert Claims 'Dumb People' Have Been Proven Wrong About Same-Sex Marriage

CBS’s Stephen Colbert claimed on the Wednesday edition of The Late Show that “dumb people” who opposed same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court legalized it nationwide have had their “stupid arguments” debunked by a new study. However, Colbert naturally only focused on the more crazy predictions and not the realistic concerns that have come to pass. Colbert began, “Oh, here's something that's not surprising at all. It's been nine years since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationally in Obergefell. Now, here’s the thing: according to a landmark new study, in that time, same-sex weddings haven't harmed straight marriage. Well, duh. Everyone knew that at the time. It's like announcing, ‘New study finds making love to wife doesn't get neighbor pregnant.’”     He continued, “Now, but back before, ten years ago in 2015 before the ruling, back before it became the law of the land, dumb people made all sorts of stupid arguments against same sex marriage, including saying that legalization would inevitably lead to people marrying animals. Well, of course, marriages between humans and animals did not come to pass.” After a bit of a digression into Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s brain worm story, Colbert added, “Not only has gay marriage not been harmful, the study says that by extending marriage rights to a greater number of couples, interest in marriage increased for the broader population.” Sure, there is no concentrated political or social movement built around people marrying a dog, but after proponents won in Obergefell they did not declare victory and then go back to work on their proverbial farm. Instead, they moved onto gender ideology and sent misnamed civil rights commissions after bakers and called them Nazis despite people like Colbert claiming that other people's gay weddings will have no effect on your life. It turns out conservatives aren't so "dumb" after all.  In other Colbert news, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff joined him later in the program for an easy interview about what it is like to be the first male to hold his position and how he met Kamala Harris. Here is a transcript for the May 22 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/22/2024 11:44 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Oh, here's something that's not surprising at all. It's been nine years since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationally in Obergefell. Now, here’s the thing: according to a landmark new study, in that time, same-sex weddings haven't harmed straight marriage. Well, duh. Everyone knew that at the time. It's like announcing, "New study finds making love to wife doesn't get neighbor pregnant."  Now, but back before, ten years ago in 2015 before the ruling, back before it became the law of the land, dumb people made all sorts of stupid arguments against same sex marriage, including saying that legalization would inevitably lead to people marrying animals.  Well, of course, marriages between humans and animals did not come to pass, although I know one beautiful, lifelong union between a man and a worm. Not only-- why are you going "Aww?" Do you feel bad for the worm? Oh, no that worm has come down with Bobby Kennedy.  Not only has gay marriage not been harmful, the study says that by extending marriage rights to a greater number of couples, interest in marriage increased for the broader population. I mean that makes sense, once gay people get into something, it always becomes a trend. Like RuPaul's Drag Race, the music of Lady Gaga, or dressing like you have a shred of self-respect. The report also found that after gay marriage was legalized, same-sex households adopted more children and there was a drop in the rates of syphilis. Well, sure ‘cause once you have kids in the house, there's just no time for anything fun, like movies or restaurants or syphilis.

CNN Cheers Meteorologist Who Told Viewers To Vote Against DeSantis

On Wednesday's CNN News Central, hosts Boris Sanchez and Jessica Dean, along with chief climate correspondent Bill Weir, applauded NBC Miami meteorologist Steve MacLaughlin’s recent plea that people help fix climate change by voting against Gov. Ron DeSantis. Sanchez teed up a clip of MacLaughlin, “It’s only May, but record high temperatures are already gripping Florida and one meteorologist in Miami says enough is enough when it comes to the governor's indifference to climate change. Listen.”     MacLaughlin was then shown telling viewers that the eyes of the entire world are on Florida voters and urging them to respond accordingly, “The entire world is looking to Florida to lead in climate change and our government is saying that climate change is no longer the priority [jump cut] the most powerful climate change solution is the one you already have in the palm of your hands. The right to vote.” Dean then reported, “That's NBC six meteorologist Steve MacLaughlin, he's furious over new Florida legislation approved by Governor Ron DeSantis which scrubs out references to climate change in state laws and joining us now is CNN’s chief climate correspondent Bill Weir. Bill, what did you think of this moment and what does the data actually say about change’s impact on Florida in particular." Weir, who has more frequent flier miles than you do, responded by going through all the reasons why he felt DeSantis was dangerous before concluding, “And props to Steve MacLaughlin. Every meteorologist in every market should be able to connect these unreal events, these unnatural disasters, with global trends, just lay out the science, you don't have to get into the politics, but people need to know this is real.” How, exactly, are meteorologists supposed to encourage people to vote for certain candidates without getting “into the politics”? Maybe Weir can explain that on his next exotic field trip. Here is a transcript for the May 22 show: CNN News Central 5/22/2024 3:43 PM ET BORIS SANCHEZ: It’s only May, but record high temperatures are already gripping Florida and one meteorologist in Miami says enough is enough when it comes to the governor's indifference to climate change. Listen. STEVE MACLAUGHLIN: The entire world is looking to Florida to lead in climate change and our government is saying that climate change is no longer the priority [jump cut] the most powerful climate change solution is the one you already have in the palm of your hands. The right to vote. JESSICA DEAN: That's NBC six meteorologist Steve MacLaughlin, he's furious over new Florida legislation approved by Governor Ron DeSantis which scrubs out references to climate change in state laws and joining us now is CNN’s chief climate correspondent Bill Weir. Bill, what did you think of this moment and what does the data actually say about climate change’s impact on Florida in particular. … BILL WEIR: And props to Steve MacLaughlin. Every meteorologist in every market should be able to connect these unreal events, these unnatural disasters, with global trends, just lay out the science, you don't have to get into the politics, but people need to know this is real.

MSNBC Pretends Being Pro-Life Is About Control Is Confirmed By 'Research'

NBC Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitali concluded her guest hosting of MSNBC’s Way Too Early on Wednesday by welcoming Shefali Luthra, health reporter for The 19th News, to promote her new book, where Luthra claims that the left’s position that pro-lifers simply seek to control women is not just a lazy opinion, but a fact confirmed by “research.” Vitali was all for the conclusion, “I want to read something that I read in your book. You say ‘it wasn't until 1880 that every state had passed laws criminalizing abortion, a shift that was less about religion and more a product of a campaign orchestrated by a male-dominated medical establishment.’”     Opening up the floor to Luthra, Vitali continued, “You say that ‘it's in part to consolidate power and weaken the credibility of the midwives’ who were typically women who often helped people terminate their pregnancies. I'm interested in, as you dug into the history, on how these policies came to be. It wasn't just about gender from a biological standpoint, it was about gender from a societal standpoint too, right?” Luthra claimed that “This was so striking to me. I found that research fascinating. The idea that abortion should be restricted didn't come from medicine, from religion, from politics. It really did come from what you often hear: this narrative of control. This narrative of power and abortion was seen as something quite normal in a lot of the 1800s, in a lot of our country's history. I wrote in that book that the right to abortion is as old as our country itself, if not older and that has stayed with me.  Even if one grants that Luthra is correct about the history, she has not disproved the premise underlining pro-life beliefs. Furthermore, one would think the self-styled Party of Science and “progress” would appreciate how opinions can change. Luthra also lamented, “This is something that has become a fight that seems inescapable in the past couple years, even in the past 50 years ever since Roe was decided, there were efforts to overturn it. But for most of our time, it wasn't that way. It was something people did because they viewed it as a way to control their reproductive health and family planning destinies.” The only question that matters in the abortion debate is whether the fetal and embryonic stages of development are simply other parts of life akin to infancy, adolescence, or adulthood or not. Everything else is just noise, which is what MSNBC prefers because they think it benefits Democrats and because it can’t actually refute pro-life logic without tying themselves into a pretzel. Here is a transcript for the May 22 show: MSNBC Way Too Early with Jonathan Lemire 5/22/2024 5:57 AM ET ALI VITALI: I want to read something that I read in your book. You say “it wasn't until 1880 that every state had passed laws criminalizing abortion, a shift that was less about religion and more a product of a campaign orchestrated by a male-dominated medical establishment.” You say that “it's in part to consolidate power and weaken the credibility of the midwives” who were typically women who often helped people terminate their pregnancies. I'm interested in, as you dug into the history, on how these policies came to be. It wasn't just about gender from a biological standpoint, it was about gender from a societal standpoint too, right? SHEFALI LUTHRA: This was so striking to me. I found that research fascinating. The idea that abortion should be restricted didn't come from medicine, from religion, from politics. It really did come from what you often hear: this narrative of control. This narrative of power and abortion was seen as something quite normal in a lot of the 1800s, in a lot of our country's history. I wrote in that book that the right to abortion is as old as our country itself, if not older-- VITALI: Yeah, yeah. LUTHRA: -- and that has stayed with me. This is something that has become a fight that seems inescapable in the past couple years, even in the past 50 years ever since Roe was decided, there were efforts to overturn it. But for most of our time, it wasn't that way. It was something people did because they viewed it as a way to control their reproductive health and family planning destinies.

Incentivizing Terrorism: CBS Hails Ireland, Spain, Norway Recognizing Palestinian State

CBS Mornings host Gayle King and foreign correspondent Imtiaz Tyab could hardly contain their excitement as Spain, Norway, and Ireland announced on Wednesday they will recognize a Palestinian state. The duo brought all the positive adjective from “major” to “very big” to “enormous” to “significant,” but absent from the conversation was even the smallest suggestion that the three countries were incentivizing more terrorism. King kicked things off by reporting “We have a major development this morning related to the war in Gaza. Three European governments, all U.S. allies, say they will recognize a Palestinian state next Tuesday. Now, as you know Palestinians have wanted this for decades. Imtiaz Tyab is following this in East Jerusalem and has the latest on it. Imtiaz, this is a very big deal. Can you help us understand the significance of this?”     Ireland is not an ally of the U.S., at least not in the treaty sense that the other two are, but that aside, Tyab began by claiming, “it's an enormous deal for these three European countries to do so and as you can imagine Israel has reacted pretty furiously to the move, and their decision to formally recognize a Palestinian state, so angry it's ordered back its ambassadors to Norway and Ireland and has called the plan, and I'm and quoting here, ‘a distorted step,’ as the fighting in Gaza rages on a warning now to our viewers, some of the images in this report are quite distressing.” That was the closest Tyab came to giving the Israeli perspective. Sure, he said they considered to it to be “distorted,” but he never said why. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 in one of the worst terrorist attacks in world history and the worst crime against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and Dubin, Madrid, and Oslo—two of which were neutral during World War II— responded by rewarding the perpetrators. It tells the Palestinians that the way to achieve their goals is through more violence. The terrorist-enabling trio, however, thinks Israel is the one that needs to be pressured as Tyab reported, “Ireland’s Taoiseach, Simon Harris, made the announcement alongside the Spanish and Norwegian prime ministers, the move is both rare and significant, only a handful of European countries already recognize a Palestinian state and the three leaders said they hope others will follow as part of global pressure to push Israel to accept a political process that could end the fighting in Gaza.  After further reports on “more violence and more death,” Tyab returned to the essentially and unwittingly undermine everything he and King previously said, “Now, despite the move this morning by Ireland, Norway and Spain, most other European nations still believe recognition of a Palestinian state should only come as part of a long-term negotiated two-state solution to the conflict, a position also held by the U.S.” The troublemaking trifecta will not bring peace, but they will bring more terrorism and it is to CBS’s great shame they could not report on that. Here is a transcript for the May 22 show: CBS Mornings 5/22/2024 8:06 AM ET GAYLE KING: We have a major development this morning related to the war in Gaza. Three European governments, all U.S. allies, say they will recognize a Palestinian state next Tuesday. Now, as you know, Palestinians have wanted this for decades. Imtiaz Tyab is following this in East Jerusalem and has the latest on it. Imtiaz, this is a very big deal. Can you help us understand the significance of this? IMTIAZ TYAB: Gayle, it's an enormous deal for these three European countries to do so and as you can imagine Israel has reacted pretty furiously to the move, and their decision to formally recognize a Palestinian state, so angry it's ordered back its ambassadors to Norway and Ireland and has called the plan, and I'm and quoting here, “a distorted step,” as the fighting in Gaza rages on a warning now to our viewers, some of the images in this report are quite distressing. SIMON HARRIS: Today, Ireland, Norway and Spain are announcing that we recognize the state of Palestine. TYAB: Ireland’s Taoiseach, Simon Harris, made the announcement alongside the Spanish and Norwegian prime ministers, the move is both rare and significant, only a handful of European countries already recognize a Palestinian state and the three leaders said they hope others will follow as part of global pressure to push Israel to accept a political process that could end the fighting in Gaza.  At the Kamal Adwan Hospital, in the northern Jabalia refugee camp, 150 patients and medics had to run for their lives after the Israeli military carried out repeated strikes nearby, one intensive care patient was pushed through the ruined street still in his hospital bed.  To the south, in Deir al-Balah, more violence and more death. A CBS News team was at the Al-Aqsa Hospital after the Israelis killed more than 12, including small children and this infant, removed from his dead mother's womb, not even given the chance to breathe his first breath.  The sharp increase in violence comes as Israel continues to widen its offensive in Rafah, a U.S. official has said Israeli leaders have quote “addressed many of President Biden's concerns” about a full scale ground invasion of the southern city.  But the White House has yet to signal a support for full scale assault on Gaza's only relatively intact city.  Now, despite the move this morning by Ireland, Norway and Spain, most other European nations still believe recognition of a Palestinian state should only come as part of a long-term negotiated two-state solution to the conflict, a position also held by the U.S. Nate?

Tomlinson Misrepresents Butker on Women, Mourns His Pro-Life Stance

CBS’s After Midnight is sold as a different kind of late night comedy show. Host Taylor Tomlinson typically guides her guests in various internet content-inspired improv question and answer games, but on Monday she began like a typical late night host and gave a monologue in defense of President Joe Biden’s stance on abortion while attacking Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s recent commencement address to Benedictine College. Tomlinson began by misrepresenting the most talked-about portion of Butker’s remarks, “The biggest story over the weekend was the social media uproar over the commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker.”     After some booing from the audience, she continued, “Hey, this is an important story to know if you want to fight with your dad this week. In it, he said that women should focus on being wives and mothers instead of having careers.” Butker never said women shouldn’t have careers, as Tomlinson’s clip showed, “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children he will bring to this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabel, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. Tomlinson reacted, “Wow, I can't believe a guy who kicks for a living had a bad take. First off, he said 'vocation' so many times there's no way he didn't just learn that word. He praises his wife, who he met in band class in middle school. This speech upset me because as a girl who played clarinet for six years, that could have been me. Once I get a football player to bang me, I will ditch this TV show so fast. I’m serious. I'm only killing time until ‘My life truly begins.’” If Tomlinson wants to criticize Butker for glossing over the fact his wife can more easily afford to be a stay-at-home mom than the average mother because he makes millions of dollars being a professional football player, that would be one thing, but it is not an excuse to misrepresent what he told the graduates. She also lamented, “A lot of people are focusing on the homemaker part and not the pro-life and homophobia parts.” Butker was shown speaking about Biden and Pride Month, “He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure it appears that you can be Catholic and pro-choice [jump cut] Not the deadly sin sort-of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it.” Again, Tomlinson reacted as if Butker was just some cranky old man, “Yeah. So we can't be gay, we can't have jobs, we can't have abortions. Who is this guy, my uncle at Thanksgiving?”  Tomlinson has always had a bit of a Freudian sense of humor, but thus far, she hasn’t really merged that with politics or religion in the way some others have. That has started to change over the last couple of episodes and now with the added monologue, she risks becoming just like the other late night hosts. Additionally, After Midnight is produced by another supposedly devout Catholic: Stephen Colbert. Here is a transcript for the May 20-taped show: CBS After Midnight 5/21/2024 12:38 PM ET TAYLOR TOMLINSON: The biggest story over the weekend was the social media uproar over the commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker. Hey, this is an important story to know if you want to fight with your dad this week. In it, he said that women should focus on being wives and mothers instead of having careers. HARRISON BUTKER: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children he will bring to this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabel, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. TOMLINSON: Wow, I can't believe a guy who kicks for a living had a bad take. First off, he said "vocation" so many times there's no way he didn't just learn that word. He praises his wife, who he met in band class in middle school. This speech upset me because as a girl who played clarinet for six years, that could have been me. Once I get a football player to bang me, I will ditch this TV show so fast. I’m serious. I'm only killing time until "My life truly begins." A lot of people are focusing on the homemaker part and not the pro-life and homophobia parts. BUTKER: He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I'm sure it appears that you can be Catholic and pro-choice [jump cut] Not the deadly sin sort-of pride that has an entire month dedicated to it. TOMLINSON: Yeah. So we can't be gay, we can't have jobs, we can't have abortions. Who is this guy, my uncle at Thanksgiving? 

