Don Lemon Shows No Remorse for Trump-Russia Probe, Mocking MAGA in WILD Interview

In an interview posted Friday with The Intercept’s Ryan Grim and Federalist editor/National Journalism Center (NJC) director Emily Jashinsky, former CNN host Don Lemon showed zero regret or remorse for CNN’s Trump-Russia obsessions, mocking Trump voters as Boomer rubes, and insisted CNN had no liberal bias. Grim and Jashinsky scored the Lemon interview as the first long-form sit-down for their show Counter Points as part of the Breaking Points network, helmed by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti. The pompous liberal journalist couldn’t even fully engage with the two questions about whether he felt like he had more freedom to cover topics now that he’s in independent media versus his days inside corporate media and, in a follow-up, whether he was restricted at CNN. Lemon’s arrogance came out as he bragged he “probably had the most editorial freedom on — on my own network than anyone” perhaps in part due to the airtime (before admitting, yes, having an independent show has helped him foster “community” and better engagement with viewers). After an amusing exchange when Lemon refused to engage with Jashinsky’s questions about whether his comment about Nikki Haley being past “her prime” truly outraged CNN bosses or was just an excuse to fire him, Lemon strongly pushed back when Grim next asked him whether he agreed CNN missed the ground swell on the far-left for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.  In essence, Lemon told Grim to stop whining and get over it since Sanders supporters were likely why Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton (click “expand”): I didn’t necessarily think CNN was — was left. I thought that CNN was about facts. I think CNN has the best journalists in the world, but I also think — you asked me what my editorial meetings were like. I mean, we, no one was trying to push Bernie Sanders, at least in my editorial meetings and I would — I would venture to, to speak for the network now. Well, I’ll speak for myself. I don’t think that anyone was trying to push Bernie Sanders out. I think that Bernie Sanders may have had sort of — this sort of — sort of outsized influence with a certain segment of the Democratic Party. But all polls in 2016 pointed to Hillary Clinton, all polls in 2020 and public sentiment pointed to Joe Biden. And so, what was shocking, I think, to myself was the — the reaction from Democrats to the nomination of Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders in — in ‘16, especially in 2020. You know, I — I couldn’t get to gauge it because I didn’t get to go to the conventions. I think that was around, you know, because of COVID. But here’s a shocking thing. (....) [T]he public wanted Hillary Clinton. They didn’t want Bernie Sanders. So, I say that to say when, after all of, you know, Republicans did not love Donald Trump. They held their nose and they voted for him, all of the Never Trumpers, all of the people, you know, from Ted Cruz on down, when he became the nominee, everyone got behind him. When we were at the convention, it was Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. It wasn’t Jeb. It wasn’t, you know, Cruz, it wasn’t Rubio, it wasn’t any of those people. By the time we got to the Democratic convention and Hillary Clinton was a nominee, people were yelling, Bernie, Bernie and we were like, what the hell is going on? So, I think that Bernie Sanders, that — that — that wing of the Democratic Party actually did as much if not more damage to Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. (....) I think Bernie Sanders is a fantastic politician, but I do think that there is a lesson in it for Democrats that you have to get behind the person who is the actual nominee and you cannot have sour grapes of the person who did not become the nominee. That’s how the process worked. So, I know that people are upset and they’re upset about the progressive wing and they don’t think it gets covered enough, but this is where we are. The nominee — or the person is Joe Biden, the nominee or the person then was Hillary Clinton. I think the Bernie Sanders progressive wing of the party should have gotten behind — should have gotten behind them. And that’s the reason — one of the reasons — the main reasons that we’re in the predicament that we are now and that we had a Trump presidency. (....) Bernie Sanders was not going to win....Republicans fall in line. Democrats fight each other. Democrats usually wet the bed. I — I’m sorry, but Bernie Sanders was not the nominee nor was he ever going to become the nominee. And I know that people are upset by it, but that’s the truth. It’s the same thing for Republicans. Nikki Haley is not the nominee. She’s not gonna become the nominee. Donald Trump is a nominee, regardless if you like it or not. The guy is in court and guess what? Republicans are going to fall in line. Jashinsky then confronted Lemon over the infamous 2020 segment with Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali in which they mocked Trump supporters as moronic “Boomer rubes.” Jashinsky called it “a low point, honestly, in media coverage of Donald Trump” and wondered if Lemon regretted “seeing other Americans through that lens”. Lemon flatly denied he participated in any of that demeaning behavior, claiming he only laughed about the idea Americans couldn’t find Ukraine on a map: Truly remarkable exchange in the Don Lemon interview on 'Counter Points' when @EmilyJashinsky and @RyanGrim asked about Lemon's infamous January 2020 segment (https://t.co/rLV6JVKz7G) laughing about MAGA supporters with Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali. Zero remorse. Jashinsky:… pic.twitter.com/OUxhoytJiz — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2024 Lemon’s scoffing even brought Grim to push back and fact-checked Lemon’s claim from earlier that 2020 polls always had Biden as a lock for the Democratic nomination (click “expand”): GRIM: [T]o the point about the polling that, that you mentioned —  LEMON: I mean, you can’t say that —  GRIM: — oh, just one point — LEMON: — you can’t say that. GRIM: — on Joe Biden’s polling. Joe — Joe Biden was not polling ahead. You — you had said that Joe Biden was pulling ahead. Joe Biden was in the toilet the entire time. He finished fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, got annihilated in — in Nevada — LEMON: Where was he by the time — where was he by the time got to the convention? GRIM: — yeah. And — and then he — he won after, you know, $175 million in — in free media between Nevada and South Carolina. And then he wins Super Tuesday and he won the nomination, no doubt about it. LEMON: Yeah. GRIM: But he wasn’t polling ahead, uh, before that. Jashinsky drew even more defensiveness from Lemon when she wondered if the press had made any strides to understand Americans outside their corporate liberal bubbles, adding Lemon himself was still somewhat in one since his new studio was on Park Avenue. Also in the clip above, Lemon’s skull was so thick he denied Park Avenue was any sort of elite bubble because it’s still “part of America” and argued the media do “a great job of — of — of talking to people from, you know, from all parts of the country”. Lemon somehow poured out even more elitist drivel when he claimed Trump supporters and Bernie supporters were far too “overrepresented” in the media and people like Grim and Jashinsky should get over it: Another WILD exchange in the Don Lemon interview on 'Counter Points' with @EmilyJashinsky and @RyanGrim was when Lemon claimed corporate media do “a great job” making all voices heard. In fact, he said, it's MAGA supporters and Bernie voters who are “overrepresented” in the… pic.twitter.com/t9kk55DLgC — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2024 Later, he strongly took exception to Grim’s analysis on CNN being an establishment Democratic Party “mouthpiece” since it’s “only because of the Republican side and mostly Donald Trump and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, the facts were not on their side” (click “expand”): Don Lemon to @RyanGrim on the notion of CNN having become DNC-TV: “I — I — I don’t like that. I don’t believe in that whole — I don’t believe in the premise of — of — listen, I’m not trying to be confrontational. I don’t agree with the premise of what you’re saying and when… pic.twitter.com/HvA44cvmuB — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 26, 2024 The interview ended with more barbs being thrown when Jashinsky flatly told Lemon that CNN’s “Russia coverage was not great,” but Lemon said that’s only “your opinion” because “the Russia coverage on CNN was — was good” and the media in general having done “the best jobs that they could”. Further, he told her to both stop “Monday morning quarterback[ing]” what happened and falling into the trap of many “people” who “romanticize the time that we were in, like people romanticize, you know, COVID.” Grim threw one more jab, asking whether CNN had “ever said that there actually was not, never proven collusion between the Trump campaign and the” Russians. Lemon initially said “You’ll have to ask CNN”, but then dove in head-first by falsely claiming that’s not true and there were indeed “accounts of collusion”. Amazing. To see the relevant transcript from April 26, click here.

HOT DAMN: NY Post’s Nelson Details ‘Failed...Coup to Oust’ KJP by Biden Aides

The great Steven Nelson of the New York Post has always had great questions at White House press briefings and even went over half a year without being called on by the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre, so it won’t be entirely shocking when it happens again thanks to his bombshell Friday morning piece about what the headline dubbed a “failed White House coup to oust” Jean-Pierre. While it was surprising to see Nelson report the depths to which even senior White House officials were behind this, what was unsurprising was it failed due to Jean-Pierre’s stubborness that one source described as “come hell or high water” to stay through the election and the reality that a black lesbian axed by white people would make her a martyr. Nelson began by explaining “[t]op aides to President Biden secretly hatched a plan this past fall” to oust her as even they had seen she “developed the exasperating habit of reading canned answers directly from a binder to reporters at her regular briefings” and thus provided “a less-than-compelling pitch for the 81-year-old Biden”. As for who led this, Nelson revealed it was “[d]e facto White House communications chief Anita Dunn, 66, the wife of Biden personal attorney Bob Bauer” who “decided to call in prominent Democrats to explain to Jean-Pierre, 49, that the time was ripe to move on” with one source saying “[t]here were a number of people she asked to engage Karine” such those who she “trusts” about quitting. While Dunn herself has one of the widest leashes in any Democratic administration, Nelson said this had both the blessing and backing of White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients According to one source, this gentler approach was deployed because they “‘were trying to find Karine a graceful exit’ because of the ugly optics of removing her against her will” and “afraid of what” the DEI crowd were “going to say” if they kicked her out. A source had some brutal words for their colleague, which has been plainly obvious to those in reality, ripping Jean-Pierre for lacking “an understanding of the issues and she reads the book [binder] word-for-word” while simultaneously not “hav[ing] a grasp of the issues and doesn’t spend the time to learn.” The source was correct in pointing out predecessor Jen Psaki would remark during briefings about studying up on issues beforehand (and we would add Kayleigh McEnany also did in sharing facts she learned from experts and fellow White House officials). Despite Jean-Pierre’s failure to even speak basic English, the source said Jean-Pierre believes “she’s doing an amazing job” and, unfortunately for Team Biden knows she won’t leave “on her own.” A different source had more hard truths for Jean-Pierre that, despite what some people may think, “[t]here’s an enormous amount of work that goes into getting ready” and, of course, she doesn’t do any of that. Nelson connected this to what NBCNews.com reported in February about one possible escape hatch of having Jean-Pierre resign to take over the pro-baby-killing group EMILY’s List (click “expand”): In December, not long after word of Dunn’s plan circulated in the White House, Jean-Pierre received and rejected an unsolicited offer to become president of EMILYs List, a major Democratic group that raises money for female candidates who support expanded abortion rights. When NBC News reported on the offer in February, the outlet said Jean-Pierre had emphatically told the group that she was “committed to the president” and “I’m not going anywhere.” Both the initial offer to Jean-Pierre from EMILYs List and its disclosure to NBC are topics of intrigue within the White House — with unsubstantiated theories suggesting the hand of Dunn behind the approach and Jean-Pierre behind its leak. EMILYs List did not respond to a request for comment. By December, Dunn appeared to have accepted that Jean-Pierre was secure in her post. A West Wing official supportive of the press secretary provided The Post with text from an email written by Dunn ahead of Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi’s Dec. 11 article that noted National Security Council spokesman John Kirby’s increased profile as co-briefer alongside Jean-Pierre. “I am happy to talk to [Farhi]. And tell him KJP isn’t going anywhere so this is a ridiculous piece,” Dunn wrote in the message. The pro-Jean-Pierre official also told The Post that Dunn was among those who had backed the press secretary’s promotion from being Psaki’s deputy — with the comms chief even calling in a former White House official to request their help communicating to reporters that “Karine is very strong and doing a very good job in the briefing room.” “She is an incredibly quick study on a variety of policy issues that she has to be appraised of every single day,” that ex-official said. And, on the reported feud with frequent briefing partner and longtime Democratic foreign policy and military spokesman John Kirby, Nelson cited one source who said “[s]ometimes he talks to her and she acts as if he is not talking” with Jean-Pierre “pretty aggressive[ly]...marking her territory.” It’s plainly obvious for briefing observers that not only does Kirby come off as more prepared and professional, but also that he’s “widely respected by journalists as a valuable source of both information and soundbites”. Nelson wrapped with a few words on Jean-Pierre still “hav[ing] important allies within the White House, including first lady Jill Biden’s top adviser Anthony Bernal,” whom Nelson recently reported as having sexually harassed colleagues.