Amanpour Invites Power-Mad ICC Prosecutor To Trash GOP

During her Monday interview with International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan that first aired on CNN International and later on PBS’s Amanpour and Company, Christiane Amanpour opened up the floor to Khan to trash Republicans for their criticisms of him. Naturally, Khan portrayed himself as a man of deep principles fighting against GOP politicians who only care about appeasing their base, but the fact that the interview existed in the first place cast doubt on such assessments. The interview was Khan’s way of announcing he is seeking arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Amanpour mostly spent the interview asking him to explain himself. However, in one instance, Amanpour recalled: As we know, the United States is not a party to the ICC, nor is Israel. Recently, when word came out that this may be happening at some point, U.S. senators and U.S. congresspeople, mostly Republicans, wrote you a letter signed by Senator Tom Cotton, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others. This is the quote. ‘Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned.’"     She then asked, “Is that a threat?” Sen. Lindsey Graham recalled that Khan told him that he was going to go to Israel to discuss the allegations with the Israeli government, but instead he showed up on CNN. Graham says he “was lied to.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is very much not a Republican, didn’t use the L-word, but might as well have, “The Prosecutor’s staff was supposed to land in Israel today to coordinate the visit. Israel was informed that they did not board their flight around the same time that the Prosecutor went on cable television to announce the charges. These and other circumstances call into question the legitimacy and credibility of this investigation.” Clearly, there is bipartisan consensus that Khan is “drunk with self-importance,” but nevertheless he replied, “I think that's the plain meaning of it in English. But you know, there's hotheads everywhere, and there's people that are mature statesmen and stateswomen and leaders. There are those that have fidelity to something greater than themselves, whether it's their constitutions, but ultimately, it's the rule of law.” He further cited working with the Biden Administration on “a range of situations, whether it's in Ukraine or Darfur, and I've said to distinguish members on the Hill and to the administration that Rome Statute values are quintessential American values. It's against bullying. It's against the untrammeled power against the most vulnerable. It's the rights, the dignity of the individual is the protection of babies. I mean, these are fundamental American values that should engender bipartisan support.” Who’s bullying who? The U.S. worked with Khan on Ukraine because it was invaded in an act of naked imperial aggression built around the premise that the Ukrainian state and separate identity were a mistake. Israel, on the other hand, didn’t just wake up one day and decide to invade Gaza. Khan knows this because he is also seeking warrants against Hamas leaders, he just doesn’t care. Khan wrapped up his answer by again portraying himself as justice incarnate, “This court is the legacy of Nuremberg. This court is a sad indictment of humanity. This court should be the triumph of law over power and brute force. Grab what you can. Take what you want. Do what you will. And we're going to simply be—we're not going to be dissuaded by threats or any other activities because, in the end, we have to fulfill our responsibilities as prosecutors, as the men and women of the office, as judges, as the registry, to something bigger than ourselves, which is the fidelity to justice.” Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, also overstepped her authority by announcing investigations into U.S. troops in Afghanistan and afterwards landed a nice position as The Gambia’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom. What kind of future does Khan think he deserves for trying to appease the world’s Israel haters? Here is a transcript for the May 20 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 5/20/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: I'm going to read you some heavy criticism that you've received from the United States. As we know, the United States is not a party to the ICC, nor is Israel. Recently, when word came out that this may be happening at some point, U.S. senators and U.S. congresspeople, mostly Republicans, wrote you a letter signed by Senator Tom Cotton, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others. This is the quote. "Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned." Is that a threat? KARIM KHAN: I think that's the plain meaning of it in English. But you know, there's hotheads everywhere, and there's people that are mature statesmen and stateswomen and leaders. There are those that have fidelity to something greater than themselves, whether it's their constitutions, but ultimately, it's the rule of law. The good news is, I think, for the last two and a half years, we've had very positive engagement with the Biden administration in the United States. We're working across a range of situations, whether it's in Ukraine or Darfur, and I've said to distinguish members on the Hill and to the administration that Rome Statute values are quintessential American values. It's against bullying. It's against the untrammeled power against the most vulnerable. It's the rights, the dignity of the individual is the protection of babies. I mean, these are fundamental American values that should engender bipartisan support. Now, of course, this situation, unfortunately lies on the San Andreas fault of international politics and strategic interests. And, of course, I've had some elected leaders speak to me and very -- you know, be very blunt. This court is built for Africa and for thugs like Putin, was what one senior leader told me. We don't view it like that. This court is the legacy of Nuremberg. This court is a sad indictment of humanity. This court should be the triumph of law over power and brute force. Grab what you can. Take what you want. Do what you will. And we're going to simply be -- we're not going to be dissuaded by threats or any other activities because, in the end, we have to fulfill our responsibilities as prosecutors, as the men and women of the office, as judges, as the registry, to something bigger than ourselves, which is the fidelity to justice. And we're not going to be swayed by the different types of threats, some of which are public and some maybe are not.

Colbert Slaps 'Nazi' Label On Alito Family

CBS’s Stephen Colbert reacted on Monday’s edition of The Late Show to the story that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s wife Martha-Ann flew an upside-down flag at their home in response to neighborly abuse by accusing the couple of being Nazis. Colbert declared that “when it comes to January 6th cases argued before the Court, Alito has been highly sympathetic to the mob. That's like when your couples therapist is wearing a shirt that says, "Team David." There's no possible justification for a Supreme Court justice displaying a symbol of insurrection at his home.”     There’s no evidence Alito has sympathy for the January 6 rioters’ cause, but Colbert rolled right along, failing to see the difference between blaming and explaining, “Which is why, when this photo was published, Alito immediately did the right thing, owned up, and blamed his wife, saying in a statement that he had 'No involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag.' And 'It was briefly placed by his wife, Martha-Ann.' So he dropped a dime on his gal, citing the landmark case of Me Just Tryna Live My Life v. Ladies Be Crazy, Amirite?'" Colbert did concede that there was context beyond January 6, “Crazy! Alito excused his wife's desecration of the flag that our forefathers died for at Iwo Jima, because he says she only did it because a neighbor displayed a "[bleep] Trump" sign on their lawn, and when Mrs. Alito confronted the neighbor about it, they say the neighbor addressed his wife using vulgar language, ‘Including the C-word.’” However, Colbert then took a leap into the logical abyss by trying to claim that the Alitos sided with the rioters as a way to get back at their neighbors, “Okay, that is not nice. But if someone calls you the C-word, putting up an insurrection flag is not the response. ‘Oh, you were rude to my wife? Well, we're Nazis now.’ So, are you happy? So Martha-Ann runs up the January 6 flag, and then Sam comes home from work, sees it, and is like, ‘Honey, I understand you're upset, but we have to take that down immediately. For Pete's sake, I'm a justice of the Supreme Court,’ is what would have been nice to have happened.  Instead, Colbert lamented, “neighbors confirmed the display stood for several days before being taken down. So, Alito clearly knew about this, because he came and went for several days, and, to paraphrase my favorite Spangled Banner, ‘the flag was still there.’” Speaking of paraphrasing, Monday gave proof through the night that Colbert was still doing the clown nose on-clown nose off routine. He insists that Alito is essentially a Nazi sympathizer who is delegitimizing the Court, but he himself is a simple jester. Here is a transcript for the May 20 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/20/2024 11:39 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: And when it comes to January 6th cases argued before the Court, Alito has been highly sympathetic to the mob. That's like when your couples therapist is wearing a shirt that says, "Team David." There's no possible justification for a Supreme Court justice displaying a symbol of insurrection at his home. Which is why, when this photo was published, Alito immediately did the right thing, owned up, and blamed his wife, saying in a statement that he had "No involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag." And "It was briefly placed by his wife, Martha-Ann." So he dropped a dime on his gal, citing the landmark case of Me Just Tryna Live My Life v. Ladies Be Crazy, Amirite?" Crazy! Alito excused his wife's desecration of the flag that our forefathers died for at Iwo Jima, because he says she only did it because a neighbor displayed a "[bleep] Trump" sign on their lawn, and when Mrs. Alito confronted the neighbor about it, they say the neighbor addressed his wife using vulgar language, "Including the C-word." Okay, that is not nice. But if someone calls you the C-word, putting up an insurrection flag is not the response. "Oh, you were rude to my wife? Well, we're Nazis now." So, are you happy? So Martha-Ann runs up the January 6 flag, and then Sam comes home from work, sees it, and is like, "Honey, I understand you're upset, but we have to take that down immediately. For Pete's sake, I'm a justice of the Supreme Court," is what would have been nice to have happened.  But instead, neighbors confirmed the display stood for several days before being taken down. So, Alito clearly knew about this, because he came and went for several days, and, to paraphrase my favorite Spangled Banner, “the flag was still there.”

PolitiFact Spins For Democrats On Late-Term Abortion

There are three things certain in life: death, taxes, and self-styled fact-checkers defending Democrats on late-term abortion. The latest example came on Friday from D.L. Davis, who gave Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson a “false” label for claiming “Every Senate Democrat has voted to support unlimited abortions up to the moment of birth.” Johnson’s office cited the Democrats’ 2022 Women’s Health Protection Act and Davis took exception to the use of the word “every,” writing “[Sen. Joe] Manchin, R-W.Va. [sic], voted no along with Republican senators on the measure. The vote was 49 Yes and 51 No." It’s ironic that Davis tried to shame Johnson for saying “every” Democrat voted for it when the truth is everyone, but one did and Davis and his editors couldn’t even get Manchin’s party letter label correct. Regardless, Davis also cited Johnson's office for claiming “the measure ‘would enshrine abortion into law up until the moment of birth and block state laws with protections against late-term abortions.’" Davis simply replied, “That’s wrong.” He also added, “On the contrary, the measure — which has not become law — protects the right to an abortion up until the point of fetal viability, which is roughly reached at 24 weeks of pregnancy.” He further writes, “After that point, the legislation protects the right to abortion only "when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health," according to the bill's text.” If one were to try to be as neutral as possible, as all good fact-checkers should, Davis could reasonably say the bill did not mandate the reversal of state laws banning late-term abortions, but to say the bill does not protect “abortion into law up until the moment of birth” is also wrong. The bill allows blue states to permit it, which some do. For Davis, such concerns are not important, “‘Abortion ‘up to the moment of birth’ simply doesn’t happen.' [Washington Sen. Patty] Murray said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. ‘Abortions later in pregnancy are extraordinarily rare and occur essentially only when a pregnancy is nonviable and the mother risks severe injury or death by remaining pregnant.’” Talking points about late-term abortion being rare do not refute claims that a bill permits it. If late-term abortions are so rare and only done for legitimate medical reasons, why is it so hard for national Democrats to write in a provision to their bills banning elective abortions after viability?

ABC, Once Again, Helps The Left Smear Alito

After not-so cleverly trying and failing to get Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from important Supreme Court cases related to January 6, the left and the media have moved on to try to not-so cleverly get Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself based on a photo of an upside-down flag outside his home that was said to show support for the rioters. On Saturday’s Good Morning America, ABC White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks omitted key details from Alito’s side of the story as she also hyped that even the appearance of bias can undermine the Court’s credibility. It was ABC’s second day in a row of echoing the smear and co-host Whit Johnson showed the picture and introduced Parks by noting, “This morning Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is under fire. The New York Times obtaining this photo of an American flag flying upside down reportedly at Alito's home in the days just after the January 6th riot. ABC's White House correspondent, MaryAlice Parks, joins us now from Washington with more. MaryAlice, good morning.”     For Parks, “The central question here is whether Justice Alito or someone from his family was trying to show solidarity with those who wanted to subvert the 2020 Election results or even with those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Now, according to the New York Times, the American flag flew upside down for days at the Alito House right before President Biden's inauguration. Flags, of course, are never supposed to be flown upside down unless to signal great distress, but former President Trump’s supporters had adopted it as a symbol, some even carrying it as they stormed the Capitol.” If it is really “the central question,” then some discussion on Alito’s record on the 2020 Election would be appropriate, but Parks wasn’t interested in that. Instead, she recalled, “Justice Alito did not reply to our request but blamed his wife in a comment to the Times and has downplayed the incident. Still, the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, is calling for Alito to recuse himself from all January 6th-related cases. The Court is expected to rule on two cases related to the attack on the Capitol in the next few weeks, including one about whether Trump has immunity for his actions.” Parks completely misrepresented and omitted key details of Alito’s side of the story. He was not blaming his wife, he was simply explaining she was on the receiving end of abuse from nasty neighbors who blamed her for January 6 and used vile language, including the C-word. For all the media complaints about Harrison Butker, the media sure seems to be upset that Alito and Thomas don’t sufficiently control their wives. Still, Parks played the “people are saying” card, “Now, since the news broke, several legal scholars have been questioning whether Alito showed bias here and damaged his credibility. Of course, even the perception of a conflict of interest could be problematic and undermine faith in the courts. Janai.” Co-host Janai Norman agreed, “And that is one of the concerns, MaryAlice. Thank you.” What is the ideological bent of these “legal scholars?” Could it be that they have political axes to grind? Could they be ginning up controversy to pressure the Court to rule a certain way or delegitimize it if it rules another? Again, Parks wasn’t interested. Here is a transcript for the May 18 show: ABC Good Morning America 5/18/2024 7:09 AM ET WHIT JOHNSON: This morning Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is under fire. The New York Times obtaining this photo of an American flag flying upside down reportedly at Alito's home in the days just after the January 6th riot. ABC's White House correspondent, MaryAlice Parks, joins us now from Washington with more. MaryAlice, good morning. MARYALICE PARKS: Yeah, Whit, good morning. The central question here is whether Justice Alito or someone from his family was trying to show solidarity with those who wanted to subvert the 2020 Election results or even with those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Now, according to the New York Times, the American flag flew upside down for days at the Alito house right before President Biden's inauguration. Flags, of course, are never supposed to be flown upside down unless to signal great distress, but former President Trump’s supporters had adopted it as a symbol, some even carrying it as they stormed the Capitol. Now, Justice Alito did not reply to our request but blamed his wife in a comment to the Times and has downplayed the incident. Still, the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, is calling for Alito to recuse himself from all January 6th-related cases. The Court is expected to rule on two cases related to the attack on the Capitol in the next few weeks, including one about whether Trump has immunity for his actions.  Now, since the news broke, several legal scholars have been questioning whether Alito showed bias here and damaged his credibility. Of course, even the perception of a conflict of interest could be problematic and undermine faith in the courts. Janai. JANAI NORMAN: And that is one of the concerns, MaryAlice. Thank you.

MSNBC Spews Fake News About Butker Speech To Warn About GOP 'Misogyny'

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner continued the media tradition of spreading fake news about what exactly Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker told a Catholic college during a recent commencement address. Wagner falsely reported that Butker told the women graduates “their rightful place was in service to men” as her guest, law Prof. Leah Lithman, urged viewers to vote against GOP “misogyny.” What makes Wagner’s falsehoods even worse is that she previously played the clip of Butker saying that while some of them may get fancy jobs and promotions, he ventured to guess they were mostly looking forward to the families they would raise. That someone would value their family more than their job is not exactly a radical position, but Wagner still lamented, “On Saturday, during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas, Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker railed against abortion and IVF, he called birth control ‘unnatural,’ diversity, equity and inclusion ‘tyranny’ and queer pride a ‘deadly sin.’ Then he addressed the women graduates directly telling them that their rightful place was in service to men.”     Wagner rolled on, “Butker verbalized a decades-long conservative project, one that has manifested into real life policy. Already there are 21 states with abortion bands, 31 states where anti-DEI measures have been either passed or introduced and 12 states with anti-LGBTQ laws. The anti-feminist Christian Nationalist agenda is alive and well and it is gaining ground.” What do “anti-DEI” or “anti-LGBTQ laws” mean? Nobody knows because Wagner didn’t specify. Instead, she introduced Litman and asked, “just to put into perspective the things that Harrison Butker was talking about, I want to read this line from the inimitable Jessica Valenti, this is what she’s writing about, ‘Butker’s remarks weren't ‘fringe’ or radical’ she says ‘they're the law, he was simply saying out loud what Republicans have already codified, that women's role in this country is to bear children and support men who are the actual stars of the show.’ What do you make of that?” Litman replied, “I think that is a really terrifying statement that captures the current political moment we are living in, the district judge in the case that ordered the nationwide ban on medication abortion, is a judge, who before he became a judge, railed against no fault divorce laws, that actually allow people to get divorced.” She also lamented, “You have Republican political operatives ginning up theories that would allow them to revive an 1873 Victorian-era law, the Comstock Act, that would prohibit abortion nationwide. These theories are not fringe, they are being propounded by Republican politicians, at the state, local, and federal level and these are the stakes in the upcoming election and likely all future ones as long as the Republican Party leans into the movement for Christian nationalism and the misogyny that underlies it.” If Wagner were to ask Butker if he viewed being a husband and a father as more important or satisfying than being a professional football player, he would almost certainly say yes, but asking it would upset the narrative. Here is a transcript for the May 17 show: MSNBC Alex Wager Tonight 5/17/2024 9:55 PM ET ALEX WAGNER: On Saturday, during a commencement speech at Benedictine College, a Catholic school in Kansas, Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker railed against abortion and IVF, he called birth control "unnatural," diversity, equity and inclusion "tyranny" and queer pride a "deadly sin." Then he addressed the women graduates directly telling them that their rightful place was in service to men. Butker verbalized a decades-long conservative project, one that has manifested into real life policy. Already there are 21 states with abortion bands, 31 states where anti-DEI measures have been either passed or introduced and 12 states with anti-LGBTQ laws. The anti-feminist Christian Nationalist agenda is alive and well and it is gaining ground. Joining me now is Leah Litman, law professor at the University of Michigan and one of the co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast. Leah, thank you for joining me, just to put into perspective the things that Harrison Butker was talking about, I want to read this line from the inimitable Jessica Valenti, this is what she’s writing about, “Butker’s remarks weren't ‘fringe’ or radical” she says “they're the law, he was simply saying out loud what Republicans have already codified, that women's role in this country is to bear children and support men who are the actual stars of the show.” What do you make of that? LEAH LITMAN: I think that is a really terrifying statement that captures the current political moment we are living in, the district judge in the case that ordered the nationwide ban on medication abortion, is a judge, who before he became a judge, railed against no fault divorce laws, that actually allow people to get divorced. There are many states that now restrict divorces in cases where people are pregnant. You have Republican politicians on the Supreme Court debating whether states can prohibit abortion in cases where denying women an abortion would jeopardize their bodily organs and major bodily functions.  You have Republican political operatives ginning up theories that would allow them to revive an 1873 Victorian-era law, the Comstock Act, that would prohibit abortion nationwide. These theories are not fringe, they are being propounded by Republican politicians, at the state, local, and federal level and these are the stakes in the upcoming election and likely all future ones as long as the Republican Party leans into the movement for Christian nationalism and the misogyny that underlies it.

'Jesus Was Gay': CBS Yucks It Up With Anti-Jesus 'Comedy'

CBS’s late night comedy game show After Midnight went off rails on Thursday as host Taylor Tomlinson and her fellow comedian guests yucked it up with some cheap and flippant anti-Jesus and “Jesus was gay” laughs. Tomlinson set up the round by introducing a TikTok video, “Life is full of surprises. As M. Night Shamalayan once said, 'Never let them know your next move.' This is exemplified in this TikTok from @julianprospers where he asks a stranger about his relationship status.”     The video showed the following discussion: MAN: We've been on and off for, like, 10, 15 years, maybe, but got really serious the past few months. JULIAN PROSPERS: So, is this a woman that you think that it’s not a— MAN: It's not a woman. PROSPERS: It’s not a woman. MAN: No. PROSPERS: It's a man.  MAN: Yeah. PROSPERS: So you're gay. MAN: No, no, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, brother. Tomlinson replied, “I don't want to be cynical, but I was once in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it didn't work out long-term. It's not Him, it's me. Let's save this TikTok guy some heartache. As Jesus, break up with this guy.” Jay Jurden buzzed in first, “I'm sorry, my dad kind of hates gay people. Have you seen the signs?” Next was Todd Barry, “I have to break out with you. You've never been really good about texting back.” Finally, there was Bassem Youssef, who, when he’s not on After Midnight, is on CNN and PBS telling allegedly serious journalists that Israel needs “to go F itself.” Now, Youssef feigned political correctness, “I don't know if I can actually touch this because whatever I would say would be blasphemous. Also, I didn't know that Jesus was gay. Oh, [bleep].” Jurden then returned to add, “Man shall not live by [bleep] alone. Was that too far?” and Youssef tacked on, “Oh, can I do one more? Can I do one more?” While it got lost in Tomlinson’s many guffaws, Prospers appears to be someone who believes in using social media to spread his faith. As evident by his video description, the video was a skit about people refusing to commit to Christ, not a genuine man on the street interview with a stranger as Tomlinson portrayed. People can judge for themselves if it hit the comedic sweet spot or not, but After Midnight definitely didn’t. Here is a transcript for the May 16-taped show: CBS After Midnight 5/17/2024 12:41 AM ET TAYLOR TOMLINSON: Life is full of surprises. As M. Night Shamalayan once said, "Never let them know your next move." This is exemplified in this TikTok from @julianprospers where he asks a stranger about his relationship status. MAN: We've been on and off for, like, 10, 15 years, maybe, but got really serious the past few months. JULIAN PROSPERS: So, is this a woman that you think that it’s not a— MAN: It's not a woman. PROSPERS: It’s not a woman. MAN: No. PROSPERS: It's a man.  MAN: Yeah. PROSPERS: So you're gay. MAN: No, no, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, brother. TOMLINSON: I don't want to be cynical, but I was once in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it didn't work out long-term. It's not Him, it's me. Let's save this TikTok guy some heartache. As Jesus, break up with this guy. Jay. JAY JURDEN: I'm sorry, my dad kind of hates gay people. Have you seen the signs? TOMLINSON: Todd. TODD BARRY: I have to break out with you. You've never been really good about texting back. TOMLINSON: Big texter, Jesus. Bassem? BASSEM YOUSSEF: I don't know if I can actually touch this because whatever I would say would be blasphemous. Also, I didn't know that Jesus was gay. Oh, [bleep]. JURDEN: Oh, can I do one more? Can I do one more? TOMLINSON: Sure, yeah, yeah. JURDEN: Man shall not live by [bleep] alone. Was that too far? TOMLINSON: Bassem. YOUSSEF: We have a full trinity, we don’t need a fourth.