Everyone Point and Laugh at Team Biden Hating the NYT for Not Being Liberal Enough

In need of a laugh? Check out this unintentionally comical story running 3,850 words from Thursday in Politico about the Biden regime’s apparently disgust with The New York Times: “The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House; Biden’s people think they’re ‘entitled.’ The Times says ‘they’re not being realistic.’” In short, Politico’s Eli Stokols revealed the Biden campaign and White House are up in arms with The Times for being what they’ve come to believe are insufficiently loyal to The Cause of liberalism and not antagonistic enough toward Donald Trump given democracy supposedly being on the line in November. The comical tale of liberal eating themselves began with a seemingly innocuous mix-up between a Times reporter not on the White House beat being unaware with how to attribute quotes from a junior White House press aide becoming a hissy fit that resulted in the Times temporarily being kicked off the administration’s “‘tier one’ email list for background information about various briefings and other materials”. “Biden’s closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the paper’s D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president,” Stokols explained. Stokols further summarized his tome as based on “interviews with two dozen people on both sides” about “the relationship between the Democratic president and the country’s newspaper of record — for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives” that’s become “remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust.” Here came the first of many laughers as Stokols proclaimed that “the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work.” Biden? “[W]orking-class sense of himself”? Please. Not surprisingly, Team Biden must think they’re owed Obama-like snuff pieces seeing as how, in their mind, The Times has “fall[en] short in a make-or-break moment for American democracy, stubbornly refusing to adjust its coverage” away from “impartial neutrality, often blurring the asymmetries between former President Donald Trump and Biden when it comes to their perceived flaws” when America itself is at stake. Stokols further explained with more hilarious prose and revealed the resentment dates back to Biden not being The Times’s preferred candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary (click “expand”): Biden aides largely view the election as an existential choice for the country, high stakes that they believe justify tougher tactics toward the Times and the press as a whole. Some Times reporters have found themselves cut off by sources after publishing pieces the Bidens and top aides didn’t like. Columnist Maureen Dowd, for example, complained to colleagues that she stopped hearing from White House officials after a column on Hunter Biden. For many Times veterans, such actions suggest that the Trump era has warped many Democrats’ expectations of journalists. “They’re not being realistic about what we do for a living,” Bumiller told me. “You can be a force for democracy, liberal democracy. You don’t have to be a force for the Biden White House.” [A]ides to Biden...said they didn’t know anyone on the politics team well. “Unlike some outlets, the Times just never invested in a reporter who really knew and understood Biden and his appeal,” said one former campaign staffer. “And the coverage reflected that.” (....) While Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was gaining ground in early polls and enjoying positive early coverage, stories about Biden in the Times frequently depicted him as a relic, out of step with younger, more liberal primary voters and, following defeats in the early contests, poorly organized. Although it had nothing to do with the newsroom, the Opinion page’s double endorsement of Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota....helped cement Biden world’s view that the Times was out of touch with the broader electorate — an electorate personified by the Times security guard who gushed over Biden in the Times elevator as he was headed up for his interview with the editorial board. (....) Biden aides, who spent months privately imploring the paper’s editors and reporters not to write him off too early in the cycle, still hold a grudge under the belief that the paper was institutionally aligned toward Warren and progressives. Worse yet, Team Biden resented the fact that The Times would even acknowledge Hunter Biden’s life of ruin (even if they were part of the 2020 coverup of Hunter’s laptop). Stokols later pointed out The Times has “devoted pages of coverage to the president’s early legislative successes”, but none of that has mattered to the regime as a “focus on Biden’s advanced age and his low numbers in the NYT’s approval poll have frustrated the president and top aides to no end.” Once again, the White House is apparently gnashing its teeth over the paper even entertaining the slightest allusions to Biden’s age and other concerns or critiques because, in their eyes, their friends in the media should be wholly focused on the danger of Trump. In other words, stories like these, these, these, and these are verboten (despite stories like this one and this one that do what their elected overlords want). Along with those gripes, check out the hilarious quotes from two Times leaders about their supposed impartiality, including claims they “don’t” “put [our] thumb on the scale” and instead “hold power to account” everyday (click “expand”): The Times’ chief White House correspondent, Peter Baker, whose stories about Biden’s age have regularly strummed a particularly sensitive nerve, told me that the administration’s frustrations over his and his colleagues’ coverage wasn’t all that unique. “Every White House I’ve covered complains about our coverage. It comes with the territory,” he said. “But because of Trump, there’s this new assumption that the New York Times and other media are supposed to put their thumb on the scale and take sides and we don’t do that.” Privately, other Times reporters who have engaged with the Biden White House and campaign view the frustration with the paper as a misguided effort to control its coverage. Beyond that, they believe writing about Trump with the stronger language Biden aides seem to want would likely do more to affect the newspaper’s brand, and the public’s trust in it, than Trump’s. “We haven’t been tough enough on Trump? I mean, give me a break,” Bumiller responded when I asked about that oft-heard complaint. “Have they read our coverage? I don’t have to go through all the things we have covered on Trump so I just — we just do our jobs.” Still, the White House and campaign officials most incensed by the Times’ coverage often trace their outrage back to Trump, who they see as a true threat to American democracy and, by extension, a free press...[t]hey viewed the matter as bigger than their or even Biden’s self-interest, expressing aggravation over the Times’ determination to maintain its neutral voice of God approach to an election that, in their view, is a matter of democracy’s survival. When describing their grievances with the Times, almost every Biden administration and campaign official used the word “entitled” to characterize the institution writ large and several of the individuals within the newsroom, where “Timesian” is an adjective routinely deployed without irony. Those officials described reporters who refused to correct minor errors or mischaracterizations in stories or those who haven’t been willing to engage with anyone besides the most senior administration officials. That said, many White House officials maintain productive working relationships with most of the Times reporters who cover the beat. Bumiller and other Times White House reporters note that it’s always been the newspaper’s prerogative to determine what to cover and how. “This is pretty much par for the course,” Bumiller said. “No White House has ever been happy with our coverage and I don’t see why they should be. Our job is to hold power to account.” The end of Stokols’s piece revolved around a story in Semafor about off-the-record visits by news organizations to Biden’s reelection headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware to meet with staff and specifically that details of The Times’s visit leaked out. “Times reporters believe the leak had to have come from the campaign, the only ones who’d have had knowledge of all the meetings. And it led to conversations on the politics staff about whether to even engage with Wilmington in an off-the-record capacity. But campaign aides are certain the leak came from the Times side,” he explained. But the most public backlash to the piece on Thursday came from the other half of the piece, which alleged The Times’s coverage of Biden has been dictated by publisher AG Sulzberger’s annoyance with the President refusing to sit for an interview with Times reporters. On that, he would admittedly have a point as Biden has only given two print interviews thus far with one going to AP backscratcher Josh Boak and the other to his own personal biographer, Evan Osnos, to publish in The New Yorker. In response, multiple Times personalities have lashed out and denied these claims of retribution and a spokesperson sent out a lengthy statement pushing back. Go figure.