'I'm Sorry, What?" Acosta Whines Butker Not 'Banned' Like Kaepernick

CNN host and self-appointed guardian of truth Jim Acosta welcomed sports reporter Rachel Nichols to Friday’s CNN Newsroom for a factually-challenged segment about Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s commencement address to Benedictine College, where he declared that female graduates may get more satisfaction from their family lives than their careers. For Acosta, it was obvious Butker is benefiting from a double standard that the ostracized Colin Kaepernick is not. Acosta rambled, “Well, and is there a double standard here? I mean Colin Kaepernick. I mean, he takes a knee to protest police brutality and gets banned from the NFL, can't get a job in the NFL. Harrison Butker gives this speech, goes wide right so to speak and the NFL says, 'well, you know he was on his day off when he gave this speech, no big deal.' I'm sorry, what?”     Like Butker’s field goals, there are three points worth mentioning. First, Kaepernick didn’t just “protest police brutality.” He went to Miami, of all places, and praised Fidel Castro and compared getting paid millions of dollars for a voluntary job to slavery. Second, the NFL went out of its way to appease him. You can’t watch an NFL game today without seeing something like “It takes all of us” or “end racism” on the back of the end zones. Finally, Kaepernick began his refusal to stand for the national anthem in August 2016, but he was benched for poor play the previous season and later that same season. As for Nichols, she was not much better, “The NFL will tell you that they didn't ban Colin Kaepernick and there's been no official ban on Colin Kaepernick. Of course, anyone paying attention would tell you that unofficially teams sort of feel that he cannot be touched and it is a double standard. There's no question about it.” Nichols lamented, “Many times in professional sports and frankly, particularly in the NFL, if you deliver results, a lot is excused and in this case, Butker was a key part of winning that Super Bowl for them. He's got the longest kick in Super Bowl history. He's very good at his job and he does have some support.” She also tried to undercut Butker’s message, “Of course, there's also voices on the other side who are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-God, who are making the point, you can still be all of those things and support women's rights. There are certainly plenty of men in this country who are equal partners in raising their children, some as single dads who would argue with his comments, even if they are dedicated church members.” At this point, it should be noted what Butker actually said: For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. Butker never said men should be absent from their children’s lives, as Nichols suggested. He never told the women in the audience that they should stay in the kitchen. He affirmed their achievements, acknowledged that some of them will get fancy titles and promotions, but declared that they will feel “most excited” about their families. What’s so radical about that? Here is a transcript for the May 17 show: CNN Newsroom with Jim Acosta 5/17/2024 10:31 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: Well, and is there a double standard here? I mean Colin Kaepernick. I mean, he takes a knee to protest police brutality and gets banned from the NFL, can't get a job in the NFL. Harrison Butker gives this speech, goes wide right so to speak and the NFL says, “well, you know he was on his day off when he gave this speech, no big deal.” I'm sorry, what? Yeah. RACHEL NICHOLS: The NFL will tell you that they didn't ban Colin Kaepernick and there's been no official ban on Colin Kaepernick. Of course-- ACOSTA: Yeah. NICHOLS: -- anyone paying attention would tell you that unofficially teams sort of feel that he cannot be touched and it is a double standard. There's no question about it. Many times in professional sports and frankly, particularly in the NFL, if you deliver results, a lot is excused and in this case, Butker was a key part of winning that Super Bowl for them. He's got the longest kick in Super Bowl history. He's very good at his job and he does have some support. Of course, there's also voices on the other side who are pro-family, pro-religion, pro-God, who are making the point, you can still be all of those things and support women's rights. There are certainly plenty of men in this country who are equal partners in raising their children, some as single dads who would argue with his comments, even if they are dedicated church members.

Ruhle Shames Romney For Citing The Border as an Area Where Biden Has Failed

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle once again assumed the role of President Biden’s top defender on Wednesday’s edition of The 11th Hour as she interviewed Utah Sen. Mitt Romney. The former GOP nominee did not exactly prove to be a hostile interview, but Ruhle still didn’t appreciate him condemning Biden’s record on the border or refusal to affirm that Biden is simply the greatest. Ruhle wondered, “President Biden ran as a bipartisan president. He’s worked with you on a number of things and gotten a lot done. The infrastructure law, the CHIPS Act, lowered healthcare costs, the list goes on, but the country remains polarized and getting more divided. If he would have a second term, do you think there is something he could do to actually bring people back together? Because he's got a lot of policies under his belt that he has done for the country, and work with you.”     Romney could’ve pointed out that this supposedly great unifier once told a black audience that he was going to put them back in chains, but he didn’t. Instead, he simply declared that there is more to unifying people than giving speeches, leading Ruhle to complain, “But President Biden isn't just giving a good speech, infrastructure law is now the law. The CHIPS Act is bringing jobs back, is bringing manufacturing back. Those aren't speeches, those are policies.” Romney replied by citing two big areas where Biden has failed, “Number one, the fact that things cost more than they did before. Inflation is still there. People somehow think the prices are going to go down. No, when you beat inflation, prices don’t go down, that would be deflation, they just stabilize, and they’re getting stabilized, but the fact that people are paying more is a real concern to them.” The second is “the border. Look, people have been screaming about the border for all three-and-a-half years Joe Biden has been president and he has not done anything to solve the problem at the border. That’s a huge issue for President Trump. I can't understand why President Biden didn't tackle this from the very beginning.” That didn’t sit well with Ruhle, “What has Congress done? Because it's Congress who sets the laws.” Romney recalled, “Well, the Republicans have put forward our plan. The House put out a border plan, and that’s what Congress did. The president said no, that wasn't acceptable. Then they began working on a bipartisan basis. But you know what? This was not a problem when President Trump was president. The reality is—” Ruhle interrupted to try to argue that Trump is actually the reason the border is such a mess, “The border has been a problem for years, sir, and a plan was just put together and it was Donald Trump, who is not currently in office, who blocked it.” While not countering Ruhle’s assessment that Trump blocked the bipartisan bill a few months ago, Romney reiterated that the border is still worse under Biden than it was under Trump, “Yeah, he blocked the plan, in part, I'm sure, because he wants to keep this issue hot and alive for his election, but don't forget, when he was president, he did a lot of things that sounded really ugly, but we didn't have anywhere near the number of people that have come into the country illegally as we have under President Biden and that is something he should have done everything in his power.” For Stephanie Ruhle, nothing is Joe Biden's fault, it's either Republicans or some foreign power that wants to elect Republicans that are to blame for the country's woes. Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 5/15/2024 11:18 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: President Biden ran as a bipartisan president. He’s worked with you on a number of things and gotten a lot done. The infrastructure law, the CHIPS Act, lowered healthcare costs, the list goes on, but the country remains polarized and getting more divided. If he would have a second term, do you think there is something he could do to actually bring people back together? Because he's got a lot of policies under his belt that he has done for the country, and work with you. MITT ROMNEY: Yeah, the way to bring people together is not just to give a good speech, nice as that is. The way to get people together is to tell the truth. To let them know what the real challenges are that you're concerned about, and how you are going to honestly deal with them. RUHLE: But President Biden isn't just giving a good speech, infrastructure law is now the law. The CHIPS Act is bringing jobs back, is bringing manufacturing back. Those aren't speeches, those are policies. ROMNEY: No, there’s no question that President Biden accomplished a number of things, but don't forget, in politics very few people care about what you’ve done, they care about what you're going to do, alright? And right now there are a couple of things that are very much on people's mind. Number one, the fact that things cost more than they did before. Inflation is still there. People somehow think the prices are going to go down.  RUHLE: That’s deflation. ROMNEY: No, when you beat inflation, prices don’t go down, that would be deflation, they just stabilize and they’re getting stabilized, but the fact that people are paying more is a real concern to them and number two, the border.  Look, people have been screaming about the border for all three-and-a-half years Joe Biden has been president and he has not done anything to solve the problem at the border. That’s a huge issue for President Trump. I can't understand why President Biden didn't tackle this from the very beginning. RUHLE: What has Congress done? Because it's Congress who sets the laws. ROMNEY: Well, the Republicans have put forward our plan. The House put out a border plan, and that’s what Congress did. The president said no, that wasn't acceptable. Then they began working on a bipartisan basis. But you know what? This was not a problem when President Trump was president. The reality is— RUHLE: The border has been a problem for years, sir, and a plan was just put together and it was Donald Trump, who is not currently in office, who blocked it. ROMNEY: Yeah, he blocked the plan, in part, I'm sure, because he wants to keep this issue hot and alive for his election, but don't forget, when he was president, he did a lot of things that sounded really ugly, but we didn't have anywhere near the number of people that have come into the country illegally as we have under President Biden and that is something he should have done everything in his power. Frankly, take some actions that maybe the courts would have stopped. They had a better argument saying hey, “Congress needed to act.” But he never did that. And as a result the American people are saying hey, I want something else.

Colbert Is 'Surprised' Biden Will 'Dignify Trump' By Debating

CBS’s Stephen Colbert had two distinct reactions to the news that former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden have agreed to debate each other on Wednesday’s installment of The Late Show. On one hand, he adored Biden’s announcement video, going so far as to break out the “Damn! Cam.” On the other, he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos he “was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him.” Of course, Biden’s announcement didn’t come out of nowhere, as Colbert acknowledged when he introduced a clip of Biden, “Trump has been challenging President Biden for months now, and today, Biden accepted by releasing this video, where he took a swipe at Trump's court schedule.”     The video showed Biden telling viewers that, “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So, let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.” The two men have decided on Thursday, June 27, and Tuesday, September 10. Nevertheless, Colber reacted with glee, “For my reaction to that, join me over at the ‘Damn! Cam.’ Damn!” Later, Stephanopoulos joined the show to hype his new book and Colbert started to ask, “Let’s talk about debates. Okay, you’ve moderated debates—” Stephanopoulos interrupted to lament, “Yes, it did happen. I think because I’m being sued, I’m not going to be moderating this one this time around.” Trump is suing Stephanopoulos for defamation, but even if that lawsuit didn’t exist, the former Clinton operative’s out of left field question to Mitt Romney about banning birth control is enough to disqualify him from moderating any future debate. Regardless, Colbert continued, “Are you surprised? Because I was a little surprised they were going to happen. I was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him.” Stephanopoulos replied, “I was surprised, especially after you were talking about it before, that Chris Wallace debate four years ago, just the worst presidential debate in American history. I was surprised it's going to happen again. Interesting move by Biden, kind of a bold move by Biden. I do think the rules he's put in place could make a difference.” Colbert interjected to add, “I love them. No audience. In studio. When your time is up, the mind goes off. That's a loss of power.” Stephanopoulos agreed, “Yeah, and it will be interesting to see, I mean, I know both sides have accepted now. I wonder if at the end of the day, with those rules, if those rules are really in place, if the debate really happens, but I think those rules are essential.” Many in the media are making a bigger deal of the agreed upon rules than they should. For instance, in every past presidential debate there has been an audience, but it has been required to remain silent and the cutting of mics could hurt the mumbling and rambling Biden just as much as Trump. Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/15/2024 11:38 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump has been challenging President Biden for months now, and today, Biden accepted by releasing this video, where he took a swipe at Trump's court schedule. JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then, he hasn't shown up for a debate. Now he's acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I'll even do it twice. So, let's pick the dates, Donald. I hear you're free on Wednesdays.  COLBERT: For my reaction to that, join me over at the "Damn! Cam." Damn! … COLBERT: Let’s talk about debates. Okay, you’ve moderated debates— STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, it did happen. I think because I’m being sued, I’m not going to be moderating this one this time around. COLBERT: Are you surprised? Because I was a little surprised they were going to happen. I was surprised that Biden would dignify Trump by offering to meet him. STEPHANOPOULOS: I was surprised, especially after you were talking about it before, that Chris Wallace debate four years ago, just the worst presidential debate in American history. I was surprised it's going to happen again. Interesting move by Biden, kind of a bold move by Biden. I do think the rules he's put in place could make a difference. COLBERT: I love them. No audience. In studio.  STEPHANOPOULOS: The mic goes off. COLBERT: When your time is up, the mind goes off. That's a loss of power. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, and it will be interesting to see, I mean, I know both sides have accepted now. I wonder if at the end of the day, with those rules, if those rules are really in place, if the debate really happens, but I think those rules are essential. 

PBS Repeats Debunked Hamas-Published Child Casualty Statistics

PBS/CNN host Christiane Amanpour likes to say that journalists should “be truthful, not neutral,” but when she welcomed author Reza Aslan to Wednesday’s Amanpour and Company to promote his new children’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, she could not be bothered to fact-check his debunked casualty estimates from Gaza. Ironically, the whole segment was a violation of Amanpour’s dictum, as the duo portrayed the conflict as a massive tragedy between two sides who refuse to understand that they both have legitimate aspirations and historical grievances against each other. Amanpour began, “So, you know, it just seems to be such a daring thing to do right now, to write a children's book about the hottest conflict, well, obviously Russia and Ukraine as well, but one of the most difficult ones to broach and to think about. So, just tell me why you did it and who actually you're targeting.”     Aslan began, “Well, as you know, over the last seven months of this conflict, since the attacks of October 7th, which led to the death of 1,300 Israelis, including 33 children, some 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza. That's more children than in all the other global conflicts around the world since 2019.” Critics have long argued that Hamas’s numbers cannot be relied upon and recently they were proved correct as the U.N., which relies on Hamas for its reports, halved its estimates. Specifically, it revised the female casualty estimates from 9,500 to 4,959 and from 14,500 to 7,797 for children. Amanpour didn’t step in to correct the record, nor did she point out the truth once Aslan was done speaking. Instead, Aslan broadly summarized the book: And when you're, you know, confronted with that kind of devastation, that kind of horror, I could understand why, as parents, we want to shield our children from it. But I truly do believe, as a parent of four children myself, that this conflict is actually an opportunity to teach our kids and give them the tools necessary to cultivate compassion and empathy, the critical thinking skills, because, yes, this war has been devastating for the children of Israel and Palestine, but children all around the world, including here in the United States, have also been impacted by this conflict. They're inundated with these images of destruction and despair. It's unavoidable, Christiane. And as parents, I get it. Most of us feel like we ourselves barely understand this conflict. I do it for a living and I barely understand it. And so, what I wanted to do was provide a text that would allow caregivers, parents to have the meaningful conversations necessary with their children that could give them context, a sense of understanding about where we are in this conflict. And most importantly, to counter some of the stereotypes and the prejudices that are just flooding them from all sides. If Aslan wants to portray the conflict as tremendously complicated and argue that starting the process of solving it requires both sides to look in the mirror, he cannot use the fake statistics that one side uses to hurl libelous charges of genocide. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 5/14/2024 CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So, you know, it just seems to be such a daring thing to do right now, to write a children's book about the hottest conflict, well, obviously Russia and Ukraine as well, but one of the most difficult ones to broach and to think about. So, just tell me why you did it and who actually you're targeting. REZA ASLAN: Well, as you know, over the last seven months of this conflict, since the attacks of October 7th, which led to the death of 1,300 Israelis, including 33 children, some 14,000 children have been killed in Gaza. That's more children than in all the other global conflicts around the world since 2019. And when you're, you know, confronted with that kind of devastation, that kind of horror, I could understand why, as parents, we want to shield our children from it. But I truly do believe, as a parent of four children myself, that this conflict is actually an opportunity to teach our kids and give them the tools necessary to cultivate compassion and empathy, the critical thinking skills, because, yes, this war has been devastating for the children of Israel and Palestine, but children all around the world, including here in the United States, have also been impacted by this conflict. They're inundated with these images of destruction and despair. It's unavoidable, Christiane. And as parents, I get it. Most of us feel like we ourselves barely understand this conflict. I do it for a living and I barely understand it. And so, what I wanted to do was provide a text that would allow caregivers, parents to have the meaningful conversations necessary with their children that could give them context, a sense of understanding about where we are in this conflict. And most importantly, to counter some of the stereotypes and the prejudices that are just flooding them from all sides.

'When Does The Stoning Begin?': Colbert Bizarrely Attacks Johnson's Faith

Speaker Mike Johnson traveled to New York on Tuesday to support Donald Trump at his trial, which led CBS’s Stephen Colbert to accuse him of hypocrisy and launch a bizarre attack on his faith on The Late Show. Colbert began by putting up a photo of a chagrin-looking Johnson, “Trump got some moral support today from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, seen here after accidentally thinking about the word ‘nipple.’" Amidst the guffaws from the liberal audience, Colbert added, “Just the word, not even the image, just the word ‘nipple.’ It's too titillating and don't get him started on the word titillating.”     Finally getting to his substantive point, Colbert continued by portraying the 52-year old Johnson as some sex-confused weirdo, “Johnson is a hyper-conservative Biblical literalist, but today, he took a day off from performative holiness to attend Trump's hush money trial. Now, I'm no fan of Johnson, but no one should be subjected to 30 years of sex education in one day.” Colbert also played a video of Johnson declaring, “I'm an attorney. I'm a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here.” Afterwards, Colbert returned to add, ‘“I've heard things today that disgust me! Woman layeth with man outside holy wedlock? When does the stoning begin? I brought my lucky rock.’” Colbert is trying to paint Johnson as a hypocrite for citing the Bible as the basis for his political beliefs while supporting a candidate who allegedly paid hush money to cover up an affair with a porn actress, but that is not what Trump is on trial for and Colbert knows it. Besides, as a supposedly devout Catholic himself, Colbert also surely knows one can be a “hyper-conservative Biblical literalist” and opposed to stoning, but admitting these truths would ruin the joke, such as it is. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/14/2024 11:42 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump got some moral support today from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, seen here after accidentally thinking about the word "nipple."  Just the word, not even the image, just the word "nipple." It's too titillating and don't get him started on the word titillating. Johnson is a hyper-conservative Biblical literalist, but today, he took a day off from performative holiness to attend Trump's hush money trial. Now, I'm no fan of Johnson, but no one should be subjected to 30 years of sex education in one day.  That's like taking an Amish kid to Epcot. "Goodness, English. Mexico is beside France is beside space?"  Now, outside the courtroom, Johnson made it clear what he won't stand for this charade. MIKE JOHNSON: I'm an attorney. I'm a former litigator myself. I am disgusted by what is happening here. COLBERT: "I've heard things today that disgust me! Woman layeth with man outside holy wedlock? When does the stoning begin? I brought my lucky rock.” 

CNN Doc Claims There's No Evidence Transgender Athletes Have Advantage

CNN aired a special documentary entitled The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The Battle Over Transgender Athletes on Sunday that purported to be a nuanced look at the issue of transgenderism’s relationship with women’s sports. However, the program clearly had a preferred side, as it claimed there’s no evidence that men who think they are women have an athletic advantage despite showing examples of people climbing the leaderboard and setting records after their transition. Despite his name being on the title, Cooper barely appeared during the show, instead, the documentary bounced around to various subjects who each said their own piece. In one clip, former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines was denouncing the movement in a speech, “A lot of world leaders, the message that they're sending is that we as women don't matter. Our safety doesn't matter. Privacy: forget it.”     Now, speaking directly to the camera, Gaines added, “When you have males who have gone through male puberty, it takes away that fairness. We can't neglect fairness and safety in hopes to be inclusive.” CNN then put up text on the screen for viewers to read, “Research on whether transgender athletes have an advantage is limited. A 2017 Sports Medicine study concluded there is ‘no direct or consistent research’ showing that transgender people have an athletic advantage.” But, we have real-world evidence. One of the sob stories CNN chose to highlight was that of Meghan Cortez-Fields, who, elsewhere in the documentary, claimed to be aware that he was really a she at age five. Cortez-Fields recalled switching from the men’s swim team to the women’s, “Once I'm in that race, it's just I got to go. My mom would be proud of me. So no matter what, I will always try my hardest. I'm just afraid for the reception that I will get if I try my hardest in six feet. And I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans.” Again, CNN put up some graphics, “In February 2024, Meghan broke two school records and placed 2nd in the 100-yard butterfly at a championship meet, the last of her career.” It then played a clip of Fox’s Gillian Turner and John Roberts with the former reporting, “After transferring from the men's team over to the women's, Meghan Cortez-Fields smashed Ramapo College's 100-yard butterfly record.” Roberts added, “Like Lia Thomas, gets into the women's category and starts blowing records away.” There are other examples as well, but CNN insists there is no evidence. Perhaps, Sports Medicine should update their study. Here is a transcript for the May 12 show: CNN The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper: The Battle Over Transgender Athletes 5/12/2024 8:34 PM ET RILEY GAINES: A lot of world leaders, the message that they're sending is that we as women don't matter. Our safety doesn't matter. Privacy: forget it. When you have males who have gone through male puberty, it takes away that fairness. We can't neglect fairness and safety in hopes to be inclusive. GRAPHICS: Research on whether transgender athletes have an advantage is limited. A 2017 Sports Medicine study concluded there is "no direct or consistent research" showing that transgender people have an athletic advantage. … MEGHAN CORTEZ-FIELDS: Once I'm in that race, it's just I got to go. My mom would be proud of me. So no matter what, I will always try my hardest. I'm just afraid for the reception that I will get if I try my hardest in six feet. And I was afraid that if I was able to win, all of my success would be discredited because I was trans. GRAPHICS: In February 2024, Meghan broke two school records and placed 2nd in the 100-yard butterfly at a championship meet, the last of her career. GILLIAN TURNER: After transferring from the men's team over to the women's Meghan Cortez-Fields, smashed Ramapo College's 100-yard butterfly record. JOHN ROBERTS: Like Lia Thomas, gets into the women's category and starts blowing records away. IRENEBRITUSA [YOUTUBE PERSONALITY]: And the woman who came second has to just accept it. CORTEZ-FIELDS: Something has definitely become a battleground for this disagreement.

CBS Hypes The Daily Show Giving 'People The Information They Need'

This week’s host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Desi Lydic, joined the cast of Monday’s CBS Mornings to promote her upcoming episodes. Throughout the segment, Lydic and her hosts would hype the fellow Paramount property as a place that people can go to get not only entertaining, but informed takes on politics, and also start conversations they wouldn’t otherwise have. It all sounded nice, but was completely disconnected from The Daily Show that exists in the real world. Co-host and Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition cover model Gayle King began the segment by introducing Lydic, “Viewers know her for her dry sense of humor and clever takes on politics and current events. She is hilarious. She joined the Emmy Award-winning show in 2015. Recently, she poked fun at Nebraska for being one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district rather than the winner takes all.”     In the clip that CBS showed, Lydic was actually arguing that Nebraska’s system is better than a winter-take-all and condemning those who sought to switch to such a system. Her main point, however, was that the Electoral College should be done away with and replaced with the popular vote, which King eagerly embraced, “I think she might be onto something.” Later, co-host Nate Burleson asked Lydic, “When it comes to comedy, especially during these times, I feel like there's an appetite for intelligent, political comedy because it gives the people the information they need while making them feel comfortable about the chaos that they are currently living in. Not that this hasn’t always been here, but nowadays I feel like there is a bigger stage for entertainers like you. Do you feel like that's the case?” Lydic claimed a special ability to build cross-aisle bridges: Well, it does feel like things are so polarized and people are getting the news from the sources that reflect back their own opinions. You know, it feels like we're all kind in echo chambers and, you know, I personally am certainly more on the left-leaning side. The Daily Show tends to be a more progressive show, but I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. My parents are Republicans, have been Republicans for quite some time, so, you know, those conversations can be challenging, and humor at its best can be sort of disarming and maybe start conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. That sounds nice, but speaking of Kentucky, last year, Lydic took a field trip to the state with the Washington Post’s Perry Bacon Jr., who used the interview to urge people to harass Republicans at church and the grocery store. In the same interview, Lydic reveled in Sen. Rand Paul getting his “ass kicked” by his neighbor. Regardless, Lydic did Jon Stewart’s classic clown nose on, clown nose off routine as she added “So, we want to entertain people. We’re not out to change the world.” Burleson was not prepared to let Lydic sell herself short, “But that helps when you write, that you understand both perspectives.” Lydic agreed, “I think it's important to get curious about what other people feel and if you're at odds, you know, ask questions. Have a little empathy. Try to have a meaningful conversation about it.” Again, that sounds nice, but Lydic doesn’t put her money where her mouth is. She could interview a conservative, but that is not scheduled to happen. Instead, we’ll probably get more claims like “having a vagina does not make you a woman” or that Jesus would approve of Transgender Visibility Day. Here is a transcript for the May 14 show: CBS Mornings 5/14/2024 9:42 AM ET GAYLE KING: Our next guest, Desi Lydic is hosting The Daily Show alongside Jon Stewart and The Daily Show news team. Viewers know her for her dry sense of humor and clever takes on politics and current events. She is hilarious. She joined the Emmy Award-winning show in 2015. Recently, she poked fun at Nebraska for being one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district rather than the winner takes all. DESI LYDIC: Nebraska should really truly keep the system, though, because it's certainly a more fair way to divide up the votes than winner take off. What if everybody did that like Nebraska by district or maybe even by person, you know, then whoever whips the most persons would be president. That would be pretty popular. Oh, we could call it the popular vote. I don't know. I'm just spitballing. KING: I think she might be onto something, that Desi Lydic joins us in the studio. Hello, Desi. We're so glad you're here today. … NATE BURLESON: You know, when it comes to comedy, especially during these times, I feel like there's an appetite for intelligent, political comedy because it gives the people the information they need while making them feel comfortable about the chaos that they are currently living in. Not that this hasn’t always been here, but nowadays I feel like there is a bigger stage for entertainers like you. Do you feel like that's the case? LYDIC: Well, it does feel like things are so polarized and people— BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: -- are getting the news from the sources that reflect back their own opinions. You know, it feels like we're all kind in echo chambers and, you know, I personally am certainly more on the left-leaning side. The Daily Show tends to be a more progressive show, but I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. My parents are Republicans, have been Republicans for quite some time, so, you know, those conversations can be challenging, and humor at its best can be sort of disarming and maybe start conversations that wouldn't happen otherwise. BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: So, we want to entertain people. We’re not out to change the world. BURLESON: But that helps when you write, that you understand both perspectives. LYDIC: That's right. KING: Which you do, which you do, yeah. LYDIC: I think it's important to get curious about what other people feel— BURLESON: Yeah. LYDIC: -- and if you're at odds, you know, ask questions. Have a little empathy. Try to have a meaningful conversation about it.

'He'd Be So Rattled': Kimmel And Meyers Dream Of Trolling Trump At Trial

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! has the week off, but that did not stop the eponymous host from traveling across the country to New York and NBC’s Monday edition of Late Night with Seth Meyers. Together, Meyers and Kimmel would fantasize about trolling Donald Trump at his trial and dream about him being convicted. The duo was discussing their histories with Trump when Meyers observed, “You actually got mentioned in the proceedings because there was some texts and it was because you had Stormy Daniels on your show.” While Kimmel took pride in that, he claimed it didn’t live up to Meyers’s experience, “I appreciate that. It doesn't compare to making so much fun of him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that he actually ran for president.”     After Meyers wanted to forget the whole thing, “No, no, let's talk about yours,” Kimmel continued, “Which was your fault. But it was exciting even though you put in—you know, you put in the work, and it really pays off. I was excited to be mentioned. I don't know why I was excited to be mentioned, but I was definitely excited to be mentioned.” Meyers then wondered, “But you would want to go down to the courthouse? If you lived in New York full-time, do you think you'd go down?” Kimmel replied, “No, I want to go down with you” before recalling, “I think—because, listen, we know he hates us… Do you remember the first time you found out he really, really hated us? I was on a weeklong camping trip, where there were no motors, or phones, or anything allowed. And when I got off the river, my phone clicked on, and I just got message after message after message about Trump bashing us. And I thought, ‘Oh, I'm back in civilization.’ But what I would love to do is for you and I to go down there, and maybe as a -- because, you know, he's in some legal trouble.” He then suggested, “As a gesture of goodwill, because we are human beings… I think we should bring him a whole bunch of little bottles of ketchup. Because you're not allowed to eat in the courtroom. You're not allowed to drink in the courtroom. Ketchup falls in that kind of gray area.” Kimmel then turned the dynamic around and asked Meyers, “How close do you think we could get to him? And I mean emotionally.” Meyers then imagined a scenario where, “I mean, based on the amount of people there, we could just go and wait in line and get in. And it would be -- he'd be so rattled if we were there. It would be like that SNL sketch where all of a sudden, Kenan realized Beavis and Butthead are there. He'd have the same reaction.” He then wondered, “Have you thought about what would happen if he actually was convicted?” Kimmel admitted that “I have thought about this. I dream about it. I really hope it happens.” Maybe Kimmel could give the flowers he held in his lap during the interview to Alvin Bragg, that would certainly cement the late night comedian’s relationship with the Democratic Party. Here is a transcript for the May 13-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/14/2024 12:59 AM ET SETH MEYERS: I wanted to congratulate you. You actually got mentioned in the proceedings.  JIMMY KIMMEL: Thank you. MEYERS: Because there was some texts— KIMMEL: Well. MEYERS: — and it was because you had Stormy Daniels on your show. KIMMEL: I -- thank you. I appreciate that. It doesn't compare to making so much fun of him at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that he actually ran for president.  MEYERS: No, no, let's talk about yours. KIMMEL: Which was your fault. But it was exciting even though you put in -- you know, you put in the work, and it really pays off. I was excited to be mentioned. I don't know why I was excited to be mentioned. MEYERS: Yeah. KIMMEL: But I was definitely excited to be mentioned. MEYERS: But you would want to go down to the courthouse? If you lived in New York full-time, do you think you'd go down? KIMMEL: No, I want to go down with you. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I think -- because, listen, we know he hates us. MEYERS: 100 percent. KIMMEL: 100 percent. Do you remember the first time you found out he really, really hated us? I was on a weeklong camping trip, where there were no motors, or phones, or anything allowed. And when I got off the river, my phone clicked on, and I just got message after message after message about Trump bashing us. MEYERS: Yes. KIMMEL: And I thought, “Oh, I'm back in civilization.” But what I would love to do is for you and I to go down there, and maybe as a -- because, you know, he's in some legal trouble. MEYERS: Yeah. KIMMEL: And as a gesture of goodwill, because we are human beings. MEYERS: Sure, empathetic human beings, no less. KIMMEL: Nice people. I think we should bring him a whole bunch of little bottles of ketchup. MEYERS: Uh-huh. KIMMEL: Because you're not allowed to eat in the courtroom. You're not allowed to drink in the courtroom. Ketchup falls in that kind of gray area. MEYERS: Condiments are allowed, yeah. KIMMEL: That I think he could get away with a little bit of that. How close do you think we could get to him? And I mean emotionally. MEYERS: Well I -- the funny thing is we could -- I mean, based on the amount of people there, we could just go and wait in line and get in. And it would be -- he'd be so rattled if we were there. KIMMEL: Oh, yeah, he would. MEYERS: It would be like that SNL sketch where all of a sudden, Kenan realized Beavis and Butthead are there. He'd have the same reaction. KIMMEL: Except even Beavis and Butthead-ier than that, yeah. MEYERS: Now, what do you think would -- have you thought about what would happen if he actually was convicted? KIMMEL: If he is convicted -- yeah, I have thought about this. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I dream about it. MEYERS: Okay. KIMMEL: I really hope it happens.

ABC Omits Vital Details, Hails 'Damning' State Dept. Report On Israel

The State Department released its report on whether Israel has been violating international law and its weapons agreement with the U.S. on Friday, and it read like a politician desperately trying to appease two irreconcilable factions of his base. Nevertheless, ABC White House correspondent MaryAlice Parks told Saturday’s Good Morning America that the report was “damning.” Both Parks and her NBC Today counterpart, Aaron Gilchrist, omitted information that paints Israel’s actions in a very different light. In studio, Parks declared that “this is a damning report, the strongest criticism that we've heard from the Biden Administration, saying Israel likely violated international law in Gaza, but the report stopped short of drawing any final conclusion or requiring any change in U.S. policy, saying that more information is needed.”     Now doing a voiceover for a pre-recorded report, Parks added, "Overnight, a new State Department report finding Israel may have violated international laws in Gaza and likely used American-supplied weapons to do so. The report saying Israel has the knowledge and means to mitigate civilian harm, but the high level of civilian deaths ‘raises substantial questions about whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.’” Parks also hyped that “given Israel's reliance on American-supplied weapons, it is ‘reasonable to assess’ that some U.S. weapons have been used in instances inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international law. International laws Israel has agreed to requires nations to protect civilian lives, allow humanitarian aid into war zones, and avoid excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure. The report says more information is needed, details hard to assess given the conflict and accuses Israel of a lack of transparency.” Gilchrist was marginally better, he didn’t use breathless words like “damning,” but he also didn’t provide the full context, “The U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Israel, that’s one of the top lines from that  highly anticipated State Department assessment of how Israel is using American weapons in Gaza. Now, the report says it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israel may have violated international law, but that the country has not broken the terms of the U.S. weapons agreement. Now, this report calling the assurances Israel provided credible enough to continue the flow of weapons.” Someone who did provide a fuller context was D.C. correspondent Natalie Brand on CBS Saturday Morning. After going through the same details as Parks and Gilchrist, she asked Middle East Institute senior fellow Brian Katulis, “So, what message does this report send Israel?” Katulis was more honest, “It sends a muddled message because it's inconclusive.” After going through several clips of GOP condemnation of Biden’s weapons and halt and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin defending it, Brand touched on a different aspect of the report, “The new report also mentions Israel has a number of ongoing active investigations pending and notes military experts describe Gaza as being as difficult a battle space as any military has faced in modern warfare. Now, in a new statement this morning, Israel says it's in complete compliance with the laws of armed conflict.” The part about military experts’ take on the Gaza battle space should be included in every report about civilian misery in Gaza because people with no knowledge of military matters, but who have agendas cast moral judgements and lob all kinds of incendiary accusations at Israel do so without this context. ABC and NBC leaving it out was pure dishonesty. Here is a transcript for the May 11 shows: ABC Good Morning America 5/11/2024 7:09 AM ET JANAI NORMAN: Now to the Israel-Hamas War and the release of a long awaited report on whether Israel has violated international law in its use of U.S. weapons in Gaza. ABC's MaryAlice parks joins us live in studio with more. Good morning to you, MaryAlice. We've heard the Biden administration stepping up its rhetoric but this is a new level. MARYALICE PARKS: Yeah, absolutely, good morning, Janai. This is a damning report, the strongest criticism that we've heard from the Biden Administration saying Israel likely violated international law in Gaza, but the report stopped short of drawing any final conclusion or requiring any change in U.S. policy, saying that more information is needed.  Overnight, a new State Department report finding Israel may have violated international laws in Gaza and likely used American-supplied weapons to do so. The report saying Israel has the knowledge and means to mitigate civilian harm, but the high level of civilian deaths "raises substantial questions about whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases."  Adding, that given Israel's reliance on American-supplied weapons, it is “reasonable to assess” that some U.S. weapons have been used in instances inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international law. International laws Israel has agreed to requires nations to protect civilian lives, allow humanitarian aid into war zones, and avoid excessive destruction of civilian infrastructure. The report says more information is needed, details hard to assess given the conflict and accuses Israel of a lack of transparency. *** NBC Today 5/11/2024 7:05 AM ET AARON GILCHRIST: The U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Israel, that’s one of the top lines from that  highly anticipated State Department assessment of how Israel is using American weapons in Gaza. Now, the report says it’s “reasonable to assess” that Israel may have violated international law, but that the country has not broken the terms of the U.S. weapons agreement.  Now, this report calling the assurances Israel provided credible enough to continue the flow of weapons. That news coming just days after President Biden acknowledged that U.S. weapons killed innocent Palestinians. He also acknowledged he paused a new shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel last week and he warned he would suspend further weapons shipments if Israel carries out a large-scale assault on Hamas in Rafah where we know more than a million civilians are holed up now. The president’s warning during an interview this week drew praise and criticism from Republicans and Democrats. Progressives calling it a positive step in holding Israel accountable, conservatives blasted Biden, though, calling the pause a reward to Hamas.  Pennsylvania Democrat Senator John Fetterman called that decision “deeply disappointing” and even as the U.S. questions how effective Israel has been at limiting the civilian harm in Gaza, the administration has sent other defensive weapons and small arms to Israel. *** CBS Saturday Morning 5/11/2024 8:05 AM ET NATALIE BRAND: However, it says it's not able to reach definitive conclusions on whether U.S. supplied weapons were "used in the actions alleged as violations of" humanitarian law, but it goes on to say, "given Israel's significant reliance on U.S.-made defense articles, it's reasonable to assess" that weapons may have been used by Israel's military in instances, quote, "inconsistent" with international law.  So, what message does this report send Israel? BRIAN KATULIS: It sends a muddled message because it's inconclusive. It leaves open the question of what's the best way for the United States and Israel to try to bridge the gaps that now have become so apparent between the two of them on this particular Rafah operation. BRAND: The report comes the same week as the Biden administration's decision to pause the delivery of thousands of bombs to Israel, a move blasted by Congressional Republicans. JONI ERNST: And he is turning his back on Israel. TOM COTTON: The president is only emboldening Hamas. BRAND: President Biden says he will not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use in a large-scale military operation in Rafah. LLOYD AUSTIN: If the question is, is it possible to conduct effective operations and protect civilians? Absolutely, it's possible. BRAND: Defense secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters Friday there have been far too many civilian casualties since the Israel-Hamas War began. AUSTIN: We would like to see that trend change, so that's really our focus. BRAND: The Biden administration says it's also watching with concern what the U.N. calls a worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The State Department's report says while the overall level of aid reaching Palestinians remains, quote, “insufficient,” it goes on to say it doesn't "currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or restricting delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance."  The new report also mentions Israel has a number of ongoing active investigations pending and notes military experts describe Gaza as being as difficult a battle space as any military has faced in modern warfare. Now, in a new statement this morning, Israel says it's in complete compliance with the laws of armed conflict.