Election Year Pandering: Nets Spend 22 Mins Peddling Biden Propaganda to Voters

On Wednesday, ABC, CBS, and NBC combined for a whopping 22 minutes and 18 seconds on their lead morning shows playing Baghdad Bobs and Barbies, touting the Biden regime as dedicated to the American people with segments on their fight to ban non-complete clauses in the workplace, cracking down on airlines slow-walking refunds when things go wrong, expanding overtime rules, and letting women murder their babies at will. When including its third-hour, NBC’s Today came out on top with 10 minutes and 55 seconds. It started with the Biden administration fighting to ensure baby murder remains easily accessible in Idaho. Co-host Hoda Kotb touted the “blockbuster” Supreme Court arguments “concerning reproductive rights, raising the legal and political stakes headed into the November election.” Senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson hyped the case as part of an issue that will have “enormous” “stakes” on the outcome of the election. She eagerly adopted the Biden administration’s framing and even referred to an expecting mother as “a pregnant patient”. She at least gave a soundbite to the great Roger Severino with our friends at the Heritage Foundation (click “expand”): JACKSON: The question: whether a federal law guaranteeing emergency care for patients overrides an Idaho law banning most abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The Biden administration saying that federal law should take precedence, arguing Idaho’s law requires doctors to wait until the health of a pregnant patient gets worse before performing an abortion. But Idaho’s attorney general, in a statement, accuses the administration of showing a “reckless disregard for Idaho’s right to protect life.” SEVERINO: The Biden administration has twisted this law. [SCREEN WIPE] They’re trying to use federal executive power when the law does not support it. This is beyond the breaking point and I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will rein them back in. JACKSON: And with Idaho allowed to enforce the near total abortion ban for now, many OBGYNs are leaving the state, including Dr. Lauren Miller, who moved her practice to Colorado. She says Idaho’s law has created a dilemma for doctors. (....) JACKSON: The legal fight raising political stakes heading into the November upcoming election with voters in 11 states likely to decide abortion rights on ballot measures this fall. President Biden, in Florida Tuesday, slamming that state’s six-week abortion ban set to go into effect six days from now and blaming his predecessor. The show went next to the daily messaging from the Department of Transportation. Co-host Savannah Guthrie touted the “big news regarding air travel” with co-host Craig Melvin adding “it could affect folks in a good way.” Longtime transportation correspondent Tom Costello even explicitly said he’d be providing “the bullet points coming from the Biden administration” about their desire to have airlines “provid[e] compensation quickly to passengers who are owed money from an airline and if that passenger declines other alternative transportation needs or credits” that’ll be “cutting through all of the clutter and making it very clear what the rules are for every airline.” Costello and Melvin then focused on the other piece with fee transparency, the latest step in Biden’s ongoing obsession with ending so-called junk fees. In the 3rd Hour of Today, Costello returned for more banter and praising the regime for these crackdowns. ABC’s Good Morning America came next with six minutes and 33 seconds over four segments.  Like NBC, they began with abortion. Congressional correspondent Rachel Scott passed along the Biden Justice Department’s arguments and stomped on a single sentence provided to the opposition, which led into a nauseating love letter voiced by chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce (click “expand”): SCOTT: And the stakes here are high. This is the first time that the Supreme Court is considering the scope of a state’s abortion ban since Roe vs. Wade was overturned. At the center of the case is Idaho. The state bans abortions in nearly all cases. It does include a narrow exception to save the life of the mother. But the Justice Department is arguing that, even in states where abortion is banned under federal health care law, hospitals are still required to terminate pregnancy if the patient’s life or health is at serious risk. The Justice Department is pointing to a law from decades ago before Roe vs. Wade was overturned that was originally created to ensure patients who do not have insurance are turned away from hospitals. Anti-abortion rights advocates argue that the Biden administration is misusing this law to try to justify abortions. On the other side, though, we have talked to doctors and patients who told us they are caught in a web of confusing laws. Some doctors have told us they have questioned whether or not their patient is sick enough before they can even provide life saving care. And doctors, of course, face serious penalties, loss of license, fines, and, in some cases, even prison time. And, all of this is playing out in the back drop of an election year where the Biden administration is hoping to use this to energize voters ahead of a very critical, George. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Rachel, on that point, President Biden is targeting Donald Trump over abortion rights, blasting him yesterday at a Florida campaign event over a six week abortion ban going into effect in the state next week. [BIDEN CLIP] (....) BRUCE: Well, President Biden is eager to put the issue of abortion front and center in this campaign. As you heard there, he is trying to make Donald Trump own this, blaming him for the new restrictions and bans that we are seeing across the country. Yesterday, in that speech in Florida, the president’s first major campaign address on this issue, by our count at least a dozen times the President argued Trump should be held accountable and is to blame for us. Now, Donald Trump has bragged about overturning Roe vs. Wade, appointing the three justices who helped strike it down. And since then, 21 states have now enacted tough new restrictions and bans. The former President, though, said this should be up to the states. He says they are handling it brilliantly. President Biden, obviously, strongly disagrees. He says Trump has to be held accountable and he is hoping this issue will drive voters to the polls in November. He is well aware that every time this issue has been on the ballot since Roe was struck down, abortion rights have won. Bruce’s North Korean-state-run-media behavior went right into ABC’s airlines segment. Co-host Robin Roberts proclaimed that “[t]he Biden administration [is] taking action this morning to protect airline consumers” with “[n]ew rules that mandate automatic refunds.” “This is a major change from the Department of Transportation. And, again, it affects your money,” said transportation correspondent Gio Benitez at the start of his report. In the second hour, ABC made sure to reiterate all the supposedly great things a President running for a second term has done for Americans. This time, correspondent Elizabeth Schulze held up a vote by the Biden Federal Trade Commission “that could make it easier for workers to quit their jobs”. “The FTC voting to ban non-compete agreements, which prevent workers from switching jobs to work for a rival company. The nationwide ban means workers applying for a new job wouldn’t be forced to sign a non-compete and almost all existing non-compete clauses would be voided,” she added. For good measure, Schulze also shared a Biden Labor Department initiative that’ll be “a major expansion of overtime” which, starting in July, will see the salary threshold of workers eligible for overtime rise to $44,000 ahead of a $60,000 ceiling in January. CBS Mornings clocked in third with a still-strong four minutes and 50 seconds of stenography. After a segment about the Senate passing the bill to force TikTok to be sold from its Chinese parent company (or be banned in the U.S.), co-host Tony Dokoupil brought up the airlines and FTC stories as other examples of “words turning into action in Washington” with “[s]ome big changes there that could have an effect on millions of Americans”. Transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave and senior tech correspondent Jo Ling Kent came next doubling as regime mouthpieces (click “expand”): VAN CLEAVE: The next time you run into travel troubles, you could be eligible for a cash refund. These new Department of Transportation rules that will be going into effect say you can get a refund for a canceled flight, but if you’re delayed more than three hours for a domestic flight or more than six hours internationally, you can also get a refund if you choose not to fly. Also, bag fees must be refunded if a checked bag is significantly delayed, and refund must be given if any services you paid for aren’t provided like broken wi-fi. Airlines are also required now to disclose what fees they charge up front for things like a checked bag, a carry-on bag, a cancel or change fee. Now, most airlines in the U.S. already do that. These new rules will be phased in over the next 12 months[.] (....) KENT: [T]he Federal Trade Commission wants to make it easier for you to get a new job. It plans on banning non-compete clauses, and those are the parts of employer contracts that bar workers across industries from leaving for a competitor or starting a competing business. Now, some saying non-competes help employers protect their trade secrets and allow them to invest in training for employees without fear of losing them, while others argue the clauses are overly restrictive on the workers. The FTC says its ban would translate to $524 more each year for the average worker, yield as many as 29,000 more patents, and create at least 8,500 new businesses. But, of course, this is not set in stone yet. The U.S. Chamber of commerce called the ban an unlawful power grab and said it would sue the FTC to block it. CBS conveniently and immediately pivoted to abortion, but longtime Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford kept it straight (as usual). While she said “the Biden administration is challenging Idaho’s pretty strict restrictions with a really creative legal argument”, she also gave two soundbites to Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) to defend his state’s pro-life law. To see the relevant transcripts from April 24, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Just Join the Biden Campaign: ABC’s Bruce Celebrates Biden Celebrating Baby-Killing

Another day, another act of Biden campaign propaganda. As we’ve seen day after day, ABC’s Good Morning America openly and unapologetically ate out of the hand of the Biden press office with a full report on the regime’s preferred topic of the day. On Tuesday, it was chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce cheering Biden traveling to Florida to celebrate murdering children in the womb. A simple perusing of the NewsBusters tag for Bruce would show she’s a diamond-level frequent rider of the Biden train.     Co-host Robin Roberts did her part as well setting the table: “And now, this morning, President Biden taking his message about a woman’s right to choose to Florida exactly one week before the state’s new law outlawing most abortions goes into effect.” Even the chyron served its purpose: “New This Morning; President Biden Heading to Florida; States’s New Abortion Ban Takes Effect in One Week”. Bruce giddily boasted of “the Biden campaign...trying to seize this moment, blasting new abortion restrictions across the country” and huffing that “Donald Trump did this as he boasts of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe.” Ignoring the fact that Florida is increasingly a fervently red state, Bruce added: “Now, in Tampa today, President Biden will hold his first major campaign on the issue, one week before Florida is set to ban most abortions after six weeks before most women even know that they are pregnant.” After pointing out “Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the charge on this issue” before Tuesday’s visit, the brisk, 56-second segment wound down with her waving pom-poms for Biden as “a staunch defender of the abortion access” amid “a complicated evolution on the issue” since he’s “a Catholic.” Challenge for Mary Bruce: Please be objective and keep yourself from getting weak knees over your liberal handlers. Impossible. Right to the end, she shilled in claiming abortion would define the election: “[T]he campaign knows this is going to be a defining issue for this campaign and they’re eager to put it front and center, Robin.” To see the relevant transcript from April 23, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 23, 2023 7:15 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; President Biden Heading to Florida; States’s New Abortion Ban Takes Effect in One Week] ROBIN ROBERTS: And now, this morning, President Biden taking his message about a woman’s right to choose to Florida exactly one week before the state’s new law outlawing most abortions goes into effect. Our chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce will be traveling today with the President. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, Robin. Well, the Biden campaign is trying to seize this moment, blasting new abortion restrictions across the country, urging Donald Trump did this as he boasts of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe. Now, in Tampa today, President Biden will hold his first major campaign on the issue, one week before Florida is set to ban most abortions after six weeks before most women even know that they are pregnant. Now, so far Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the charge on this issue. The President, of course, is a staunch defender of the abortion access, but, as a Catholic, he’s had a complicated evolution on the issue, but the campaign knows this is going to be a defining issue for this campaign and they’re eager to put it front and center, Robin. ROBERTS: Alright, Mary, thank you. And safe travels today.

Liberal Media, Soros-Funded Group Attack Ted Cruz for....Hosting a Podcast

For years, the liberal media have constantly lost their noodles over the alleged, supposed crime that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a walking campaign violation for co-hosting a hit podcast that’s been three years running, Verdict With Ted Cruz. Originally launched during the first Trump impeachment with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles, the show continues to publish episodes three times a week alongside longtime conservative talk show host and commentator Ben Ferguson. The liberal media helped set the table with a litany of sites coincidentally publishing nearly identical stories. Here’s the headline from one of two stories by the tools at the Daily Beast: “The Ugly Truth Behind Ted Cruz’s Super PAC Podcast”. And Newsweek — which has an unhealthy obsession with the junior senator from Texas — had not one but two stories waving pomp pomps about said complaint. Here was the headline for one of them: “Ted Cruz Faces Second Investigation in Less Than a Year”. Expand the scope and there was everyone from local and state media (the Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Texas Monthly, Texas Tribune, and Laredo Morning Times to name a few) to liberal gadflys at Business Insider, The New Republic, Raw Story, and Rolling Stone. As for the complaint, National Review’s James Lynch wrote last week that, along with the constant liberal belly-aching, “[l]eft-wing legal and advocacy groups are targeting” him for alleged “campaign finance issues” just so conveniently as the general election between Cruz and Congressman Colin Allred (D-TX) begins in earnest. Lynch explained that “[t]he Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and End Citizens United, two left-leaning watchdog groups, filed a complaint last week with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Cruz of campaign finance violations by putting podcast ad revenue towards a pro-Cruz super PAC.” “The complaint demands the FEC investigate the situation and accuses Cruz of violating campaign finance laws prohibiting corporations from contributing directly to campaigns,” he added. With some help from the Capital Research Center, Lynch revealed to what’s probably no surprise to you, NewsBusters readers, that said groups are funded by none other than George Soros: Left-wing foundations such as the Sandler Foundation, Ford Foundation, McArthur Foundation, and George Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society have bankrolled the Campaign Legal Center, according to Influence Watch, a project by watchdog think tank Capital Research Center. “Campaign Legal Center is a Soros-funded left-wing attack group, and its 501(c)(4) arm was a puppet of Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced ex-crypto-billionaire who gave Democrats almost as much cash as Soros. End Citizens United is little better than a scam PAC and endorses Democratic candidates. In short, Sen. Cruz is lucky in his enemies, because these groups disgrace themselves when they pretend to be nonpartisan watchdogs,” Capital Research Center President Scott Walter told National Review. CLC has repeatedly targeted Cruz with ethics complaints, and each time the complaints have been rebuked. In 2022, CLC filed an ethics complaint to the Senate ethics committee accusing him of improperly accepting a gift from iHeart media. The Senate Ethics Committee shot down the CLC complaint. A Cruz spokesman called it “bewildering to see...lazy attacks during an election year”, particularly on something he does “for free”. Cruz himself spoke to Houston-area CBS affiliate KHOU about this nonsense and tore into these leftist “front groups” looking to engage in election interference (click “expand”): There are two groups that file these complaints. And they’re both Democrat front groups. So what they do every election cycle is they file complaints against Republicans. And that’s what they exist to do—create news stories that are just attack vehicles. It’s interesting because these same groups previously filed a complaint...about my podcast...The Senate Ethics Committee dismissed it and said that [my podcast] is entirely consistent with law...I’m very proud of my Podcast...Verdict with Ted Cruz. I do it three days a week, and we have nearly a million people across Texas and across the country who tune in. The reason that I do the podcast is to tell Texans and Americans what’s happening in Washington...I do it because much of the media refuses to report the news fairly. And so people are turning to podcasts to understand what’s really going on...The podcast is something I’m very proud of. I think it’s integral to my job as a Senator to talk to Texans about what is happening in the U.S. Senate that affects the state of Texas and to talk to Texans about the threats that they are facing, whether from open borders, releasing criminals, or Iran getting billions of dollars from the Biden administration—all of which are topics that I have discussed at great length on the podcast.