Capehart Dismisses Biden's Israel Critics: 'Haven't Been Paying Attention'

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart told Friday’s PBS NewsHour that anyone who believes that President Joe Biden is playing politics by withholding aid from Israel hasn’t “been paying attention.” Unfortunately, for both Capehart and Biden, the latter’s previous comments about Israel and its enemies are resurfacing and they put that claim very much in doubt. Capehart was reacting to The Daily Beast columnist and David Brooks fill-in Matt Lewis, who was asked by host Amna Nawaz, “Matt, is it clear to you where President Biden's red line is on this?”     After rejecting the premise that the U.S. should be drawing red lines on allies, Lewis pointed out that by trying to appease young progressives, who are probably unappeasable anyway, Biden runs the risk of also alienating not just mainstream, pro-Israel Democrats, but also anti-Trump Republicans, “Keep in mind, Nikki Haley, just this week, got 21 percent of the vote in a Republican primary in Indiana. There are people out there who were open to voting for Joe Biden. And I think they're less likely today than they were a week ago.” Nawaz then turned to Capehart and wondered, “On the domestic politics front, Jonathan, was the tough talk for Bibi Netanyahu, the pausing of some weapons deliveries, was that President Biden bending to political pressure here at home?” Capehart quickly dismissed the idea, “No. No. I mean, Matt, love you to pieces, but anyone who thinks that there are domestic political considerations on the part of the president that's driving his decisions hasn't had — you haven't been paying attention to Joe Biden.” He recalled, “We have to remember this is a man who's been on the world stage for 50 years. During — during those years, he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows — he's known Prime Minister Netanyahu for 50 years.” Further trying to prove his point, Capehart added, “He is about getting to — he's about using the power of diplomacy to bring about a resolution. He's done a lot of things on the world stage that domestically have hurt him, the withdrawal from Kabul and how disastrous that was. But he stood by that decision because it was the right thing to do.” Afghanistan is a bad analogy. That is a policy decision that Biden has chosen to defend, even if it is unpopular. On Israel, Biden has reversed not just his initial post-October 7 beliefs, but decades of positions about Israel and its enemies. During the Democratic Primary in 2019, Biden told then-NewsHour host Judy Woodruff that cutting off aid to Israel would be “Absolutely preposterous. It's just beyond my comprehension why anyone would do that.”   In 2019 Joe Biden understood the distinction between ally and adversary: "The idea that we would cut off military aid to an ally, our only true, true ally in the entire region, is absolutely preposterous. It's just beyond my comprehension why anyone would do that." pic.twitter.com/vHPo9WzBCr — Mike (@Doranimated) May 10, 2024   Likewise, in 2006 during the George W. Bush Administration and Israel’s war with Hezbollah, he mused about Hezbollah transporting its missiles in the aisles of commercial aircraft and labeled Hezbollah “cowards” for hiding amidst the civilian population, including in hospitals.   Extraordinary 2006 video (found by @phillyrich1) of Senator Biden discussing (responding to @SharylAttkisson) the proper reaction when civilians are hurt when Israel must fight Hezbollah or Hamas https://t.co/fbQTKLBXgH pic.twitter.com/NojEyqRaSR — David Shor (@DYShor) May 10, 2024   In 1992, Biden angrily attacked George H.W. Bush, “There’s no incentive for the Arabs to compromise if they know they must only wait — for USA will do their bargaining for them.”   Biden speaking in 1992 on how bad it was that Pres. Bush was pressuring Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir to make peace with the Arabs “There’s no incentive for the Arabs to compromise if they know they must only wait — for USA will do their bargaining for them” pic.twitter.com/wn6eYIS6CV — Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 16, 2024   Biden has either changed his mind for the worse or he is playing politics. Capehart can deny it all he wants, but the proof is right there. Here is a transcript for the May 10 show: PBS NewsHour 5/10/2024 7:35 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ:  Matt, is it clear to you where President Biden's red line is on this? MATT LEWIS: Well, first, I think we should be drawing red lines on our enemies, not our allies, right? But I think Biden has a problem right now and it is a political problem. It is axiomatic in politics that if you try to please everybody, you will end up pleasing nobody. And, up until now, I think that, domestically, in terms of domestic politics here in America, Joe Biden had a problem certainly with, kind of, young progressives who were unhappy that he was standing firmly with Israel. I think now that has become muddied. And I think we're now in a position where, number one, it's unlikely that these young progressives who are calling him things like Genocide Joe are going to come around to liking Joe Biden and voting for him. He also, though, risks alienating, number two, Democrats who are pro-Israel, kind of the mainstream Democrats. And the other thing that I think isn't really being talked about is the impact this may have on never-Trump conservatives. We saw people like Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley, Mitt Romney come out and strongly condemn Joe Biden's comments about Rafah. Keep in mind, Nikki Haley, just this week, got 21 percent of the vote in a Republican primary in Indiana. There are people out there who were open to voting for Joe Biden. And I think they're less likely today than they were a week ago. NAWAZ:  On the domestic politics front, Jonathan, was the tough talk for Bibi Netanyahu, the pausing of some weapons deliveries, was that President Biden bending to political pressure here at home? JONATHAN CAPEHART: No. No. I mean, Matt, love you to pieces, but anyone who thinks that there are domestic political considerations on the part of the president that's driving his decisions hasn't had — you haven't been paying attention to Joe Biden. We have to remember this is a man who's been on the world stage for 50 years. During — during those years, he was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He knows — he's known Prime Minister Netanyahu for 50 years. He is about getting to — he's about using the power of diplomacy to bring about a resolution. He's done a lot of things on the world stage that domestically have hurt him, the withdrawal from Kabul and how disastrous that was. But he stood by that decision because it was the right thing to do. And I think that the president doing what he's doing, from carrots and sticks with Netanyahu, he is doing it because he's — for him, the resolution is a cease-fire deal, however he can get it.

Reid and Hasan Claim Biden Critics 'Support The Killing Of Kids In Rafah'

When MSNBC’s Joy Reid meets with former colleague Mehdi Hasan to discuss the Israel-Hamas War, it is guaranteed that the viewer will end up dumber than they were at the beginning of the segment. Yet, even by their standards, Thursday’s edition of The ReidOut was especially noteworthy because the duo somehow managed to be both incredibly outrageous and unintentionally hilarious. Reid began the segment by laughing at people who are comparing President Joe Biden’s decision to withhold weapons from Israel to Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial. She also got in a historically illiterate cheap shot at Sen. Tom Cotton, “President Biden is facing blowback for saying that he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches a major invasion on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Senator Tom Cotton, of slavery was the best bad option thing, has called on the House to impeach Biden for withholding weapons to Israel, even comparing Biden's actions to the charges in Trump's first impeachment, in which Trump was accused of strong-arming Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid. Yeah, really not the same thing at all.”     First, Cotton was referencing an obvious historical fact that the Founders were presented with two options: one nation born in liberty that had slavery or multiple nations that had slavery with no such ideals to appeal to. They correctly chose the first. Second, Trump was impeached for abuse of power, defined as using American foreign policy to advance your own personal interest at the expense of the national interest. The “dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid” was just the details. Ironically, when Hasan joined, he would hail Biden’s decision to withhold the aid precisely because it was good politics. The man who once apologized for once being pro-life declared that anyone who disagrees supports killing kids, “Look, what I would say is put aside the morality of not wanting to support the killing of kids in Rafah, put aside international law which is against this stuff. Just from a practical domestic political perspective, it would be in Joe Biden's and Democratic Party's interest to have this war end.” The idea that international law prohibits Army X from attacking Army Y simply because Y encamps itself in a dense urban environment is not only insane, it’s factually wrong (see Article 51, Section 7 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions). Taking Hasan’s point to its logical conclusion would require freedom-loving nations to simply cede major cities to the enemy. After going through what Hasan considered to be Biden’s “good message on the domestic front,” Reid declared that “it does seem to me that what [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] wants is for the war to go on. Forever would be perfect.” Biden is demanding that Israel slow down and come up with an elaborate plan before attacking Rafah, but because Netanyahu has thus far listened to him, Reid and Hasan attack him for prolonging the war. As for Netanyahu’s motivations, Reid claimed, “for him, his fate, like Donald Trump's, in terms of staying out of prison and keeping and retaining power… So, Netanyahu has no interest in the thing Joe Biden needs, which is peace.” Reid and Hasan would go on to add that Netanyahu doesn’t care about the hostages and cited Israelis protesting as their evidence, but people like Reid and Hasan always conveniently leave out the fact that the leader of the opposition, Benny Gantz, is part of the war cabinet. Also, what “Joe Biden needs”? How about what America needs? If Reid and Hasan are the good two state solution-supporting, peace-loving progressives they claim to be, maybe they can next explain how Israel and the Palestinians are supposed to come to a peaceful solution with Hamas still in power. Here is a transcript for the May 9 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 5/9/2024 7:52 PM ET JOY REID: President Biden is facing blowback for saying that he will stop sending bombs and artillery shells to Israel if it launches a major invasion on the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. Senator Tom Cotton, of slavery was the best bad option thing, has called on the House to impeach Biden for withholding weapons to Israel, even comparing Biden's actions to the charges in Trump's first impeachment, in which Trump was accused of strong-arming Ukraine to get dirt on Joe Biden or get no military aid. Yeah, really not the same thing at all. … MEHDI HASAN: Look, what I would say is put aside the morality of not wanting to support the killing of kids in Rafah, put aside international law which is against this stuff. Just from a practical domestic political perspective, it would be in Joe Biden's and Democratic Party's interest to have this war end.  REID: Yes. HASAN: Right? Joe Biden has a good domestic record to run on. He has record falls in crime, you know, record low unemployment. He’s taken a good move on marijuana. He’s got a good message on the domestic front.  REID: Yeah. Yeah. HASAN: It’s getting blotted out because he wants to stick with Netanyahu and I am glad there is now some distance between him and Netanyahu. It needs to increase. REID: Let's talk about Netanyahu because it seems to me— HASAN: Do we have to? REID: —We must talk about him. It does seem to me that what he wants is for the war to go on.  HASAN: Yes. REID: Forever would be perfect, because for him, his fate, like Donald Trump's, in terms of staying out of prison-- HASAN: Yeah. REID: -- and keeping and retaining power-- HASAN: Yeah. REID: -- it is all tied to the war continuing. So, Netanyahu has no interest in the thing Joe Biden needs, which is peace. HASAN: Netanyahu’s counting down the days to a Trump presidency.  REID: That’s it. HASAN: Where he knows he’ll have much more freedom. He knows he has a trial coming up. This is about him personally— REID: Absolutely. HASAN: Like Trump, he cares about himself more than anything else. He’s got a coalition that will collapse if he agrees to any kind of ceasefire and he’s abandoned the hostages, Joy. Like, I always hear people saying “you don't care about the hostages.” You know who doesn't care about the hostages? Benjamin Netanyahu.  REID: And their families say so because they’re literally protesting— HASAN: Their families are getting assaulted by Israeli police.  REID: Absolutely. Absolutely.  HASAN: Their families stood outside Netanyahu’s house earlier this week and said "there's blood on your hands." So, when I hear people in America saying “oh, you don’t care about the hostages” go to Israel-- REID: Yeah. HASAN: -- see what the hostages are saying, they want a deal. They want an end to the conflict, they want their people home, as we all should want.

Stewart Labels GOP 'F****** Children' For Blasting Biden's Weapons Halt

Jon Stewart shook things up this week as he hosted Comedy Central’s The Daily Show on Thursday instead of Monday, but one thing that did not change was Stewart’s habit of confusing snark for substance as he labeled GOP senators condemning President Biden’s halt on weapons shipments to Israel as “[bleep] children.” Stewart’s musings came at the end of a long line of diatribes where he accused conservatives and Republicans of freaking out about things that do not need to be freaked out over, “All this false outrage is starting to make me cynical about America’s media ecosystem. Is there anything else going on that does merit a DEFCON 1 freak-out?” That led to a clip of Fox News’s Sean Hannity declaring, “In the end, this is a sad day for America, a moral failing of a magnitude we can't even begin to calculate.”     Referencing back to preceding controversies, a sarcastic Stewart wondered, “Oh, my god, a moral failing we can't even begin to calculate? Perhaps it's a combo failing? An appliance that changed its name to be more inclusive? Is Mr. Coffee now They/Them Coffee? Is that -- is that the danger we now face?” Stewart then played two clips of NBC’s Savannah Guthrie and Andrea Mitchell reporting on the news that Biden has halted bomb shipments to Israel with a third clip of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin telling Congress, “We paused one shipment of high payload munitions.” If anything, Stewart felt the decision was too little, too late, “Oh, my god! The Biden Administration has paused one shipment of 3,500 munitions, of the over 300,000 munitions Israel has already dropped on Gaza, to try and prevent the Israelis from attacking the area where all the refugees of this war are currently sheltering. I mean, oh, my god! Or to put that another way.” That led to a montage of various GOP senators condemning the move. One clip featured Texas’s Ted Cruz declaring, “Joe Biden has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah that there is on planet Earth,” to which Kansas’s Roger Marshall responded by giving him a high five and adding, “Amen! Damn, he's good.” Stewart responded, “Yes, nothing says gravitas like, [goofy laughing] ‘He's a terrorist sympathizer –[indistinguishable muttering]’ ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself [indistinguishable muttering].’ You people are [bleep] children. That came out wrong, but I am curious, why would Biden halt that shipment now?" In a clip, Biden was shown claiming that “I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they're going into these population centers.” Stewart replied by unwittingly undermining his own position, “If they go into the population centers? The whole place is a population center! They've been in the population center for six months! Gaza’s all population center! You know what you never hear around Gaza? ‘Yeah, I don't live in the populated area. I live in upstate Gaza. I live by the lakes! It is really quiet there.’”  The logical conclusion of Biden and Stewart’s position is that if the bad guys hold a city, it's theirs. If Israel could fight Hamas out in the open, it would, but for all the IDF’s technological superiority, it has not managed to create magical fairy dust. Here is a transcript for the May 9 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 5/9/2024 11:08 PM ET JON STEWART: All this false outrage is starting to make me cynical about America’s media ecosystem. Is there anything else going on that does merit a DEFCON 1 freak-out? SEAN HANNITY: In the end, this is a sad day for America, a moral failing of a magnitude we can't even begin to calculate. STEWART: Oh, my god, a moral failing we can't even begin to calculate? Perhaps it's a combo failing? An appliance that changed its name to be more inclusive? Is Mr. Coffee now They/Them Coffee? Is that -- is that the danger we now face? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: President Biden threatening to withhold more military aid if the Israeli military carries out an all-out assault on the city of Rafah. ANDREA MITCHELL: President Biden halting a weapons shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel. LLOYD AUSTIN: We paused one shipment of high payload munitions. STEWART: Oh, my god! The Biden Administration has paused one shipment of 3,500 munitions, of the over 300,000 munitions Israel has already dropped on Gaza, to try and prevent the Israelis from attacking the area where all the refugees of this war are currently sheltering. I mean, oh, my god! Or to put that another way. RON JOHNSON: And now what the Biden administration has done is they become the primary protector of Hamas. JONI ERNST: He absolutely is siding with the terrorists. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The only reason they aren't dancing in Iran is because they don't believe in dancing. TED CRUZ: Joe Biden has been the greatest friend to Hamas and Hezbollah that there is on planet Earth. ROGER MARSHALL: Amen! Damn, he's good. STEWART: Yes, nothing says gravitas like, [goofy laughing] "He's a terrorist sympathizer –[indistinguishable muttering]” "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself [indistinguishable muttering]."  You people are [bleep] children. That came out wrong, but I am curious, why would Biden halt that shipment now? JOE BIDEN: I have made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet they're not going to get our support if, in fact, they're going into these population centers STEWART: If they go into the population centers? The whole place is a population center! They've been in the population center for six months! Gaza’s all population center! You know what you never hear around Gaza? "Yeah, I don't live in the populated area. I live in upstate Gaza. I live by the lakes! It is really quiet there." 

With No Evidence, Reid Claims Trump Bribed Judge In Classified Docs Case With SCOTUS Seat

MSNBC’s Joy Reid took a break from covering former President Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York on the Wednesday installment of The ReidOut’s to discuss his classified documents case and the news that Judge Aileen Cannon has postponed the trial indefinitely while she considers all the pre-trial motions and other issues related to the case. Reid responded by putting on her tinfoil hat and declaring, with no evidence whatsoever, that Trump has implicitly bribed her with a future Supreme Court appointment. Reid asked legal analyst Joyce Vance, “If you're Jack Smith, do you try to somehow appeal it to the 11th Circuit and get her booted?” Vance gave a long, rambling answer that ultimately suggested such a move would, from her perspective, unfortunately not go anywhere, “You know, the best hook that Jack Smith has for an appeal would be if Judge Cannon were to make rulings that he didn't like when it comes to whether Donald Trump can use classified information at trial. He's got a right to appeal those. Of course, we're in that pre-trial phase where the government needs a special hook to take an interlocutory appeal. Most sorts of issues have to wait until afterwards. So, I think what Jack Smith has been waiting for has been these rulings on the classified information.”     Cracking herself up, Reid interrupted, “She's never going to rule.” Vance continued, “And that is one of the issues -- right. She suspended that this week. Those responses were due this week. Out of the blue, she gave Trump a continuance and so, for Jack Smith, I suspect he's now regretting the fact that he did not try to recuse her early on when he could have.” With absolutely zero evidence, Reid echoed an idea she floated on April 10 by following up with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, “As the great Lawrence O’Donnell says, Eugene, the bribe is implied. She wants to be on the Supreme Court. She thinks she can get on if Donald Trump wins. She's going to kill this case. Catch and kill as one might say.” Also cracking himself up, Robinson began, “I know, but Aileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, come on. I mean, you know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know—” Reid insisted, “It's Trump. She's done him favors.” Robinson tried to start again, “Look, I know, I shouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility.” Interrupting again to take a cheap shot at another woman Trump appointed, Reid declared that “she has about as much experience as Amy Coney Barrett.” Robinson then lamented, “Well, yeah, but Amy Coney Barrett's a lot smarter than Aileen Cannon. I mean, look, this is an illustration of when a case goes before a federal judge, federal judges have enormous power. The federal judge is in charge of that case and so, this story that this case will not come to trial before the election, this story was written the day the case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon and it was” In New York, whenever the judge rules against Trump it is hailed as proof that nobody, not even a former president, is above the law or rules that govern court cases, but when something doesn’t go Jack Smith’s way, it is treated as a great scandal. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 5/8/2024 7:23 PM ET JOY REID: If you're Jack Smith, do you try to somehow appeal it to the 11th Circuit and get her booted? JOYCE VANCE: You know, the best hook that Jack Smith has for an appeal would be if Judge Cannon were to make rulings that he didn't like when it comes to whether Donald Trump can use classified information at trial. He's got a right to appeal those. Of course, we're in that pre-trial phase where the government needs a special hook to take an interlocutory appeal. Most sorts of issues have to wait until afterwards. So, I think what Jack Smith has been waiting for has been these rulings on the classified information. REID: She's never going to rule. VANCE: And that is one of the issues -- right. She suspended that this week. Those responses were due this week. Out of the blue, she gave Trump a continuance and so, for Jack Smith, I suspect he's now regretting the fact that he did not try to recuse her early on when he could have. REID: As the great Lawrence O’Donnell says, Eugene, the bribe is implied. She wants to be on the Supreme Court. She thinks she can get on if Donald Trump wins. She's going to kill this case. Catch and kill as one might say. EUGENE ROBINSON: I know, but Aileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, come on. I mean, you know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know— REID: It's Trump. She's done him favors. ROBINSON: Look, I know, I shouldn't put anything beyond the realm of possibility. REID: She has about as much experience as Amy Coney Barrett. ROBINSON: Well, yeah, but Amy Coney Barrett's a lot smarter than Aileen Cannon. I mean, look, this is an illustration of when a case goes before a federal judge, federal judges have enormous power. The federal judge is in charge of that case and so, this story that this case will not come to trial before the election, this story was written the day— REID: Absolutely. ROBINSON: -- the case was assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon and it was.

Psaki Claims Being An Ex-Biden Official Makes Her a Better MSNBC Host

Former Biden White House Press Secretary and current MSNBC host Jen Psaki took her book tour to the Wednesday taping of CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where she declared that her history as a Democratic official makes her more qualified to be a host. Meanwhile, she also praised her former boss for halting weapons shipments to Israel. Colbert asked, “I watch your show, I mean, I enjoy it. I just—I would just imagine that, especially as we get closer to the election, that tension's going to be greater for you to stay objective, even if you actually believe in the objectives of the president of the United States.” Psaki downplayed the concerns because her views are well known, “That’s true, but I don't think my views of Donald Trump are a secret. I don't think yours are either, if I'm being honest.”     Wondering if there was a difference, Colbert retorted, “But, I’m not a journalist and I’m not—you know, I’m a professional clown.” The late night comedians have this bit where they want to be political influencers and view their jokes as a more entertaining and thus more effective way to make a political point than a 5,000-word essay that nobody reads, but whenever someone calls them out on it, they revert back to the clown posture. Ironically, Psaki undermined this conceit, “Yeah, I think you’re way more than that, you’re informing the public.” Getting back to her own show, she continued, “I think people who are watching my show, I hope, and this is the North Star we always talk about on our team is, do people come away with a better understanding of a person?” She also claimed, “I don't think it’s a secret, I don’t try to make it a secret. I worked for not just Joe Biden, I worked for Barack Obama, I worked on three presidential campaigns. That’s part of my story. I think I can bring a lot of insights to the public about how these things work, about how campaigns work, and also what’s actually at stake in this election.” Colbert wondered if she could be critical of Biden, but naturally he chose an issue from Biden’s left, “Is there something that you could inform the audience about that might be something that you feel like the Biden Administration is not doing correctly right now? … Much is being made of the fact young voters are turned off to President Biden, especially in light of his continued support of Netanyahu with the tragedy that’s going on in Gaza right now in response to the tragedy of October 7.” Psaki hailed recent news that Biden is halting weapons supplies to Israel, “I do think that there is some leverage we are all seeing being used. Should it have been used earlier? I think the answer is yes to that, but we are seeing them hold back on the sending of weapons. That’s actually a significant sign given that the United States and Israel has a long-standing connection on military support where the United States is a big provider of that.” After Colbert asked if that has happened before, Psaki rolled on, “Not many times before. It has happened before, but not many times before, but that is a significant step. Prime Minister Netanyahu, I would say, is someone who Joe Biden has had a tricky, challenging, difficult relationship with for some time.” Challenging? Yes, but because Netanyahu refuses to outsource Israel’s security to Biden’s Israel-hating base that he is now desperately trying to appease and because Democrats have gotten mad at Netanyahu for the war's length despite their demand he not attack Hamas in Rafah. Here is a transcript for the May 8-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/9/2024 12:05 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: I watch your show, I mean, I enjoy it. I just—I would just imagine that, especially as we get closer to the election, that tension's going to be greater for you to stay objective, even if you actually believe in the objectives of the president of the United States. JEN PSAKI: That’s true, but I don't think my views of Donald Trump are a secret. I don't think yours are either, if I'm being honest. COLBERT: But, I’m not a journalist and I’m not—you know, I’m a professional clown. PSAKI: Yeah, I think you’re way more than that, you’re informing the public. I think— COLBERT: Then I’m not doing my job very well. PSAKI: I think people who are watching my show, I hope, and this is the North Star we always talk about on our team is, do people come away with a better understanding of a person? Maybe it’s Joe Biden, someone running for office, maybe it’s a governor, and an issue, and/or an issue. So, is there an issue misconstrued out there that I can help explain? I don't think it’s a secret, I don’t try to make it a secret. I worked for not just Joe Biden, I worked for Barack Obama, I worked on three presidential campaigns. That’s part of my story. I think I can bring a lot of insights to the public about how these things work, about how campaigns work, and also what’s actually at stake in this election, so— COLBERT: Is there something that you could inform the audience about that might be something that you feel like the Biden Administration is not doing correctly right now? Some constructive information that they wouldn’t even mind hearing from you. For instance, how about outreach to young people right now. Much is being made of the fact young voters are turned off to President Biden, especially in light of his continued support of Netanyahu with the tragedy that’s going on in Gaza right now in response to the tragedy of October 7. PSAKI: Well, I would say, obviously I haven't been in there in two years, but I have worked in diplomacy, I worked for the former secretary of State. I do think that there is some leverage we are all seeing being used. Should it have been used earlier? I think the answer is yes to that, but we are seeing them hold back on the sending of weapons. That’s actually a significant sign given that the United States and Israel has a long-standing connection on military support where the United States is a big provider of that. COLBERT: Has the United States done that many times before? Withheld the weapons? PSAKI: Not many times before. It has happened before, but not many times before, but that is a significant step. Prime Minister Netanyahu, I would say, is someone who Joe Biden has had a tricky, challenging, difficult relationship with for some time.  People don't always see that, that it isn’t often talked about, but in terms of, to go back to your original question about what they could be doing differently, it’s very hard and difficult to explain the nature of diplomacy. It’s just very hard to talk about what’s happening behind the scenes sometimes because if you do, you’ll ruin the diplomatic talks and the conversations, but outreach and connection and listening to young people and hearing from them is certainly an important part of that. He is going to talk to Morehouse University, he is going to do the commencement address there in a couple weeks. That’s a good step. They could be doing more of that and I think that’s an important part of their outreach that they’ll have to do over the next couple months.

Acosta Practically Begs IDF Spox To Give Up Fight Against Hamas

IDF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner admirably managed to calmly, but firmly educate CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta on Wednesday that there is “no magic wand” that will force Hamas to surrender amid Acosta’s pestering and insistence that enough is enough. As a White House correspondent during the Trump years, Acosta portrayed himself as an uncompromising fighter for truth. Now, in May 2024, Acosta put that aside for the idea that if a position is popular, it must be valid, “But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that.”     He further added, “I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now.” Lerner began his response by mourning, “The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations.” He continued, “Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal—” Acosta then interrupted, “The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” As Acosta was repeating his argumentum ad populum, Lerner asked, “So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas?” Ignoring that critical question, Acosta rolled on, “You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much.” Lerner then repeated his own question, “The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?” Neither Acosta nor any of the groups he cited as a good answer to that. They have no knowledge, let alone, expertise, in military matters, but feel they get to lecture Israel on precisely that. They claim Hamas shouldn’t rule Gaza and then demand Israel stop its war on Hamas. They add that the suffering has gone on for too long and then demand Israel adopt policies that would prolong the war and hence, the suffering. It’s enough to drive a lesser man than Lerner insane. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: CNN Newsroom 5/8/2024 11:26 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that. I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now. PETER LERNER: The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations. Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal— ACOSTA: The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” LERNER: So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas? ACOSTA: -- You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much. LERNER: The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?

Dale Claims Soros Is a 'Target Of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories'

After former President Donald Trump gave some remarks to reporters assembled outside of his New York trial on Tuesday, CNN’s host of The Lead, Jake Tapper, brought on the network’s resident fact-checker, Daniel Dale, to assess the accuracy of Trump’s claims. In one instance, Dale shamed Trump for calling D.A. Alvin Bragg a Soros-backed prosecutor, even going so far as to claim Soros is a frequent victim of anti-Semitism. Tapper began, “Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation, then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice?”     For his first fact-check, Dale chose a topic of questionable importance: is Trump leading in all the polls or merely most of them? He declared, “There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few.” Dale then went off the rails, “He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts.” He elaborated, “So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.” As Dale would say, “there was a lot there.” First, with anti-Semitism surging on college campuses, labeling criticisms of Soros’s political donations to far-left causes, including those anti-Israel encampments, as anti-Semitic is as nonsensical as it is appalling. Second, Dale wants to pretend as if Soros giving money to an organization, which in turn donates it to a candidate, is somehow evidence that Soros doesn't financially support Bragg. Soros doesn’t need to have spoken to Bragg to support him. Plenty of people donate to organizations, who in turn donate to candidates because they support those groups’ missions and trust them to donate to candidates who support that mission. Soros just does so in great quantity. Third, “reform-minded” is a convenient way of hiding their soft-on-crime progressivism. Here is a transcript for the May 7 show: CNN The Lead with Jake Tapper 5/8/2024 4:35 PM ET JAKE TAPPER: Let's bring in CNN's Daniel Dale, who fact-checks what we just heard from Donald Trump. He started off criticizing the case, what happened on the case. Daniel, then he turned to protests on college campuses, then he turned to inflation then back to the case. What's -- what caught your notice? DANIEL DALE: There was a lot there. Some of it was subjective opinion. I won't try to fact-check, but a few things to fact check. One, he claimed again that he's leading in all the polls. No, he's slightly leading in national polling averages, but he's trailing in a good number of polls, especially those that have come out in the last week or so. There are at least a few. He refers frequently to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor behind this case, as a Soros-backed district attorney. Now, I'd say there's some arguable basis for that, but I think it's important to clarify the facts. So, Mr. Soros, who's a liberal billionaire philanthropist, also a frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, did not make any direct contributions to Mr. Bragg's election campaign. He also says he's never spoken once to Mr. Bragg. What did happen was he donated to a liberal PAC that then in turn donated to Mr. Bragg's campaign, as well as other reform-minded prosecutors. So, this is at best a one-step removed relationship.

Retired IDF Officer Calls Out Hasan For 'Parroting Hamas's Talking Points'

Former MSNBC host and current CEO and editor-in-chief of Zeteo Mehdi Hasan joined CNN NewsNight host Abby Phillip and Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow and retired IDF Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus on Monday to discuss the latest Israel-Hamas War developments. Hasan finally got his comeuppance as Conricus accused him of “parroting Hamas’s talking points,” despite Phillip pointing out Hamas’s latest propaganda is just that: propaganda. Specifically, Phillip was talking about Hamas’s claims that it has accepted a ceasefire, “But it's really kind of a counterproposal that includes elements that they know Israel never agreed to. So, was this some kind of propaganda effort by Hamas to say, ‘we're at the table, we're agreeing to something’?” The short and correct answer would be “yes,” but Hasan suggested Hamas’s announcement was some sort of negotiating genius, “The Israelis apparently were on board until, of course, Hamas agreed, and then the Israelis’ bluff was called. And now they're saying, well, we don't agree to this proposal because we want to free the hostages, even though the proposal would help free the hostages. You saw Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper—”     Phillip cut him off, “Can I just pause you there for a second, because I think I just want to add one bit of information I think is critical here? The part that Israel didn't agree to is the part that calls for a permanent end to the war and I think this is really what is at issue here, that Israel has never agreed to that.” Undeterred by facts, Hasan kept rolling, “In what world is Hamas going to say, we're going to release all the hostages and you carry on killing us? Obviously, outside world, America, Western countries has been wanting a ceasefire for a while. We were told Hamas was the obstacle, and now they're calling Israel's bluff.” He also claimed “the obstacle to a hostage deal has always been Benjamin Netanyahu… Those are the words of Haim Rubinstein, the former spokesperson for the hostage's family, who told the Israeli press last week that Netanyahu’s been the obstacle. He says that they found out there was a deal on the table back on October 9th, 10th to get hostages released, but Netanyahu hid it from them.” Hasan naturally omitted the major detail that Israel would have to agree not to enter Gaza. No country that just suffered a crime that was the per capita equivalent of 13 9/11s was going to agree to that. Still, Hasan thought the reason for the war’s continuation is Israeli domestic politics, “He hid it from them because he knows that if he agrees to a hostage deal, his fascist colleagues and his coalition government will collapse his government. This is Israeli domestic politics.” Phillip then turned to Conricus, “If the hostages are all released, shouldn't Israel seriously consider ending hostilities in Gaza and allowing for a political settlement that leads to the future?” Later on, Phillip would press Hasan about how Hamas could dictate the terms of its own surrender in a war it started, but for now, Conricus began, “Yeah, I'm listening to the second edition of Mehdi Hasan's monologue that I saw earlier and it's not surprising that you're parroting Hamas' talking points.” He then doubled down while pointing out that the timing of Hamas’s announcement was awfully convenient: They're the ones for the last four months have been refusing any… now, when push comes to shove and when they see Israeli tanks lined up on their way to Rafah, all of a sudden they are agreeing. They're agreeing to something that wasn't on the table. And it's quite absurd that this is even how it's covered. And it’s classic deception 101 by an organization that is very savvy in deception and unfortunately has figureheads and mouthpieces all over western media doing their work, whether it's Al Jazeera or other places, and getting that message that out that Israel is the problem, when Israeli civilians and soldiers are the ones that have been abducted. That is the problem with Hasan. He sets up a strawman about Israel’s position, only this time someone was there to call him out on it. Other shows that think he is worth their while should do the same. Here is a transcript for the May 6 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 5/6/2024 10:24 PM ET ABBY PHILLIP: But I want to ask you about this reporting, about Hamas, saying publicly they've agreed to a ceasefire deal. But it's really kind of a counterproposal that includes elements that they know Israel never agreed to. So, was this some kind of propaganda effort by Hamas to say, we're “at the table, we're agreeing to something”? MEHDI HASAN: Well, look, the reporting we have says that, yes, it was an Egyptian-Qatari proposal that the Americans were involved in, too, Abby. The CIA director, Bill Burns, has been involved in this. The Israelis apparently were on board until, of course, Hamas agreed, and then the Israelis’ bluff was called. And now they're saying, well, we don't agree to this proposal because we want to free the hostages, even though the proposal would help free the hostages. You saw Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper— PHILLIP: Can I just pause you there for a second, because I think I just want to add one bit of information I think is critical here? The part that Israel didn't agree to is the part that calls for a permanent end to the war and I think this is really what is at issue here, that Israel has never agreed to that and that maybe this is a counter-proposal, but that means essentially that everybody has to get back to the table and agree to what is on the table now. HASAN: Yes. But let me just say, in what world is Hamas going to say, we're going to release all the hostages and you carry on killing us? Obviously, outside world, America, Western countries has been wanting a ceasefire for a while. We were told Hamas was the obstacle, and now they're calling Israel's bluff. The reality is, Abby, that the obstacle to a hostage deal has always been Benjamin Netanyahu. And those are not my words. Those are the words of Haim Rubinstein, the former spokesperson for the hostage's family, who told the Israeli press last week that Netanyahu’s been the obstacle. He says that they found out there was a deal on the table back on October 9th, 10th to get hostages released, but Netanyahu hid it from them. Those are the words of the spokesperson for the Israeli families of the hostages. And he hid it from them because he knows that if he agrees to a hostage deal, his fascist colleagues and his coalition government will collapse his government. This is Israeli domestic politics. PHILLIP: Lieutenant Colonel, what about that? I mean, if the hostages are all released, shouldn't Israel seriously consider ending hostilities in Gaza and allowing for a political settlement that leads to the future? JONATHAN CONRICUS: Yeah, I'm listening to the second edition of Mehdi Hasan's monologue that I saw earlier and it's not surprising that you're parroting Hamas' talking points. Really, let's put things here in perspective. We have a terrorist organization that abducted civilians and soldiers. They're the ones for the last four months have been refusing any deal that Israel, the U.S., Qatar, Egypt and others have put forward. And now, when push comes to shove and when they see Israeli tanks lined up on their way to Rafah, all of a sudden they are agreeing. They're agreeing to something that wasn't on the table. And it's quite absurd that this is even how it's covered. And it's classic deception 101 by an organization that is very savvy in deception and unfortunately has figureheads and mouthpieces all over western media doing their work, whether it's Al Jazeera or other places, and getting that message that out that Israel is the problem, when Israeli civilians and soldiers are the ones that have been abducted.