CBS Frets ‘Apparently Anti-Semitic Incidents’ at Columbia Marred ‘Peaceful Protests’

CBS broke the ice Monday (after a footnote last week then silence) on the rampant anti-Semitism and terrorist sympathizing at Columbia University by pro-Hamas elements of the student body and like-minded fiends, but they went full-blown ‘fiery but mostly peaceful’ as CBS Mornings co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King fretted the “apparently anti-Semitic incidents” overshadowed “peaceful protests”. CBS only spent 49 seconds in an extended news brief delivered by King, which began innocently enough: “Back here in New York, Columbia University has moved all classes on line today as pro-Palestinian demonstrations continue on and near the campus.”     King then did her best impression of CNN’s Omar Jimenez and MSNBC’s Ali Velshi: “Although there have been peaceful protests, a series of apparently anti-Semitic incidents near campus prompted one rabbi at the school to call for all Jewish students to leave. However, Jewish groups on campus pushed back on that saying students should stay.” After reading an excerpt of a statement from White House social media troll Andrew Bates, King acknowledged Monday night marks the start of Passover and noted the heat Columbia’s president received from “both sides of the aisle...last week about anti-Semitism on college campuses”. Even the chyron was harsher as it stated without a qualifer that “Anti-Semitic Incidents Occur[red] Amid Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations”. In the “Eye Opener”, co-host Nate Burleson also downplayed the anti-Semitism: “Protests lead to charges of anti-Semitism on the campus of Columbia University as a crackdown fails to stop the demonstrations.” In both cases, Burleson and King certainly wouldn’t have been as muted if those calling for harming Jews were uttered by middle-aged or elderly white males like in Charlottesville. ABC continued its coverage with a 67-second segment on Good Morning America, starting with vague allusions by co-host Robin Roberts of “security concerns...at Columbia University amid the Israel/Hamas war.” World News Now/America This Morning co-host Rhiannon Ally spoke of “growing concern about safety at the school, as protests stemming from that Israel/Hamas war intensify” and the remote learning day following “a fifth day yesterday of Columbia pro-Palestine students protesting.” The so-called protests, she explained, have merely been aimed at having Columbia “divest its stocks, funds, and endowments from companies that they say profit from Israel’s violation of international law and Palestinian human rights.” Ally never explained what the threats were to Jewish students, omitting shouts wanting an “intifada”, praising Hamas fighters Al-Qassam, calling for the restoration of Palestine (i.e. an ethnic cleansing of Jews), demanding Tel Aviv be burned to the ground, telling Jewish students to “go back to Poland”, or praising the “martyrs” who died slaughtering Jews on October 7. NBC’s Today had the most time with a two-minute-and-49 second segment. After warning in a tease of “crisis on campus”, co-host Hoda Kotb downplayed the scene with more esoteric descriptions of “[p]ro-Palestinian protesters have been demonstrating on campus for days”. Correspondent Erin McLaughin provided a little bit more detail (click “expand”): MCLAUGHLIN: Last week, more than 100 protesters were arrested on campus and now a rabbi is urging Jewish students to return home as soon as possible citing concerns over their safety and classes today are happening virtually. All of this ahead of Passover, the Jewish holiday, which begins at sundown tonight. PRO-HAMAS PROTESTERS: We will free Palestine! MCLAUGHLIN: This morning, as demonstrations continue on university campuses, New York’s Columbia University announcing all classes will be held virtually today. University president Minouche Shafik issuing a statement saying “we need a reset...to deescalate the rancor” and the university announcing it is adding more security on campus, including 111 additional safety personnel. The move comes as a rabbi at Columbia is urging students to “return home as soon as possible.” Rabbi Eli Buechler. in a letter to Jewish students this weekend, going on to say, “no one should have to endure this level of hatred, let alone at school.” PRO-HAMAS PROTESTERS: In-ti-fada! MCLAUGHLIN: The campus tense amid demonstrations denouncing the Israel-Hamas war. New York Mayor Adams condemning video such as this, which he says shows a young woman with a sign pointing to Jewish students saying, Al Qassem’s next targets. Adams also pointing to one incident last week: a demonstrator chanting, “we are Hamas”. Shafik saying in her statement, “tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia”. BAUM: As a Jew, I no longer feel welcome, I no longer feel safe on campus, and I no longer feel like I belong. SONYA POZNANSKY: To be honest, no, I think my safety has definitely been compromised in a lot of ways over the last few days. McLaughlin concluded her report with press releases from the Columbia president and the White House, but proceeded them with some serious belly-aching from Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine: Last night in a press release, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine expressed frustration over, “inflammatory individuals who do not represent us”, adding the group rejects “any form of hate or bigotry.” To see the relevant transcripts from April 22, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Doocy SLAMS KJP Over Biden’s Latest Tall Tale: ‘Where Did the Cannibalism Come From?’

In case you missed it from Friday, Fox’s Peter Doocy clashed with the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre during the White House press briefing when Doocy called out the President for falsely claiming his uncle not only died during World War II, but was cannibalized in Papua New Guinea by blood-thirsty natives. Jean-Pierre ducked, attacking Doocy and invoking the dubious “suckers” and “losers” tall tale about Donald Trump from The Atlantic. Doocy respectfully cut to the case: “Why is President Biden saying that his Uncle Bosie was eaten by cannibals?”     Jean-Pierre complained she already “answered this question yesterday” and “your network” even played “clips....about me answering this question” before claiming Doocy saw for himself if he was on the trip to Scranton that Biden “had an emotional and, um, I think a symbolic moment” in taking “an opportunity, as President, to honor his uncle’s service in uniform.” “He had an opportunity...to speak to the bravery of his uncle and not just his uncle, but many U.S. service members that put their lives on the line on behalf of this country,” she added, with his uncle Ambrose Finneagan serving as an example “for honoring our sacred commitment to equip those — we stand — we sent to war and take care of them and their families when they come home.” She then made it about Trump [A]s he iterated, the last thing American veterans are — or the last thing Americans should be called or suckers and losers and — and that is — those types of words should not come from a commander in chief, as we have in the past. And we should actually be lifting up our American veterans and honoring them and that’s what you saw from this President. Doocy said he felt the same about how veterans should be treated and that “Second Lieutenant Ambrose J. Finnegan was a war hero, but the Pentagon says, for unknown reasons, the plane was forced to ditch in the ocean and both engines failed at low out — altitude.” He then ripped Biden for why then did he have to lie when his uncle was already a war hero: “Why is President Biden saying he was shot down? There’s no evidence of that. And why is he saying that his uncle was eaten by cannibals? That’s a bad way to go.” Instead of conceding Biden lied or moving on, Jean-Pierre attacked Doocy by alleging he’s disrespectful of the dead: “[W]e should not make jokes about this.” Doocy clapped back before letting Jean-Pierre drone on: “[I]t’s not. The President — Biden said with his own lips he was eaten by cannibals.” “[N]o, no, I mean, your — your last line. It’s — it’s for a laugh. It’s for a funny — funny statement and he takes this very seriously. His uncle who served and protected this country lost his life serving and that should matter,” Jean-Pierre whined. After she again deflected to Trump, Doocy tried one last time: “Where did the cannibalism come from?” Jean-Pierre punted one last time, alleging Doocy “miss[ed] the point” and not recognizing Biden “lifts up American veterans” and “our U.S. service members.” Doocy’s first question concerned the anti-Semitic, far-left terrorist sympathizers at Columbia University as a follow up to CNN’s Priscilla Alverez (click “expand”): ALVAREZ: More than 100 people protesting the war in Gaza were cleared off the Columbia University campus yesterday and arrested. Is the President aware of these arrests? And what is his message to these protesters? JEAN-PIERRE: So, just let me say at the top because I have to be mindful here. As you know, there is a — a — an investigation currently being led by the Department of Education. It’s an ongoing civil rights investigation of Columbia University, so I won’t speak to specifics about the protest here. There’s a couple things I do want to say — is that — is that we know this is a deeply painful moment for many communities impacted by this conflict. The President and our administration continues to speak out enforcely [sic] — forcefully condemn anti-Semitism and our administration is implementing the first ever national strategy to counter anti-Semitism. In recent months, we’ve seen a shocking rise in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, in anti-Arab hate in the U.S. And around the world. He has also been clear that hate has no place in America, whether it is based on race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or any other form of hate, which is why there is no place for discrimination on college campuses or anywhere, anywhere in America. The President also believes that free speech debate and nondiscrimination on college campuses are important American values. When students are subject to hostile environments because of their faith or ethnicity, schools must act. Students must be safe to learn, and that’s where we stand on that one. [TO DOOCY] Go ahead. DOOCY: And to just follow up on the protest. I get you don’t want to go into specifics, but what does the President think about young people in America, saying things like “we are all Hamas” and “long live Hamas”? JEAN-PIERRE: Can —  I will say — look, this is a President that has been, uh, since he’s been in office, and the reason why he ran has been very clear about what he witnessed in Charlottesville. Let’s not forget what we saw the anti-Semitism, the bigotry, the hate that we saw in the streets of Charlottesville, which, as I just stated, was one of the reasons that he decided to run. And no president has taken more action to combat anti-Semitism than this President. And so you know, in our national strategy, we made clear that, when Jews are targeted because of their beliefs, because of their identity, or when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hate — hatred, that is anti Semitism, and that is completely, completely unacceptable. In contrast, the reporter who sat in the NPR seat hit from the left, giving oxygen to the notion that cracking down on these thugs are “threat to speech or assembly”. Speaking of softballs, the AP’s Darlene Superville brought up gas prices and lobbed a softball that ran counter to the actual questions Fox Business’s Ed Lawrence asked a few days earlier: Average gasoline prices have raised about 20 cents a gallon in the past month. Oil production — domestic oil production is down slightly from its recent peak and now we have the situation in the Middle East. How concerned is the administration about the combination of all of those things? To see the relevant transcript from the April 19 briefing (including a softball from The Washington Post about Biden being “a student of history”), click here.