Oliver Doubles Down On Attempt To Bribe Thomas Off The Court

HBO’s host of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver, traveled to NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers on Monday for one of his periodic visits to his network-based cohorts. During his visit, Oliver and Meyers reminisced about the time Oliver promised Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million to “get the fuck off the Supreme Court,” with Oliver doubling down, “Honestly, I'd open it up again.” Meyers recalled that “there is something that has not happened yet that you threw out into the universe. You basically offered Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year—not just a million dollars, a million dollars a year if he resigned from the Supreme Court.”     Amid cheering from the audience, Oliver also remembered that it is “so easy to feel that way when you didn't make the offer and I felt exactly like you until the offer went out on TV. I was so excited. "Oh, that was fun. That show went really well. Oh [bleep], it's about to happen now, isn't it?" After a bit about how Oliver’s wife was not as thrilled as the audience with the idea, he declared, “It was both a huge relief and massively disappointing that he didn't take it.” Meyers then wondered, “What was the window of time you gave him?” Oliver then doubled down, “It was—we gave him 30 days. Honestly, I'd open it up again. If— ahead of — As long as—As long as he gets out before the—before they're doing the June decisions. I would be willing to open discussions again.” After a bit of self-revelation that Thomas probably wasn’t watching, Meyers joked that Thomas’s wife Ginni was, which led Oliver to continue, “Yeah, if you want to get in touch and open up the negotiations again, I still have the contract in the drawer in my desk, and I'd be willing to do that. Again, until one of us dies, and hopefully that will be you.” For Meyers, that last bit was “just self-preservation” to avoid having to make large amounts of million-dollar payments, but Oliver doesn't have to worry because Thomas isn't the corrupt vote-seller the bit pretends that he is. Here is a transcript for the May 6-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/7/2024 1:08 AM ET SETH MEYERS: There is something that has not happened yet that you threw out into the universe. You basically offered Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year -- not just a million dollars – JOHN OLIVER: Yeah. MEYERS: -- a million dollars a year if he resigned from the Supreme Court. OLIVER: I did do that. I did, yeah. Yeah. Easy. MEYERS: Easy. OLIVER: Easy -- so easy to feel that way when you didn't make the offer and I felt exactly like you until the offer went out on TV. I was so excited. "Oh, that was fun. That show went really well. Oh [bleep], it's about to happen now, isn't it?" MEYERS: Now, I imagine there's multiple people you just – OLIVER: Oh, yeah. Yes. MEYERS: -- Have to talk to about that. People, lawyers – OLIVER: For sure. MEYERS: Your wife. OLIVER: Definitely. MEYERS: Were they as applaud-y as this group? OLIVER: I would say my wife was on the low side of the applaud-y. It was more, "What did you just tell me?" I did say to her, it's until one of us dies. And I think that if he takes the offer -- MEYERS: Not you or your wife, you or Clarence Thomas. OLIVER: No, yeah, that's what I'm -- no, no. Yeah. Well, you diagnosed the awkwardness in that room really well. “Why would you put that in the offer, you sociopath?”  Until I or Clarence Thomas die. And I did feel like if he took the deal that there were going to be some people so angry with me that they were going to kill me. Therefore, my wife wouldn't be on the hook for the money. But she didn't take that as the reassuring statement that I hoped. “Oh, I won't be around for that. Don't worry. It's fine.”  But it would have -- if he said -- it was both a huge relief and massively disappointing that he didn't take it. MEYERS: What was the window of time you gave him? OLIVER: It was -- we gave him 30 days. Honestly, I'd open it up again. If-- ahead of -- As long as -- MEYERS: Yeah. OLIVER: As long as he gets out before the -- before they're doing the June decisions.  MEYERS: Yeah. OLIVER: I would be willing to open discussions again. So Clarence, I know I keep -- every time I'm talking to Clarence through the camera here. MEYERS: Sure, yeah, yeah. Of course. OLIVER: Clarence, I know you're a big fan of Seth. MEYERS: Yeah. I think he -- I think he's not, but Ginni has it on. OLIVER: Ginni-- Ginni is just a fan of just the canon of Late Night. MEYERS: Oh, just loves it, yeah. OLIVER: Yeah, if you want to get in touch and open up the negotiations again, I still have the contract in the drawer in my desk, and I'd be willing to do that. MEYERS: That's really cool. OLIVER: Again, until one of us dies, and hopefully that will be you. MEYERS: More than fair. OLIVER: You know, like -- MEYERS: That's just self-preservation.

Bloomberg Columnist Claims Trump Trial Doesn't 'Get Much Attention' From Media

Bloomberg Businessweek columnist Joshua Green mourned on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO that the media has been covering the demonstrations on college campuses across the country and not Donald Trump’s hush money trial. Not only is surging anti-Semitism among college students a newsworthy topic, but it is simply not true that Trump’s trial has been removed from newscasts. Green’s fellow panelist was former Trump strategist Kellyanne Conway and the trio were discussing what voters care about when Maher quipped, “People do care about democracy also, they do, maybe not the circles you run in.”     Conway pushed back, “I came on your show five days after that, we know what—nine days after that, you know what I think of January 6, that will never change. But if we are looking backward, elections are always about the future, not the past. That's the way America needs to look at them and right now they feel cost of living in everyday quality of life is diminishing.” That led Green, who is the author of The Rebels: Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Struggle for a New American Politics and Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency, to chime in, “But as a pollster you've got to worry, I mean, you've seen polls that say if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he's currently on trial, though, it doesn't get much attention in the news that support for Trump will ebb.” A stunned Conway replied, “Trump doesn't get attention in the news? It’s all they talk about.” Green clung to his claim, “No, the criminal trial, no, it’s nothing but protests. It’s like the D block.” At the same time, Maher tried to offer an explanation, “Well, that criminal really—we’re treating it like it's like the Gwyneth Paltrow skiing trial. People just don’t care.” Back in the real world, the media, and especially cable, has obsessed over the trial. They cover it pretty much all day, relay what is going on inside the courtroom, and then have their legal analysts discuss. CNN has tried to analyze the profound meanings of photographs and court sketches of Trump to such a comical degree, even Jon Stewart couldn’t pass on the opportunity to mock them for it. Here is a transcript for the May 3 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 5/3/2024 10:27 PM ET BILL MAHER: People do care about democracy also, they do, maybe not the circles you run in. KELLYANNE CONWAY: Of course, we all do. No, no, we all do. You know what I think of January 6. JOSHUA GREEN: But as a pollster. CONWAY: I came on your show five days after that, we know what—nine days after that, you know what I think of January 6, that will never change. But if we are looking backward, elections are always about the future, not the past. That's the way America needs to look at them and right now they feel cost of living in everyday quality of life is diminishing. GREEN: But as a pollster you've got to worry, I mean, you've seen polls that say if Donald Trump is convicted of a crime, he's currently on trial, though, it doesn't get much attention in the news that support for Trump will ebb. CONWAY: Trump doesn't get attention in the news? It’s all they talk about. GREEN: No, the criminal trial, no it’s nothing but protests —. CONWAY: Oh, okay. Well— MAHER: Well, that criminal really—we’re treating it like it's— GREEN: It’s like the D Block. MAHER: -- like the Gwyneth Paltrow skiing trial. People just don’t care.

CBS Claims Human Smuggling At Border 'Is More Complex'

On CBS Saturday Morning, host Dana Jacobson sat down to discuss the border crisis with anthropology Prof. Jason De Leon, where the duo also hyped his new book on human smuggling. Both host and author claimed the issue “is more complex” than simply viewing the smugglers as bad guys who take advantage of people. Jacobson reported, “The business of human smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security, is a multibillion dollar industry, run by criminal organizations intent on taking advantage of vulnerable people. The story de Leon tells is more complex.”     De Leon differentiates between smugglers and traffickers. For him, a smuggler is working within a consensual agreement with the person seeking to cross the border, whereas a trafficker is not. He therefore claimed, “I can write a story about how they're the bad guys in this whole scenario and all they do is brutalize migrants, but if you think about the realities, if smugglers only brutalized migrants, the system wouldn't function, and so I went into it telling myself that, you know, what can I find that's relatable, it's not trying to humanize smugglers, it's working from the assumption that they are human first and that they just happen to be in this brutal occupation.” Jacobson then claimed that smugglers and migrants face the same set of challenges, “The low-level smugglers de Leon met said issues like poverty and gang violence had driven them out of Honduras. The same issues many migrants also face.”  She then asked, “You talk about smuggling and think what you write, it's violent, it exploits people, but that it's also a symptom of a larger problem. What is that larger problem?” That does not sound complex at all. In fact, de Leon would spend much of the rest of the time portraying smuggling as a get-rich-quick scheme. He also blamed things such as climate change for the crisis, “We need to think about why are people migrating in the first place, and you know, why does the United States have an insatiable appetite for cheap, undocumented labor that we rarely acknowledge, and as long as you need the labor and as long as climate is changing and making places unlivable, those smugglers are going to stay in business and just make more money off of this whole process.” After de Leon warned the crisis is not going to end any time soon, Jacobson added, “A future de Leon hopes can be made easier by considering different perspectives and the humanity of everyone involved.” De Leon concluded by lamenting, “The approaches that we've been using to deal with these problems have clearly been ineffective for decades and yet we just don't seem to want to get smarter about this stuff… You can build whatever border wall you want. There are desperate people on the other side who are willing to die to save themselves, to save their family, and then there are smugglers who are willing to make a buck on that in all kinds of different ways, so that will just keep the system, kind of, going forever.” You can’t have a policy that claims the weather being too hot is a legitimate asylum claim and as CBS itself admitted, the smugglers exploit people and subject them to possible death, so why is this complex? Here is a transcript for the May 4 show: CBS Saturday Mornings 5/4/2024 8:54 AM ET DANA JACOBSON: The business of human smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security, is a multibillion dollar industry, run by criminal organizations intent on taking advantage of vulnerable people. The story de Leon tells is more complex. JASON DE LEON: I can write a story about how they're the bad guys in this whole scenario and all they do is brutalize migrants, but if you think about the realities, if smugglers only brutalized migrants, the system wouldn't function, and so I went into it telling myself that, you know, what can I find that's relatable, it's not trying to humanize smugglers, it's working from the assumption that they are human first and that they just happen to be in this brutal occupation. JACOBSON: The low-level smugglers de Leon met said issues like poverty and gang violence had driven them out of Honduras. The same issues many migrants also face.  You talk about smuggling and think what you write, it's violent, it exploits people, but that it's also a symptom of a larger problem. What is that larger problem? DE LEON: We need to think about why are people migrating in the first place, and you know, why does the United States have an insatiable appetite for cheap, undocumented labor that we rarely acknowledge, and as long as you need the labor and as long as climate is changing and making places unlivable, those smugglers are going to stay in business and just make more money off of this whole process. JACOBSON: It's an industry that continues to grow as migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border hit record highs with people coming from as far away as Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. DE LEON: People are coming from around the globe. They're coming up from South America, through the Darien Gap. It's a window into the future as all those places become unlivable for different reasons. We're going to continue to see that mix of people coming up from the south to our doorstep. JACOBSON: A future de Leon hopes can be made easier by considering different perspectives and the humanity of everyone involved. DE LEON: The approaches that we've been using to deal with these problems have clearly been ineffective for decades and yet we just don't seem to want to get smarter about this stuff. I hope with this book that it's a way to undermine the simplistic framings of what the problem actually is. You can build whatever border wall you want. There are desperate people on the other side who are willing to die to save themselves, to save their family, and then there are smugglers who are willing to make a buck on that in all kinds of different ways, so that will just keep the system, kind of, going forever.

PBS Wonders Why College Protests Are Labeled Anti-Semitic

The cast of Friday’s PBS NewsHour was greatly confused. Host William Brangham didn’t understand why the anti-Israel college demonstrators, on the whole, have been branded as anti-Semitic, while Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart didn’t know why it is so hard for the demonstrators to protest Israel without degenerating into anti-Semitism. Brangham’s remarks came on the heels of New York Times columnist David Brooks warning that the protests are toxic for Democrats, “I think if the protests continue to veer in the direction they're veering, you could see some pretty serious repercussions, which is why Biden is speaking, which is why Chuck Schumer is speaking, trying to distance themselves from what the protesters are doing.”     Claiming his first-hand look at the protests disproved the idea that they are rampant with anti-Semitism, Brangham wondered, “I mean, Jonathan, a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all anti-Semitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't — can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as anti-Semities?” Capehart began by correcting him, “So, there's anti-Semitism, but then you anti — you said anti-Israeli,” to which Brangham apologized, “I'm even conflating it myself here.” That settled, Capehart proceeded, “Exactly. And that is the issue. It is possible to criticize the government of Israel, the state of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, the policies, what he says, his actions, without veering into ugly anti-Semitism. If you don't like what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, not allowing enough humanitarian aid to go through, that is a legitimate criticism.” He then added, “But to then go into all the ugliness, some of the ugliness that we have heard, that's not okay. I don't understand how — why it's so hard to state your objections without being bigoted about it.” Perhaps we can help both Brangham and Capehart out. If you listen to what the leaders of the movement say, they talk about defeating Zionism which is simply the belief that Israel should exist. That is not criticism of Netanyahu and is an anti-Semitic position, according to President Barack Obama’s State Department. As your typical liberal, Capehart believes that there should be a ceasefire leading to two states for two peoples and that Netanyahu is an obstacle to this, but he and his fellow liberals keep projecting their liberalism onto Marxists and others who do not want such an outcome by refusing to acknowledge that the problem is with the group’s leaders and professors, not a handful of bad actors who corrupted a genuine anti-war, pro-peace movement.  Here is a transcript for the May 3 show: PBS NewsHour 5/3/2024 7:36 PM ET DAVID BROOKS: And, so I think if the protests continue to veer in the direction they're veering, you could see some pretty serious repercussions, which is why Biden is speaking, which is why Chuck Schumer is speaking, trying to distance themselves from what the protesters are doing. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Jonathan, a lot of the critics of these protests like to say that it's all anti-Semitism, just a hot stew of anti-Israeli bias. I was at one of the NYU protests earlier this week, and there is some of that, for sure. But it's mostly young people, as you were describing, who are despairing over what is happening in Gaza. How is it that people who care deeply about this issue can't — can somehow protest and not be risked being branded as anti-Semities? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Okay, what — excuse me. So, there's anti-Semitism, but then you anti — you said anti-Israeli. BRANGHAM: I'm even conflating it myself here. CAPHEART: Exactly. And that is the issue. It is possible to criticize the government of Israel, the state of Israel, the prime minister of Israel, the policies, what he says, his actions, without veering into ugly anti-Semitism. If you don't like what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, not allowing enough humanitarian aid to go through, that is a legitimate criticism. But to then go into all the ugliness, some of the ugliness that we have heard, that's not okay. I don't understand how — why it's so hard to state your objections without being bigoted about it.

'It's F****** Scary,' De Niro Compares Trump To Hitler On MSNBC

For some reason, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle decided to interview actor Robert De Niro on the Thursday edition of The 11th Hour. On multiple occasions, De Niro would compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler and himself and his compatriots to Jews in Nazi Germany, claiming “it's [bleep] scary.” Ruhle wondered, “What do you say to those who say, ‘I don't like the guy, but I'm going to vote for him.’ What's your message to them?” De Niro claimed that “I don't understand it. I don't think they understand how dangerous it will be if he ever, God forbid, becomes president.”       He further claimed, “I don't think they really understand and historically, from what I see, even in Nazi Germany, they had it with Hitler. They don't take him seriously. He looks like a clown, acts like a clown, Mussolini, same thing. These guys, I don’t know why they look like clowns, they somehow, people, that element of society identifies in some ways with them, but it would be chaos beyond our imagination. There's no mystery about him. He’s right out front and what he says is what it will be if he becomes president.” Ruhle’s underwhelming response was to ask, “Do you think our democracy is at risk in this election?” After comparing Trump to Hitler and Mussolini, De Niro naturally thought it is, “The guy’s a monster, is beyond wrong. It’s almost like he wants to do the most horrible things that he can think of in order to get a rise out of us. I don't know what it is, but he has been doing it and doing it and it's [bleep] scary. Excuse my French.” Still playing along, Ruhle inquired, “Do you have any concerns for the future of the arts if he were to become president? He already said he wants to go after his enemies, he wants to go after journalists and the news media. What about your industry?” De Niro took a while to get to his answer before ultimately replying that there could be “civil strife because, yeah, but he will try it.” Ruhle then wondered about other celebrities, “What do you say to other celebrities who don't want to alienate part of their fan base, don't want to step in harm’s way, but they have similar megaphones that you do?” Returning to the Nazi analogy, De Niro agreed that “other people are going to have to stand up” because otherwise America is going to end up in a Hitlerian dystopia: Because it's either that or you’re going to find yourself in a situation that is so terrifying. We always hear about people from Eastern Europe. The Jews from other than parts of Eastern Europe, from Western Europe coming over. Look what happened in France and with the Nazis and so on. And they come over, and you hear these and when I was a kid, they would say ‘you don't really appreciate this country. You don't really. Well, we know from experience.’ De Niro further added, “I run into people who are close to my age, who are from Eastern Europe, European countries or even Nazi Germany and, you know, they, you understand it.” Of all the times to compare being a liberal in Trump’s America to being a Jew in Nazi Germany, the one that involves Jews being told by hard core leftists to go back to Poland is probably not the best one. Here is a transcript for the May 2 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 5/2/2024 11:47 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: What do you say to those who say "I don't like the guy, but I'm going to vote for him." What's your message to them? ROBERT DE NIRO: I don't understand it. I don't think they understand how dangerous it will be if he ever, God forbid, becomes president. I don't think they really understand and historically, from what I see, even in Nazi Germany, they had it with Hitler. They don't take him seriously. He looks like a clown, acts like a clown, Mussolini, same thing. These guys, I don’t know why they look like clowns, they somehow, people, that element of society identifies in some ways with them, but it would be chaos beyond our imagination. There's no mystery about him. He’s right out front and what he says is what it will be if he becomes president. RUHLE: Do you think our democracy is at risk in this election? DE NIRO: I think that it is. I always keep saying, democracy is great, of course, but democracy people take for granted. It is a word some people don't even understand. They take it for granted. It’s about right and wrong, period. The guy’s a monster, is beyond wrong. It’s almost like he wants to do the most horrible things that he can think of in order to get a rise out of us. I don't know what it is, but he has been doing it and doing it and it's [bleep] scary. Excuse my French. RUHLE:  Do you have any concerns for the future of the arts if he were to become president? He already said he wants to go after his enemies, he wants to go after journalists and the news media.  DE NIRO: Yes. RUHLE: What about your industry? DE NIRO: I believe he —   the only thing I can think is what will happen is that he’ll go after these things like he always —   impulsively and he’ll be stopped. There’ll be pushback, a lot of it, and there might be as much pushback as needed, like, in the streets. Conflict, that could happen. Civil strife because, yeah, but he will try it. RUHLE: You have no upside in having this conversation. In speaking out against Donald Trump. You are making yourself a target. The interview will air and he will immediately find a reason to talk bad about you in public. DE NIRO: Yeah. RUHLE: — but you’re choosing to use your platform to do so. What do you say to other celebrities who don't want to alienate part of their fan base, don't want to step in harm’s way, but they have similar megaphones that you do? DE NIRO: You know, the idea, to be bullied at my age by someone like this, is not happening. RUHLE: I’m pretty sure you were never bullied. DE NIRO: No, there was a kid sometime, but the point is not—and for the country, no, and I think other people are going to have to stand up and just—because it's either that or you’re going to find yourself in a situation that is so terrifying. We always hear about people from Eastern Europe. The Jews from other than parts of Eastern Europe, from Western Europe coming over. Look what happened in France and with the Nazis and so on. And they come over, and you hear these and when I was a kid, they would say “you don't really appreciate this country. You don't really. Well, we know from experience.” Imagine what those people went through. I'm just starting to see it. You know, as a kid, I said “Hitler, it’s a nightmare. That never would happen.” But now I see that it is possible and with those people, and sometimes I run into people who are close to my age, who are from Eastern Europe, European countries or even Nazi Germany and, you know, they, you understand it.