WILD: ABC’s Moran Blames ‘Gravitational Pull of the Trump Melodrama’ for Self-Immolation

Friday afternoon featured one of the more disturbing incidents one will ever see on live TV as, amid rolling coverage on cable news and streaming platforms of the Trump trial brought by far-left Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, a man lit himself on fire in the so-called protest space outside the New York City courthouse. On ABC News Live, longtime network correspondent Terry Moran invoked January 6 and repeatedly implied without evidence Trump and “the gravitational pull of the...melodrama” around him drove a disturbed person to harm themselves.     Investigative reporter Olivia Rubin was discussing the breaking news that a full jury had been selected for the trial ahead of Monday’s opening statements when a commotion broke out nearby with the man’s self-immolation. After a shaken Rubin narrated the scene, Moran jumped in and, instead of stopping after coaching her along and reassuring her she was doing great, he put his foot in his mouth: “Let me just ask. It seems then, that the gravitational pull of the Trump melodrama that has gripped the nation since he came down the escalator has now, it appears, resulted in someone coming to that where protesters have gathered and lit himself on fire.” Rubin politely but strongly pushed back on the veteran correspondent: “Well, we’ll have to see exactly what, you know, it ends up being. I think we all have been in scenarios where happens. Information unfolds later and it’s not exactly what we thought first. But certainly, there appears to have been some sort of demonstration...just outside of the courthouse.” Rubin then continued to narrate the scene as the fire was extinguished and the man was placed on a stretcher. A few minutes later, Moran complimented Rubin for the “real smart caution” and acknowledged “[t]hat’s a big courthouse” with “a lot of cases going on.” Just like before, Moran could have stopped there and stuck to what was known. Alas, Moran couldn’t help himself and chalked this up to possibly an example of how “the Trump era” caused “feelings” to run “very, very high right across the political spectrum”.     He even invoked the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021: Political violence has resulted from those high feelings, obviously, at the United States Capitol most — most intensely. But, as Olivia says, we don’t know right now and having covered a lot of trials, a lot of courthouses, it — there is a tremendous amount of misery that goes through the courthouse as human misery, people having the worst day of their lives, the worst experience of their lives, murder trials, people going bankrupt, divorce, child, all kinds of things that can send people into the depths of anguish. We don’t know why this man set himself on fire, but there it was in that park, once again, where the protests have been occurring. Protests we can expect continue. It’s an awful situation. Moran couldn’t stop falling on his face. Yet again, he correctly said “caution is fully justified” about what led this person to take this sad step and “there have been a lot of people on the streets who have mental issues,” but tripled down on the blame-Trump route. Along with arguing Trump coming “down that escalator in 2015 to announce his presidential campaign” had “changed American politics, raised it to a pitch of intensity,” Moran fretted “the — the style, the rhetoric, and the policies that — that he proposed is so different, so inspiring to some, so infuriating to others, that we are now as polarized the country as we ever have been.”     “And the emotions around politics are ratcheted up to something that we haven’t seen at least since the 1960s in this country, where there was, you know, a good deal of unrest and turmoil,” he added. Eventually, he conceded that what we do know was “something awful has happened, something truly horrific and one has to — one has to have to pray for that for the person who is drawn to that extreme and has done that”. To see the relevant transcript from April 19, click “expand.” ABC News Live April 19, 2024 1:41 p.m. Eastern TERRY MORAN: Let me just ask. It seems then, that the gravitational pull of the Trump melodrama that has gripped the nation since he came down the escalator has now, it appears, resulted in someone coming to that where protesters have gathered and lit himself on fire. OLIVIA RUBIN: Well, we’ll have to see exactly what, you know, it ends up being. I think we all have been in scenarios where happens. Information unfolds later and it’s not exactly what we thought first. But certainly there appears to have been some sort of demonstration, potentially, just outside of the courthouse, if it’s unrelated, potentially, they’re bringing out a stretcher now that they have and they are lifting the man who is severely burned, Terry, and putting him onto the stretcher. They are bundling the ropes around him and it does seem like all of the fire is out now. I can’t see any flames and we could see the flames from where we were standing before and they are carrying him out on stretcher. (....) 1:42 p.m. Eastern MORAN: Olivia offering, a real smart caution. That’s a big courthouse. A lot of cases going on in there. Obviously, in our justice system, there are plenty of issues and plenty of personal issues that people can get caught up in the justice system, that can — that can break them. And so, we don’t know that this incident police now apparently from our Aaron Katersky that a man lit himself on fire in the courthouse — just outside the courthouse where the trial of Donald Trump is going in the square with protesters, pro-Trump anti-Trump have been gathering. So, that is a ground that has seen some protest activity. But this — this incident, a man lighting himself on fire in front of that courthouse. Now, obviously, the Trump era has had feelings running very, very high right across the political spectrum. Political violence has resulted from those high feelings, obviously, at the United States Capitol most — most intensely. But, as Olivia says, we don’t know right now and having covered a lot of trials, a lot of courthouses, it — there is a tremendous amount of misery that goes through the courthouse as human misery, people having the worst day of their lives, the worst experience of their lives, murder trials, people going bankrupt, divorce, child, all kinds of things that can send people into the depths of anguish. We don’t know why this man set himself on fire, but there it was in that park, once again, where the protests have been occurring. Protests we can expect continue. It’s an awful situation. (....) 1:47 p.m. Eastern MORAN: Alright, once again, that — that caution is fully justified, Aaron. That — that whatever we it may be, we don’t know yet. And courthouses and that one in particular, as you say there, there have been a lot people on the streets who have mental issues and gather there sometimes and there are a lot of things that happen in courthouses that can stress people to the point of breakdown. We don’t know what is going on, except that, as Olivia Rubin has pointed out, there was a man taken away in a stretcher, badly burned. (....) 1:50 p.m. Eastern MORAN: But the Trump era, which is what we have been living in since he came down that escalator in 2015 to announce his presidential campaign and changed American politics, raised it to a pitch of intensity, the — the style, the rhetoric, and the policies that — that he proposed is so different, so inspiring to some, so infuriating to others, that we are now as polarized the country as we ever have been. And the emotions around politics are ratcheted up to something that we haven’t seen at least since the 1960s in this country, where there was, you know, a good deal of unrest and turmoil. But once again, just to underline, it does seem, from Olivia’s reporting, from what we have as well, that a man has set himself on fire in the park outside the courthouse where the hush money criminal trial of Donald Trump has been underway. The completed jury selection today and we don’t know if it’s this incident, this man setting himself fire is related to what was going on in the — in the courtroom where Donald Trump was sitting, watching the completion of jury selection or if this is someone with other issues — either in the courts or just in life — but clearly something awful has happened, something truly horrific and one has to — one has to have to pray for that for the person who is drawn to that extreme and has done that and is taken away. Police were on and very quickly put it and put the fire out on him. As Olivia saw and reported, and he was taken away in an ambulance to a hospital where he will get care.

Editor’s Pick: National Review’s Geraghty Takes Blowtorch to NPR Over Berliner Debacle

Writing Thursday morning over at National Review in the Morning Jolt newsletter, senior writer Jim Geraghty went postal on taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) over its handling of now-former senior business editor Uri Berliner’s bombshell essay for The Free Press meticulously dismantling NPR for its decades of liberal media bias. Geraghty (correctly) stated it’s been “refreshingly honest” to see how “NPR responded to the revelations and accusations of 25-year veteran Uri Berliner” with “biased, one-sided, arrogant, and dismissive” condemnations of Berliner because “that’s exactly how NPR likes it” sinc ethey “didn’t get this way accidentally; this is what it wants to be.” He acknowledged anyone who’s “been around long enough” has “seen this sort of journalistic story-cycle before” in which some sort of hubbub breaks out at a liberal media heavyweight, they claim to be sorrowful and have “strayed from its original mission to report the news”....and then nothing happens. He went back through a slew of examples as way of saying “[t]here’s something a bit refreshing, if depressing, about the way NPR responded to” Berliner: You can think back to Dan Rather and CBS News, or Eason Jordan and CNN, or Stephen Glass at the New Republic. Or, more recently, the staff panic and outrage that ousted James Bennet from the editorial page at the New York Times. Heck, you could go back to Janet Cooke and the Washington Post, or all the way back to Walter Duranty’s work for the New York Times in the Soviet Union, echoing the propaganda of Stalin. “This time at NPR, there is no rubbing of the chin, furrowed brows, or begrudging concession that the critic has a point, and that they must do better. Nope, NPR’s management thinks they’re doing a terrific job, and they don’t see any reason to change. In their minds, the true villain of this story is Berliner,” he added with “former colleagues are similarly indignant that anybody could possibly doubt the quality of the work that they’re doing.” After winding through NPR’s heavily slanted coverage of the coronavirus pandemic and the Hunter Biden laptop, Geraghty observed “NPR management” has clearly decided that, lacking any fear of cajoles from Republicans to defund them, they could treat Berliner’s concerns “the same way” they “treated the counterevidence for the Trump–Russia collusion narrative, or the Hunter Biden laptop, or the evidence pointing to a lab leak.” To read Geraghty’s full story, click here.