Leguizamo Bashes 'Insidious' Univision For Lacking Hostility In Trump Interview

Actor, alleged comedian, and massive narcissist John Leguizamo stopped by CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday to hype his MSNBC miniseries about “Latinx lenses all across America.” Before that, however, Leguizamo blasted Univision for not bashing Donald Trump all the time and that, as a result, he trumpeted that he will no longer be appearing on the network. Colbert recalled that, “You also wrote this in the Los Angeles Times recently, this was in November. You wrote this opinion piece there. It says, ‘Cozying up to Trump, Univision is betraying its Spanish-speaking viewers.’ How so?”     It is hard to see how any network that employs Jorge Ramos could be considered soft on Trump, but Leguizamo tried, “Well, it's kind of insidious because Spanish-speaking only Latinos watch Univision and that's where they get all their news and information and so, you should be impartial. You should be non-partisan. And they're not. It's problematic to me.” Even Colbert suggested he wasn’t buying what Leguizamo was selling, “Are they right-wing in some way?” Leguizamo tried to claim that they were “I've spoken off the record with some of the newscasters and they said that they were leaning -- they were pushing them right way and they had Trump on and they softballed the whole questions. They wouldn't allow Biden commercials on and then they didn't have Biden on for a long, long time and so I had to call them out on it. I called them out and their marketing people called me back.” The interview with Biden wasn’t exactly hardball, but being a little bit to the right of the far-left does not make an outlet a right-wing network, but after Colbert asked what they said in response, Leguizamo proudly declared that the interview resulted in him banning himself from their airwaves, “They said 'it's not true. You know, we are not really -- we are doing everything we can to be nonpartisan,' but 'I'm like, yo, how are you doing all these things that are not -- that are leaning very MAGA? So, you need to be non-partial. Otherwise, I'm going to call you out again.' So I won't be on Univision. I won't be.” Earlier, Colbert and Leguizamo were discussing the latter’s time as temp host of The Daily Show in 2023. It should be noted that a NewsBusters study found that Leguizamo was the most partisan of the show's 2023 temp hosts which included former Democratic officials Al Franken and Kal Penn. Only one of his 66 political jokes targeted the left and that one was attacking Univision's Enrique Acevedo for the interview in November in a show co-hosted by Jordan Klepper and Desi Lydic from the left after his initial stint in March. During his time as host, Leguizamo played racial politics, delighted in Trump getting indicted, and accused Republicans of stealing elections. This year, he mauled a piñata while cursing the fact that polls show Latinos ignoring his political wisdom. Later, Colbert brought up the MSNBC miniseries, “What do you want to explore with the show? Like, what's it about?” The supposed champion Latinos and nonpartisanship in the news media teased, “I’m looking at Latinx lenses all across America and I find it an embarrassment of riches.” Ah, yes, the nonpartisan “Latinx.” Here is a transcript for the May 2-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/3/2024 12:07 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: You also wrote this in the Los Angeles Times recently, this was in November. You wrote this opinion piece there. It says "Cozying up to Trump, Univision is betraying its Spanish-speaking viewers." How so? JOHN LEGUIZAMO: Well, it's kind of insidious because Spanish-speaking only Latinos watch Univision and that's where they get all their news and information and so, you should be impartial. You should be non-partisan. And they're not. It's problematic to me. COLBERT: Are they right-wing in some way? LEGUIZAMO: I've spoken off the record with some of the newscasters and they said that they were leaning -- they were pushing them right way and they had Trump on and they softballed the whole questions. They wouldn't allow Biden commercials on and then they didn't have Biden on for a long, long time and so I had to call them out on it. I called them out and their marketing people called me back. COLBERT: What did they say? Like did they-- LEGUIZAMO: They said “it's not true. You know, we are not really -- we are doing everything we can to be nonpartisan,” but I'm like, “I'm like, yo, how are you doing all these things that are not -- that are leaning very MAGA? So, you need to be non-partial. Otherwise, I'm going to call you out again.” So I won't be on Univision. I won't be. They have the highest rated Spanish-language shows, so I won't be on [speaks Spanish]. … COLBERT: What do you want to explore with the show? Like, what's it about? LEGUIZAMO: I’m looking at Latinx lenses all across America and I find it an embarrassment of riches. You know, we are in every city in America. We've been here since, at least 1492, and before that and you know, from Mississippi to the Pacific was all Mexico until 1840, so we’re everywhere and doing incredible things. I’m meeting politicians, grassroots organizers, chefs who are James Beard nominees and winners. I'm eating the best freaking food you've ever had and gaining pounds and I don’t give a—”

Meyers Claims Columbia Should've Rejected Police, Surrendered Instead

NBC Late Night host Seth Meyers used his Thursday show to condemn Columbia for using the police to clear the illegal encampments and building occupations instead of surrendering to the campers like Brown University. At the same time, Meyers ignored what the leaders of the movement say about Zionism and continued to pretend that they are simply critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the police sweep, Meyers ranted, “As a New Yorker, I just wanna say, I really appreciate knowing this is where my tax dollars are going, using drones to round up co-eds rather than say keeping librarians open, building affordable housing, or making sure the F Train isn't a total piece of [bleep].” After a digression about the F Train’s lack of punctuality, Meyers got back on track by sarcastically remarking, “So, the NYPD responded with advanced technology and unprecedented force to a college protest. Columbia and New York City officials said they were left with no choice. And I mean, let's face it. It's not like they had any alternatives. Unfortunately, there's just no other way for a college to deal with a protest like this.”     He then played a clip of CNN’s Jim Sciutto reporting that Brown reached an agreement with the demonstrators to “hold a vote on divestment from Israel later this year.” Meyers thought Columbia also should’ve caved to the lawlessness and inflammatory demands, “But, what about our drones? If there's a peaceful settlement, what are we going to do with all our drones? I know. Maybe instead of taking the F train, the drones could fly us to work.” Later, Meyers introduced a clip of Sen. Bernie Sanders by lamenting the demonstrators’ message has been lost, “I would hope that there's maybe one thing we can all agree on. No matter how you feel about the protesters, we should spend less time arguing about college kids and more time focusing on what the protests are about. A point Senator Bernie Sanders made on Wednesday.” In the clip, Sanders suggested, “CNN and maybe some of my colleagues here, maybe take your cameras just for a moment off of Columbia and off of UCLA. Maybe go to Gaza and take your camera and show us the emaciated children who are dying of malnutrition because of Netanyahu's policies.” Meyers agreed, “He's right. The story is what's happening in Gaza. That's what the protests are about… As we said on this show before, the misery and devastation in Gaza is horrifying. It must end. At the same time, it's important to be clear. Anti-Semitism is vile, must be rejected in all its forms. Anti-Semitic harassment has no place anywhere, including on a college campus. And the constitutional right to protest, the actions of any government should be protected. And Jewish students should feel safe at school. All of these things can and should be true at once. To quote my favorite college professor, that just seems to me like—” The sentence was concluded by My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell at a Donald Trump rally, saying “bucket of common sense.” Meyers wants to separate the protestors message from the ant-Semitism, but he can’t. The leaders of these movements are not simply Netanyahu critics who are a bunch of naïve peaceniks who think a ceasefire will bring peace, they are radicals who think Zionism is a form of racism and therefore Israel needs to be destroyed, which is a form of anti-Semitism. They say this on tape and on their signs, but Meyers and Sanders chose to ignore it despite the fact that the people they are defending would consider both of them as guilty as Netanyahu for simply believing Israel should continue to exist. Here is a transcript for the May 2-taped show: NBC Late Night with Seth Meyers 5/3/2024 12:46 AM ET SETH MEYERS: As a New Yorker, I just wanna say, I really appreciate knowing this is where my tax dollars are going, using drones to round up co-eds rather than say keeping librarians open, or building affordable housing, or making sure the F Train isn't a total piece of [bleep]. I like the delays. It gives me a chance to do the Wordle. There's even a new special F train Wordle where the words are twice as long.  The other day my train was trapped for 50 minutes between stocks because Pizza Rat was on the tracks and all the other rats wanted a photo. There were even two tourist rats from Germany. You could tell from their lederhosen. Oh, my god, I fought -- I fought so hard to get that in and it was such a dud.  So, the NYPD responded with advanced technology and unprecedented force to a college protest. Columbia and New York City officials said they were left with no choice. And I mean, let's face it. It's not like they had any alternatives. Unfortunately, there's just no other way for a college to deal with a protest like this. JIM SCIUTTO: We also have news just out of Brown University, which has come to agreement with protesters there. The university says it will hold a vote on divestment from Israel later this year. That is ending investments in Israel. It's a key demand from students. Students have said that in response to that, well, they will disband the encampment by 5:00 P.M. Eastern today. MEYERS: But, what about our drones? If there's a peaceful settlement, what are we going to do with all our drones? I know. Maybe instead of taking the F train, the drones could fly us to work … MEYERS: I would hope that there's maybe one thing we can all agree on. No matter how you feel about the protesters, we should spend less time arguing about college kids and more time focusing on what the protests are about. A point Senator Bernie Sanders made on Wednesday. BERNIE SANDERS: Well I suggest to CNN and maybe some of my colleagues here, maybe take your cameras just for a moment off of Columbia and off of UCLA. Maybe go to Gaza and take your camera and show us the emaciated children who are dying of malnutrition because of Netanyahu's policies. MEYERS: He's right. The story is what's happening in Gaza. That's what the protests are about.  And always I will say, I love Bernie's delivery. Really helps him drive home the point he's making. He's like a grandpa reminding everyone to stop texting during dinner. [BERNIE SANDERS IMPRESSION] "Maybe take your eyes off your phones. And make eye contact at the table. In my day there was no such thing as a gif. When we were surprised, we just did this. And then if somebody missed, you would just loop it and do it again."  [NORMAL VOICE] As we said on this show before, the misery and devastation in Gaza is horrifying. It must end. At the same time, it's important to be clear. Anti-Semitism is vile, must be rejected in all its forms. Anti-Semitic harassment has no place anywhere, including on a college campus. And the constitutional right to protest, the actions of any government should be protected. And Jewish students should feel safe at school. All of these things can and should be true at once. To quote my favorite college professor, that just seems to me like MIKE LINDELL: Bucket of common sense. 

MSNBC Hosts Praises Colleges That Surrendered To The Israel-Haters

MSNBC hosts Chris Hayes and Alex Wagner used their respective Wednesday editions of All In and Alex Wagner Tonight to attack those who called in the police to end the illegal encampments and occupations on college campuses by claiming it was they who were escalating tensions and to prove their point, they pointed to those schools that surrendered to the mob. Hayes came out of commercial break wondering what the big deal about violently breaking into a building and occupying it is, after all, actor Samuel L. Jackson was involved in a similar episode in the 60s, “Now, I tell this story for two reasons. One to remind us that college activism has long been a part of college education. The other reason, though, is to get a sense of proportion, which seems lacking today as we watched disturbing imagery emerge from campuses at Columbia, UCLA, University of Texas, University of South Florida, so many others, where cops or, in some cases, mobs took down pro-Palestinian student encampments and protests, as well as professors and journalists and just random bystanders.”     Hayes didn’t mention that the altercation counter-protestors had with the “pro-Palestinian student encampment” at UCLA came about because the campers assaulted a Jewish girl and committed other acts of violence the school did nothing about. If violence sounds escalatory, Hayes was there to say that the real escalators are those who called in the cops, “The cumulative effect of this coverage, along with unverified assertions from police and politicians, has been to drive home the idea that student protests are basically a terrorist-level threat. That they have to be neutralized by battalions of cops armed like soldiers with MRAPs and sonic cannons. The reason this seems to me, a reaction that's out of proportion to the protests themselves.” This led Hayes to praise those who surrendered to the mob, “It seems especially true when you look at other campuses like Brown University, where administrators negotiated with protesters who took down their encampment. At Wesleyan University whose president said the protesting there was non-violent and non-disruptive, adding, ‘as long as it continues in this way, the university will not attempt to clear the encampment.’” Roughly 25 minutes later, Wagner played an NYPD video that did not sit well with her, “Sort of a half-promotional video for the NYPD, half a warning shot to future protesters. There's also a soundtrack, you may have noticed, and situation room footage as officers plan the Columbia sweep like it was, I don't know, the Bin Laden raid. It is not what you might call a tool for de-escalation.”     Violently occupying a building is not de-escalation either, but Wagner continued, and unlike Hayes, she actually mentioned what Brown agreed to, “But it is worth noting that some colleges have actually managed to do just that, to de-escalate the tension on their campuses this week. Both Brown and Northwestern University reached deals with student protesters this is week with protesters leaving encampments and the colleges agreeing to hear them out and to vote on divestment issues.” Wagner didn’t mention that Northwestern agreed to also hire more Palestinian faculty, subsidize scholarships for five Palestinian students, and allow the mob and their supporters to sit on an advisory committee on university investments. Both Brown and Northwestern’s response to the lawlessness and anti-Semitism was to give the anti-Semites more power and give their Jewish students and faculty nothing. Still, for Wagner, the bad guys in this situation are anybody who objects to this madness, “This is happening across the country with lots of individual actors making separate decisions and that makes this story complicated, and that is important to remember because we have actors in our national discourse right now who are very much trying to exploit this tension for fairly obvious political gain.” In related news, Northwestern is facing multiple lawsuits for its deal with the agitators.  Here are transcripts for the May 1 shows: MSNBC All In With Chris Hayes 5/1/2024 8:42 PM ET CHRIS HAYES: In the spring of 1969, a group of students at Morehouse College, a historically black college in Atlanta, were frustrated by what they said was the school’s slow progress on civil rights and they protested and had been rebuffed, so they locked the college trustees in their office for two days and essentially held them hostage. Now, one of the trustees was Martin Luther King Sr., father of the recently slain civil rights leader. He began having chest pains and one of the students later said we let him out of there so we wouldn’t be accused of murder. That student and his classmates eventually gave up under a promise of amnesty from the college. The college reneged and he was expelled, it would be years before he was rehabilitated, decades before he became known the world over as actor Samuel L. Jackson. Now, I tell this story for two reasons. One to remind us that college activism has long been a part of college education. The other reason, though, is to get a sense of proportion, which seems lacking today as we watched disturbing imagery emerge from campuses at Columbia, UCLA, University of Texas, University of South Florida, so many others, where cops, or in some cases mobs, took down pro-Palestinian student encampments and protests, as well as professors and journalists and just random bystanders.  The cumulative effect of this coverage, along with unverified assertions from police and politicians, has been to drive home the idea that student protests are basically a terrorist-level threat.  That they have to be neutralized by battalions of cops armed like soldiers with MRAPs and sonic cannons. The reason this seems to me, a reaction that's out of proportion to the protests themselves. It seems especially true when you look at other campuses like Brown University, where administrators negotiated with protesters who took down their encampment. At Wesleyan University whose president said the protesting there was non-violent and non-disruptive, adding “as long as it continues in this way, the university will not attempt to clear the encampment.”  *** MSNBC Alex Wagner Tonight 5/1/2024 9:06 PM ET ALEX WAGNER: Sort of a half-promotional video for the NYPD, half a warning shot to future protesters. There's also a soundtrack, you may have noticed, and situation room footage as officers plan the Columbia sweep like it was, I don't know, the Bin Laden raid. It is not what you might call a tool for de-escalation. But it is worth noting that some colleges have actually managed to do just that, to de-escalate the tension on their campuses this week. Both Brown and Northwestern University reached deals with student protesters this is week with protesters leaving encampments and the colleges agreeing to hear them out and to vote on divestment issues. Whether or not that can be replicated elsewhere at this point is totally unclear. This is happening across the country with lots of individual actors making separate decisions and that makes this story complicated, and that is important to remember because we have actors in our national discourse right now who are very much trying to exploit this tension for fairly obvious political gain.

Colbert Suggests Feds Will Monitor Women Under Trump, Attacks Him on Israel

CBS’s Stephen Colbert reacted to Donald Trump’s interviews with Time and Fox News on Wednesday’s edition of The Late Show by attacking him on issues ranging from abortion to Israel. Colbert noted that in the Time interview, “Trump tried to dodge any question at all about abortion by claiming he would leave it up to the states, but said he's fine with states monitoring pregnant women, so they don't get abortions.”     It would be more accurate to say Trump took a position of complete federal non-interference, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” Regardless, Colbert raised the prospect of the invention of the menstrual cycle police, "Well, then why stop at pregnancy? Why not monitor women for their entire cycle? ‘Open up! Open up! It's the feds! It's gonna be a light day!’” Colbert followed up with a juvenile digression, “Not sure how I was holding that bullhorn, I’m not sure why I was talking into a hoagie. Light butt play. Light butt play. What do you think of that, Ed? Ed, what are you think about, what about you, Ed? You ever have light butt play? What about you, Doc?” Moving on, Colbert reported, “Trump also assured the nation that he's going to be way better at staffing this time around, saying, [TRUMP IMPRESSION] ‘The advantage I have now is I know everybody. I know people. I know the good, the bad, the stupid, the smart.’"  Reverting back to his normal voice, Colbert continued, to great amounts of applause, “You can just say ‘good’ and ‘smart,’ we already know you're pretty tight with the bad and the stupid. They're your sons.” Colbert also recalled that “yesterday, he also called into Fox News and weighed in on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.” In the clip of Hannity, Trump explained that “We have to let Israel complete their war on terror. It's a horrible thing, but they have to do it and they have to do it fast.” There are some things that are unpleasant or miserable, but have to be done. The sooner you get it over with, the sooner the misery ends, but Colbert played dumb, “Yes, horrible things are only horrible if they aren't done really fast. ‘Kids, I am leaving you and your mom for my college intern, but it's okay 'cause I'm leaving in a jetpack. Pshhhh.’" While Colbert devoted portions of his Wednesday monologue to taking apart Trump’s platform, do not expect him to do the same when he takes his show on the road to Chicago and the DNC in a few months. Here is a transcript for the May 1 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 5/1/2024 11:45 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Trump tried to dodge any question at all about abortion by claiming he would leave it up to the states, but said he's fine with states monitoring pregnant women, so they don't get abortions. Well then why stop at pregnancy? Why not monitor women for their entire cycle? "Open up! Open up! It's the feds! It's gonna be a light day!"  Not sure how I was holding that bullhorn, I’m not sure why I was talking into a hoagie. Light butt play. Light butt play. What do you think of that, Ed? Ed, what are you think about, what about you, Ed? You ever have light butt play? What about you, Doc?  Trump also assured the nation that he's going to be way better at staffing this time around, saying, [TRUMP IMPRESSION] "The advantage I have now is I know everybody. I know people. I know the good, the bad, the stupid, the smart." [NORMAL VOICE] You can just say "good" and "smart," we already know you're pretty tight with the bad and the stupid. They're your sons.  Now, yesterday, he also called into Fox News and weighed in on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. DONALD TRUMP: We have to let Israel complete their war on terror. It's a horrible thing, but they have to do it and they have to do it fast. COLBERT: Yes, horrible things are only horrible if they aren't done really fast. "Kids, I am leaving you and your mom for my college intern, but it's okay 'cause I'm leaving in a jetpack. Pshhhh."