GAG: ABC’s Bruce Giddily Cheers Biden Being Able to Campaign as Trump’s on Trial

ABC’s Good Morning America and its chief White House correspondent/chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce were emanating warm fuzzies and weak knees on Wednesday over their allies in the New York legal system interfering in the 2024 presidential election, preventing former President Trump from campaigning five days a week and allowing their candidate — President Joe Biden — to have the country to himself. Co-host Michael Strahan had a tease giving Team Biden what they want by boasting of Trump on day two of jury selection “test[ing] the patience of the judge while President Biden hits the campaign trails in a battleground state.”     Former Clinton official and fellow co-host George Stephanopulos later tossed to Bruce with more state-run phrasing: “While Donald Trump is tied up in court, President Biden has been on the campaign trail in battleground state of Pennsylvania.” Even the chyron flashed their glee with the situation: “President Biden Hits the Campaign Trail; Slams Trump’s Values & “Failed” Economic Policies in Pennsylvania”. Bruce’s 51-second report was nauseatingly hacktastic and a fine audition to replace the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre as press secretary in a hypothetical second Biden term, starting with her gleeful proclamation about “Biden...trying to seize this moment and create a real splitscreen, leaning into his roots in Scranton, arguing he and Donald Trump have very different values.” As usual, Bruce exhibited zero pushback and relayed Biden spin as news: He said he understands the middle class in a way that Donald Trump simply never will, saying that Trump will always put the wealthy and himself first. While the President has been careful not to comment on details of Trump’s trial, he has been taking more swipes at his rival, joking about Trump’s legal debt and telling supporters here last night that he would never take advantage of a woman. Now, the President is spending three days in Pennsylvania this week. It is a battleground where he has spent the most time by our count, visiting 30 times since taking office. Michael, the President well aware this state is a must win. Not to be left out, CBS Mornings had its own glorified press release with the Biden campaign stops woven into its report on day two of the Trump trial. In the first “Eye Opener” co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King bragged about the jurors being tabbed “as President Biden campaigns in a very important swing state.” Co-host Tony Dokoupil later touted the “two very different schedules for our presumptive presidential nominees as former President Donald Trump spends the week in New York in a courtroom for jury selection in his criminal trial” and “President Biden is on the campaign trail with multiple stops in Pennsylvania.” Chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes proclaimed that “the Biden campaign is clearly looking to play up this split-screen moment where you’ve got former President Trump holed up in a New York courtroom for much of the week, while President Biden is on the campaign trail here in the nation’s largest battleground state for three days this week.” Later and after a creepy video of an enthused Biden walking and holding hands with a band of small children, Cordes bragged of “Biden popping into his childhood home Tuesday and stumping with supporters in Scranton” on the heels of “[n]ew fundraising figures show the Biden campaign brought in nearly double the Trump team’s haul in the first three months of the year”. She continued with more propaganda (click “expand”): CORDES: The Biden team has used some money to open 14 campaign offices across Pennsylvania and to hire two dozen staffers in the state since February. BIDEN: We’ve opened more campaign offices because of you all than — he don’t — hasn’t opened any that I’m aware of. I’m not being facetious. CORDES: President Biden is waking up here in Scranton today. He will then head to Pittsburgh where he’s expected to push for tariffs to triple on Chinese steel and aluminum. This as he works to line up union support. To see the relevant transcripts from April 17, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 17, 2024 7:00 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump on Trial; First Seven Jurors Selected] MICHAEL STRAHAN: The first jurors have been selected in the criminal trial of Donald Trump. Trump on Trial. Seven jurors sworn in to hear the case against the former President. What we know about the three women and four men, including a nurse, teacher and two lawyers as Trump tests the patience of the judge while President Biden hits the campaign trails in a battleground state.  (....) 7:06 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; President Biden Hits the Campaign Trail; Slams Trump’s Values & “Failed” Economic Policies in Pennsylvania] GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: While Donald Trump is tied up in court, President Biden has been on the campaign trail in battleground state of Pennsylvania. Mary Bruce is on the scene in Scranton. Good morning, Mary. MARY BRUCE: Good morning, George. Well, President Biden is trying to seize this moment and create a real splitscreen, leaning into his roots in Scranton, arguing he and Donald Trump have very different values. He said he understands the middle class in a way that Donald Trump simply never will, saying that Trump will always put the wealthy and himself first. While the President has been careful not to comment on details of Trump’s trial, he has been taking more swipes at his rival, joking about Trump’s legal debt and telling supporters here last night that he would never take advantage of a woman. Now, the President is spending three days in Pennsylvania this week. It is a battleground where he has spent the most time by our count, visiting 30 times since taking office. Michael, the President well aware this state is a must win. STRAHAN: Yeah, it is a must win there, Mary. Thank you very much for that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CBS Mornings April 17, 2024 7:00 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] GAYLE KING: The first seven jurors have been picked in former President Trump’s criminal trial as President Biden campaigns in a very important swing state. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Court and Campaigning] PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: A guy came up to me and asked if I could help, drowning in debt. I said, I’m sorry, Donald, but I can’t help you. [LAUGHTER] (....) 7:04 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trial & the Trial; Trump Sits for Jury Selection as Pres. Biden Campaigns in Pennsylvania] TONY DOKOUPIL: Alright, we’re going to turn now to politics, as promised, and two very different schedules for our presumptive presidential nominees as former President Donald Trump spends the week in New York in a courtroom for jury selection in his criminal trial. President Biden is on the campaign trail with multiple stops in Pennsylvania. Nancy Cordes is out there as well, traveling with the President and joins us now from Biden’s hometown, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Nancy, good morning. NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Tony. Yeah, the Biden campaign is clearly looking to play up this split-screen moment where you’ve got former President Trump holed up in a New York courtroom for much of the week, while President Biden is on the campaign trail here in the nation’s largest battleground state for three days this week. (....) 7:06 a.m. Eastern CORDES: And while Trump has denied all the allegations, the trial will pull him off the campaign trail. DONALD TRUMP: I should be right now in Pennsylvania. BIDEN SUPORTERS: We want Joe! CORDES: His rival is in Pennsylvania. President Biden popping into his childhood home Tuesday and stumping with supporters in Scranton. BIDEN: When I look at the economy, I don’t see it through the eyes of Mar-a-Lago. I see it through the eyes of Scranton. CORDES: New fundraising figures show the Biden campaign brought in nearly double the Trump team’s haul in the first three months of the year. The Biden team has used some money to open 14 campaign offices across Pennsylvania and to hire two dozen staffers in the state since February. BIDEN: We’ve opened more campaign offices because of you all than — he don’t — hasn’t opened any that I’m aware of. I’m not being facetious. CORDES: President Biden is waking up here in Scranton today. He will then head to Pittsburgh where he’s expected to push for tariffs to triple on Chinese steel and aluminum. This as he works to line up union support. (....) 8:00 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Campaigning and Court] DOKOUPIL: President Biden hits the campaign trail as former President Trump attends day two of his criminal trial in New York. CORDES: The Biden campaign is clearly looking to play up this splitscreen moment.

ABC Mocks ‘Partisan’ Mayorkas Impeachment as ‘All for Show’ While CBS Lobs Softballs

On Wednesday ahead of the impending impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his role in the Biden border crisis, ABC’s Good Morning America continued its wildly partisan dismissal of this entire episode while CBS Mornings lobbed softballs at him a network exclusive originally billed as a chance for him to sound competent on the issue of online child exploitation. As they’ve been since the start of the impeachment push, ABC’s Good Morning America has led the way with snarky dismissals and partisan pontificating. Co-host and former Clinton tool George Stephanopoulos has been the ringleader. Wednesday was no except as he didn’t even ask a question of chief congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, but instead belly-ached about how “the partisan House impeachment of Homeland Secretary Mayorkas is heading now to the Senate, but it’s all for show now.” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “[T]he partisan House impeachment of Homeland Secretary Mayorkas is heading now to the Senate, but it’s all for show now.”@RachelVScott: “Yeah and this really could be over very quickly. Look, Republicans want a full trial. They impeached Secretary… pic.twitter.com/NMLgLBjPQb — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 17, 2024 Also a liberal hack, Scott scoffed “this really could be over very quickly” even though “Republicans want a full trial” for Mayorkas’s “handling of the border, but it is Democrats who control the Senate.” Showing her political allegiance, Scott stated as though it were a fact that Democrats “point out there is no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, that this is all over a policy dispute and they will be looking to dismiss these charges very quickly.” Prior to the Mayorkas interview, CBS Mornings also had a partial and dry segment about the Mayorkas impeachment trial with co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King and congressional correspondent Nikole Killion (click “expand”): KING: Nikole, before you go, listen, I know it’s a busy day there because we’ve got the impeachment trial of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, begins in the Senate which, by the way, the secretary of state [sic] has just arrived. We’re talking about another topic, but we’ll certainly get to that. So, what can we expect on that front? KILLION: Well, senators will be sworn in this afternoon for a trial. Tuesday, House impeachment managers walk the articles across the Capitol to the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House back in February. He is charged with refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border. Senate Democrats want to dismiss this trial quickly, while most Republicans argue that it should be allowed to proceed. A DHS spokesperson has called the proceedings baseless. Mayorkas surfaced for the start of the second half-hour and, after nearly seven minutes letting him conveniently seem wholly concerned about U.S. national security in a joint interview with a Meta executive on online child exploitation. The remaining nearly three minutes (2:53) was split between his impeachment and the war in the Middle East (with Mayorkas offering a boilerplate answer giving equal weight to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia). Co-host Tony Dokoupil didn’t focus on debating the merits of the impeachment and instead asked him “what’s on the table, what’s being discussed” “to stop the flow of people over the border” (click “expand”): DOKOUPIL: Mr. Secretary, you’re here with us, but meanwhile in Washington there’s an effort to impeach you and it comes at the very same time that people are waiting on the Biden administration to issue some sort of an executive order to stop the flow of people over the border, maybe by changing the asylum laws. That’s the reporting anyway. What — what’s on the table, what’s being discussed, is that still even a possibility? MAYORKAS: So, a couple — a couple thoughts. First of all, as they work on impeachment, I work in advancing the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process. We need Congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. That is the enduring solution. We cannot resource ourselves, we need Congress to do so. We cannot change a broken immigration system, only Congress can do that. KING: But — but how do you explain — DOKOUPIL: But there is no executive order, so you’re pulling it off the table? MAYORKAS: Oh, no. Not at all. You know, we — we — we explore options every single day. That’s the responsibility of good government. We are considering options. We have been throughout, but really, the enduring solution is legislation because executive actions invariably are challenged in the courts. Like the loyal liberal apparatchik she is, King praised Mayorkas for “continu[ing] to do your job” despite the impeachment charges in what must “feel surreal” and “like you have on gasoline underwear” with “a lot of incoming” from Republicans he’s simultaneously “negotiating with” as they try to remove him. “How do you balance that two, knowing that — how they feel about you and that they want you out,” King wondered, to which Mayorkas twice said it’s “precisely why I focus on the work.” Gag. NBC’s Today was actually the least objectionable of the three (aside from the fact it was only a 32-second partial segment) as Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles gave a sentence to each camp (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: Let’s talk about another item. The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. The articles of impeachment — which are basically the charges — now go to the Senate for a trial, but what is expected to happen there? NOBLES: Yeah, that’s right. The Senate today is expected to swear in senators as jurors, but it is expected to be an incredibly short trial against Mayorkas. Republicans say that he ignored the law and created chaos at the border, but Democrats argue that this is nothing more than a political stunt. They’re planning to dismiss or table the trial as soon as this week. To see the relevant transcript from April 17, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 17, 2024 7:11 a.m. Eastern GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Rachel, the partisan House impeachment of Homeland Secretary Mayorkas is heading now to the Senate, but it’s all for show now.  [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; House Sends Mayorkas Impeachment Articles to Senate; Republican Senators Demanding Full-Scale Trial for DHS Secretary] RACHEL SCOTT: Yeah and this really could be over very quickly. Look, Republicans want a full trial. They impeached Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of the border, but it is Democrats who control the Senate. And they point out there is no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, that this is all over a policy dispute and they will be looking to dismiss these charges very quickly, George. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Mornings April 17, 2024 7:08 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mayorkas Impeachment Trial; Homeland Security Sec’y Expected to Survive Senate Trial] GAYLE KING: Nikole, before you go, listen, I know it’s a busy day there because we’ve got the impeachment trial of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, begins in the Senate which, by the way, the secretary of state [sic] has just arrived. We’re talking about another topic, but we’ll certainly get to that. So, what can we expect on that front? NIKOLE KILLION: Well, senators will be sworn in this afternoon for a trial. Tuesday, House impeachment managers walk the articles across the Capitol to the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the House back in February. He is charged with refusal to comply with the law and breach of public trust for his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border. Senate Democrats want to dismiss this trial quickly, while most Republicans argue that it should be allowed to proceed. A DHS spokesperson has called the proceedings baseless. Gayle? KING: All right. We’ll see how that plays out. Nikole, thank you very much. In our next half hour, homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas will be here in the studio to discuss his impeachment trial and the reason why he’s here — we booked him a while ago to talk about this — a big, new campaign to keep your kids safe online. (....) 7:31 a.m. Eastern KING: We’re — we’re very glad to have you here. Nice to meet you, Antigone. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Thank you. KING: Especially for you, Secretary Mayorkas because, listen, you’re in the news, your ears must be burning because, even as we speak, they’re trying to impeach you on Capitol Hill. We’ll get to that in just a second. (....) 7:36 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mayorkas Impeachment Trial; DHS Sec’y on Impeachment Charges Brought by Republicans] TONY DOKOUPIL: Mr. Secretary, you’re here with us, but meanwhile in Washington there’s an effort to impeach you and it comes at the very same time that people are waiting on the Biden administration to issue some sort of an executive order to stop the flow of people over the border, maybe by changing the asylum laws. That’s the reporting anyway. What — what’s on the table, what’s being discussed, is that still even a possibility? MAYORKAS: So, a couple — a couple thoughts. First of all, as they work on impeachment, I work in advancing the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. That’s what I’ve done throughout this process. We need Congress to pass the bipartisan legislation that a group of senators worked on. That is the enduring solution. We cannot resource ourselves, we need Congress to do so. We cannot change a broken immigration system, only Congress can do that. KING: But — but how do you explain — DOKOUPIL: But there is no executive order, so you’re pulling it off the table? MAYORKAS: Oh, no. Not at all. You know, we — we — we explore options every single day. That’s the responsibility of good government. We are considering options. We have been throughout, but really, the enduring solution is legislation because executive actions invariably are challenged in the courts. KING: Yeah. You were making it clear, Mr. Secretary, you’re going to continue to do your job. But, I’m wondering personally, does this feel surreal? Do you feel like you have on gasoline underwear? Cause you a lot of incoming — you must feel — or do you feel like you’re sitting on the hot seat? Cause, on one hand, you’re negotiating with Republicans. And then, on the other hand, they’re trying to impeach you. How do you balance that two, knowing that — how they feel about you and that they want you out? MAYORKAS: Gayle, that is precisely why I focus on the work. KING: Mmmmm. DOKOUPIL: Should we — MAYORKAS: That is precisely why I focus on the work. DOKOUPIL: — speaking of the broader mission separate from the border, we’ve got Israel and Iran now in a confrontation. I think a lot of people reasonably wonder whether what’s happening overseas may become a threat to the homeland. KING: Yeah, yes. DOKOUPIL: Is there an increased risk in America of some sort of attack tied to sympathies in the Middle East? KING: Yes. MAYORKAS: We have seen an increase in anti-Semitism. We have seen an increase in Islamaphobia following the October 7 terrorist attacks. There is no question, as Director Wray of the FBI and I have expressed publicly, we are in a heightened threat environment and what we worry about is an increase in what we call domestic violent extremism — the radicalization of individuals already here, driven to violence based on an ideology of hate. DOKOUPIL: Credible threats right now as we speak? MAYORKAS: We — I have no known credible threats at this time, but we are in a heightened threat environment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NBC’s Today April 17, 2024 7:14 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mayorkas Impeachment Heads to Senate] SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Let’s talk about another item. The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. The articles of impeachment — which are basically the charges — now go to the Senate for a trial, but what is expected to happen there? RYAN NOBLES: Yeah, that’s right. The Senate today is expected to swear in senators as jurors, but it is expected to be an incredibly short trial against Mayorkas. Republicans say that he ignored the law and created chaos at the border, but Democrats argue that this is nothing more than a political stunt. They’re planning to dismiss or table the trial as soon as this week.

Split: CBS’s Patta Fears World Has Ditched Gazans, Dokoupil Blasts Pro-Hamas Protests

Tuesday’s CBS Mornings presented something for everyone on Israel vs. Hamas as, along with another anti-Israel, pro-Hamas report from CBS foreign correspondent Debora Patta griping about global concern for Israel over Iran’s missile and drone attacks “distracted...from the misery of Gaza”, co-host Tony Dokoupil stated the obvious (but isn’t on the left) that pro-Hamas protesters blocking roads in the U.S. are not protected by the First Amendment. Patta was cued up by co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King, who claimed there’s “disagreement among Israelis over what should happen next” in response “to Iran’s massive missile and drone attack on Israel.”     Instead of criticizing Iran, Patta blamed Israel by downplaying Iran’s attempted show of force: “Engineered for maximum effect but resulting in minimal damage, the Iranian assault has triggered global calls for restraint.” The South African reporter went to a former Israeli general to claim Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — as opposed to Hamas or Iran — is a threat to Israel’s existence. In other words, someone with Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome (click “expand”): PATTA: Retired two-star Israeli Nimrod Sheffer does not believe Prime Minister Netanyahu is the right person to make such a critical decision. NIMROD SHEFFER: So, if you ask me if Netanyahu is a risk to the state of Israel, my opinion is yes. PATTA: He believes Netanyahu has a vested interest in prolonging the war in Gaza and escalating the conflict in Iran in order to stay in power. HEFFER: If you’re retaliating just to show that you’re strong enough, it’s the wrong idea. It’s the wrong strategy. Patta then performed a sob story about Hamas-controlled (and supporting) Gaza, whining “[t]he fear of an all-out regional war has distracted the attention away from the misery of Gaza” and “extreme hunger stalk[ing]” Palestinians, adding (click “expand”): There are still regular air strikes, each day bringing new grief and fresh drama....More aid is arriving, but it is not enough. They are desperate cues. This bakery in the north reopened for the first time in more than six months of war after the World Food Program brought in fuel and flour. Food prices have soared, and those who can’t afford the rising costs are frantically trying to access their money. Banks are running out of cash. With both an unfinished war in Gaza and escalating tensions with Iran, Israel is weighing how to respond to the assault. Senior experts have told us the war cabinet must balance retaliation with ensuring it does not fracture the international alliance it has built up against Tehran.  Prior to this, featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers had a news brief on what he described as “pro-Palestinian protests that disrupted traffic in major U.S. cities yesterday” such as on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge, and roads leading into Chicago’s O’Hare airport. In other words, terrorist sympathizers painted as totally harmless.  Dokoupil interjected with a two-sentence reality check: “Stopping traffic is not a protected First Amendment right. This is something different.” Duthiers and King were both awkwardly left to interject with the former giving an “indeed” and the latter saying, “mmhmm.” Aside from Dokoupil, the liberal journalists on NBC’s Today were much more in line with Duthiers in giving almost dry descriptions of the terrorist supporters. In opening teases, co-host Hoda Kotb merely said the Middle East tensions “spill[ed] over into the streets here at home” with “protesters demanding a ceasefire in Gaza blocking traffic on roads, bridges and airports” to the point that “[s]ome” would-be airport passengers” were “forced to abandon their cars and walk”. Kotb also had an opening tease in the second hour that described these thugs as “protests calling for a ceasefire ramp[ing] up” their hooliganism “in cities across the U.S.” Co-host Savannah Guthrie struck the same note: “Here at home, protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, disrupted cities nationwide yesterday, shutting down major roads, snarling traffic.” In the first hour, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel reported in a voice-over from Israel that, over in the U.S., “pro-Palestinian protesters took to the streets, blocking traffic from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco to Seattle, Chicago's O’Hare airport, and New York to demand a ceasefire.” Engel had a liveshot in the second hour with similar verbiage: “And all of this is playing out domestically in the United States with those protests, as you mentioned, pro-Palestinian demonstrators shutting down roads, coast to coast, yesterday[.]” To see the relevant transcripts from April 16, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

CBS’s King Whines People Don’t Care Enough About Trump Trial (Unlike ABC)

Amid the voluminous coverage on the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC this week on the start of the hush money trial brought by far-left Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against former President Trump, Tuesday’s CBS Mornings whined not enough Americans care about this trial....like ABC’s Good Morning America, who was tickled pink about Trump suffering. CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman had just finished explaining why this Trump trial is “significant because it’s first” and “is a solemn day in court when you put a former President...on trial” when co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King kvetched about the American public not being consumed by this.     “We should point out this is not normal. You know, Donald Trump always says he’s a — it’s a witch hunt, everyone’s against him, that it’s unprecedented, but also his behavior, for a lot of people, is unprecedented,” King huffed. She then added the times we’re living in are “just not normal” and, despite all these histrionics, she’s “worr[ied] that the audience just hears white noise when they hear all of these cases running together.” Klieman gave King much of what she probably wanted to hear: They may, but this is the first one that actually is going forward, so the attention will be on this one. But, no, it is not normal. Nothing about this follows legal norms in a courtroom. It may happen this time because Judge Merchan is strict and he’s going to run a courtroom the way it should be run, but 34 felonies for business records? Not normal. Over on ABC, co-host and former Clinton flack Stephanopoulos giddily told chief Washington correspondent and three-time bestselling anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl that after having spent a year “talking about the political and legal calendars clashing”, Monday finally arrived. Stephanopoulos added Monday “felt” like a change in “the dynamic...from” the past “when Donald Trump was so convinced” the charges would be boon for his campaign. Karl beamed in announcing he saw “it in his behavior, in his demeanor” with Monday having been “a wake-up call for Donald Trump” in the form of “his new reality” as “now criminal defendant Trump”. Clearly excited (and perhaps about the idea of a fourth book to hawk about Trump), Karl looked enthused at the idea of “see[ing] the bitterness, the anger” and “energy drained from” Trump: Sure, he’s been indicted four times, he’s had to go to his indict — go to his arraignments, but now, he has to be inside a non-descript courtroom in lower Manhattan day after day against his will. He must be there and he is in a courtroom where he has no control. The judge is the boss and, for the most part, he has to be silent. You could see the bitterness, the anger, I think, the — the energy drained from him when he walked out of that courtroom at the end of the day. That was a different Donald Trump. And, look, he was restrained yesterday. He didn’t violate the gag order. He didn’t lash out at anybody. But how is this going to affect his psyche and his behavior as he does this for the next roughly two months? To see the relevant transcripts from April 16, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

Fox’s Doocy Triggers WH’s Kirby After Pointing Out Biden’s ‘Don’t’ Plea to Iran FAILED

With President Biden on the road for the next few days, the White House press corps had to get their hardballs in while they could on Monday. Fox’s Peter Doocy, as always, had the adversarial questions the rest wouldn’t ask. This time, he went around and around with John Kirby over Iran predictably not being intimidated by President Biden’s simple demand to “don’t” fire missiles and drones at Israel. “John, has President Biden considered maybe beefing up the public Iran posture to be more than just one word,” Doocy began, to which Kirby said amid cross-talk they should “talk about what we did.”     “[H]e said ‘don’t’ and they did it anyway. So, now what,” he asked. Doocy largely let Kirby drone on for over a minute about how Biden’s “don’t” plea was actually a smashing success (click “expand”): KIRBY: Let’s talk about “don’t” and did. Let’s talk about Saturday night. He made it clear that he didn’t want to see escalation in the region. DOOCY: And yet, there was. KIRBY: Eh, let me finish. He added military resources to the region right after October 7 and then, when we had an inkling that this kind of thing was coming, he added even more military resources to the region, more destroyers that were capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, fighters — fighter squadron that was able to shoot down drones and that’s what we did. So, you can talk about the ‘don’t’ word all you want, but let’s talk about what did happen. And what did happen was Iran utterly failed. And if I’m sitting in Tehran right now, I’m betting that President Biden takes it pretty seriously. When he says, ‘don’t’ escalate, he’s going to act to make sure that you can, and they didn’t. Yes, they fired an unprecedented amount of munitions, but how much of a success that they have, Peter? None. Zero. Very little infrastructure. It was an embarrassing failure for the Supreme Leader for the IRGC. Doocy then pivoted to the ongoing issue (raised repeatedly, such as here, here, here, here, here, and here by his colleague, Jacqui Heinrich) of the U.S. freezing Iranian assets: “Now that we know that the Iranians do not listen to President Biden’s public warnings, Is there any regret here about unfreezing billions of dollars for Iranian leaders during the President’s administration?” Kirby played dumb, wondering “what unfreezing are you talking about” and thus lead to more back-and-forth between the two with Kirby admitting he did know what Doocy was referring to and, rest assured, the administration was monitoring the haul to make sure it didn’t end up in the wrong hands (click “expand”): DOOCY: He unfroze billions of dollars — KIRBY: For — for Iranian leaders? DOOCY: Yeah. KIRBY: Really? No, I don’t think so. DOOCY: So, you guys say — KIRBY: So, first of all — DOOCY: — it’s for humanitarian purposes, but doesn’t that un — KIRBY: — but you don’t believe me? DOOCY: — well, doesn’t that free up money for them to spend on other stuff? But where do you get the money for an unprecedented number of munitions to — to fire at Israel? KIRBY: So, first of all, I’m betting, if they’re sitting in Tehran, they’re taking it seriously when President Biden says he’s going to defend Israel, we put skin in the game — a whole heckuva lot of it, and knocked almost everything out of the sky. So, I’m betting they’re taking it pretty seriously. And, as for this — this unfreezing, that none of that fun [sic] — none of those funds — funds set up in an account, by the way, by the previous administration, goes directly to the Supreme Leader, the IRGC. Can only be used for humanitarian purposes, and we’re watching that account very, very closely to make sure that that’s what happens. Doocy Time wrapped with a question about why in the world did Biden leave for Delaware then come back to the White House since, in crises past, Biden wouldn’t change plans and the press team would argue Biden “can be the President from anywhere.”  Kirby didn’t engaged except to claim he came back because “shortly after arriving — we got better, firmer intelligence and information about the — the specific timing of what we expected to be this Iranian attack”. Surprisingly, the CBS Evening News actually had the stones to air their own correspondent Weijia Jiang’s hardball for Kirby about the Iranians feeling undeterred: CBS’s @Weijia Jiang: “John, just one day before the attack, President Biden issued a warning to Iran — don’t. And now, the U.S. is not taking any part in an Israeli reprisal, so does that signal to Iran that it can defy the U.S. without facing any consequences?” WH’s John Kirby:… pic.twitter.com/rlJe6605U9 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 15, 2024 NewsNation’s Kellie Meyer had two excellent questions about why U.S. doesn’t believe Israel should be able to respond to what could have killed untold numbers of Israelis and what specifically is Biden doing to deescalate. CNN’s Priscilla Alverez represented the left’s worldview on Israel needing to do more to kowtow to Hamas in ceasefire and hostage talks even though, as she admitted Hamas has been the party whose refused to agree to anything Finally, during the Karine Jean-Pierre portion of the briefing, the Fox Business Network’s Edward Lawrence twice pointed out gas prices are soaring. Despite Jean-Pierre’s assurances we should be fortunate they’re “well below their peak back in 2022” thanks to Biden’s leadership, Lawrence again fact-checked her: “But [gas prices are] only three cents lower than a year ago. It’s up 52 percent from when President Biden came into office. Any — then — talk about changes in policy that — to encourage future investment in oil and gas industry?” To see the relevant transcript from the April 15 briefing, click here.

NBC Goes Left, ABC Soft on Kirby Over Iran While CBS Actually Brings Heat

Following Iran’s failed attempt over the weekend to fire hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel with the goal of leaving it in ruins, the Biden White House sent John Kirby out to face the “big three” networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC on their respective flagship Monday morning news shows. All three took different approaches with ABC’s Good Morning America being supportive, NBC’s Today hitting him from the left, and CBS Mornings actually challenged him.     ABC had co-host and former Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos talk to Kirby and it was akin to watching paint try. Not only were they pedestrian and open-ended, but they were short and zero interruptions (click “expand”): We know the Israeli war cabinet met this morning. What do you know about what they decided? (....) Do you think he’s persuaded the prime minister not to strike back? (....) And the United States is not going to be parted of any — any retaliation, we know that. Is there any other limit to support for Israel if they do escalate this conflict? (....) You heard Martha’s report Iran’s missiles did not get through. Are they a paper tiger? (....) Aid needs for Israel, aid needs for Ukraine. Are you confident the House is going to pass it? Where ABC’s Stephanopoulos felt like he barely gave any thought to his short, boilerplate questions, NBC’s Today went its usual route with political interviews by having co-host Savannah Guthrie take the lead. After a lead-off on what Kirby thinks the Israeli war cabinet will do next, Guthrie went left by wondering if the Biden administration will continue to demand Israel “take the win, not to retaliate.” Guthrie upped the ante in her next question by blaming Israel itself for facing an onslaught from the radical Islamists in Tehran and then wondered if Israel is the party who must cease their aggressions for there to be peace (as opposed to Iran and its proxies) (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: Well, as we all know, this strike from Iran was in retaliation for a strike that Israel took against Iranian forces in Syria that killed seven IRGC officers. The Israelis gave no heads up to its ally, the U.S., was that needlessly provocative? Do you think that Israel bears some responsibility for escalating this, and getting us to this point? KIRBY: Well, look, let’s be — let’s clear here, Iran has been funding, resourcing groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis down in Yemen, also of which, also, with the exception of Hamas, at least proxy groups, including those in Iraq and Syria, also participated in these strikes against Israel on Israeli soil. Iran is the one who was providing the means and the resources through which these groups and their own military was able to conduct this unprecedented attack on Israel. GUTHRIE: So, I mean, given that, and given what the White House is signaling about its messaging to the Israelis, I mean, I just want to go back to the point here, is the White House saying, in — in, you know, between the lines, essentially to Israel, don’t retaliate now? I mean, the Iranians have claimed that they have concluded their response to the Syria attack, so is it the U.S. position that if Israel sits tight, this can end right now? KIRBY: Well, we want to see deescalation, clearly, in the region, and everything the President has done since October 7 has been designed to keep this from becoming a wider war, Savannah, and that’s why we’re going to keep latched up with Israeli counterparts. That’s why we’re going to make it clear again to the Israelis we’ll do what we have to do to defend them, help them in their self-defense, but we don’t want to see a wider war. We don’t want to see this escalate. We certainly are not looking for a war with Iran. Between questions pointing out the bipartisan support for Israel and the hostage negotiations, Guthrie had the gall to question whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the leader whose “actions in the in the region make the U.S. nervous.” CBS Mornings co-host Tony Dokoupil eschewed both approaches and did his job of asking tough, adversarial questions.  He immediately cut to the chase with a question similar to a track Fox’s Peter Doocy would go down during the briefing: Let’s talk about deterrence because, after decades of war via proxies between Iran and Israel, we now have the first direct attack by Iran on Israel. And it follows the U.S. saying to Iran don’t. Well, they did. What is the state of U.S. influence in the region this morning? When Kirby meandered and argued it all worked out for the best, Kirby both pushed back and took aim at those (including in the White House) arguing Israel should just take drones and missiles ad nauseam without being allowed to hit back: Nobody wants a war in that region, not at all, but let’s take up this question of what a win is. You’ve described the Middle East there, Israel’s neighborhood, as a tough one. Deterrence matters, hitting back does. If a bully takes 350 odd swings at you and you duck, how is that a win? Kirby replied he wouldn’t “get into what the future portends here and — and what the Israelis might or might not do”, but doubled down on not wanting “a wider war” while also this laughable and vague claim of “continu[ing] to hold Iran accountable”. With time for only one more question, Kirby asked for a ceasefire and hostage talks update, to which Kirby correctly noted that, once again, it’s not only “up to Hamas”, but “[i]t’s way past time for them to agree to” a deal. To see the relevant transcripts from April 15, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Oh, NOW You Like Him?! Disney’s ABC Hails DeSantis for Cracking Down on Retail Theft

Exactly two weeks after Disney more or less cried uncle and agreed to a settlement with the State of Florida in its lawsuit over the Parental Rights in Education bill and a few months after Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) presidential campaign came to an end, Disney-owned ABC had a surprisingly laudatory segment on Thursday’s Good Morning America as they praised DeSantis for “com[ing] down on hard on” porch piracy and retail theft. Oh, how convenient. Now that both fronts of Disney’s pressure campaign — bashing DeSantis for defending children and parents and constantly trashing his presidential campaign to benefit Trump — are over, ABC seems to think he’s no longer a threat, so they’re now free to give him some love.     Co-host Robin Roberts had the first of two teases: ROBERTS: Porch pirate crackdown. The latest state to come down hard on criminals who swipe packages. DESANTIS: Someone’s going to have hell to pay for stealing. ROBERTS: And strict new penalties for retail theft.  In the second, co-host Michael Strahan got in on the act, promising a segment on “the latest state to crack down on porch pirates.” Strahan also opened the segment: “Now to the porch pirate crackdown in Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill to make the Sunshine State the latest to raise penalties for stealing packages from outside homes as well as for retail theft.” Even the accompanying chyron alone came off like something from an alternate reality: “Florida Porch Pirate Crackdown; Governor Signs Bill to Toughen Penalties for Stealing Packages, Retail Theft”. Correspondent Melissa Adan didn’t bat an eye as she reported “Florida is actually going to make it a felony if you steal $40 or more worth of property” and said the police chief of Coral Gables told her “he welcomes this news, as he sees hundreds of these cases here in his city and he hopes that these stiffer criminal charges make a difference.” Highlighting a few examples of porch pirates and footage of one homeowner using a decoy package to catch a would-be thief, Adan said DeSantis had enough and was “cracking down” thanks to “[a] law going into effect this October” with that $40 penalty, which she explained was previously $100 and “stricter penalties for retail theft.” She even had not one but two soundbites praising this decision with a motorcycle shop owner fretting thieves have thought they “can grab” whatever they want and then the aforementioned Coral Gables chief saying he’d “able to make stronger cases against these repeat offenders and also kind of giving other diversionary sentences to people who are facing felonies.” Stating the obvious retail theft has become “a growing trend across the country” and a National Retail Federation statistic such crimes “cost consumers $112 billion in 2022”, Adan briefly alluded to California being the worst such state, but didn’t point out which party controls the state. Tossing back to the co-hosts, she threw a bone to Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY): “Meantime, last month in New York, the governor there announced a $45 million plan to fight back against organized retail crime theft.” To see the relevant transcript from April 11, click “expand.” ABC’s Good Morning America April 11, 2024 7:01 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Strict New Penalties; Porch Pirate Crackdown] ROBIN ROBERTS: Porch pirate crackdown. The latest state to come down hard on criminals who swipe packages. GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS (R-FL): Someone’s going to have hell to pay for stealing. ROBERTS: And strict new penalties for retail theft.  (....) 7:18 a.m. Eastern [TEASE] [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; Florida Porch Pirate Crackdown; Governor Signs Bill to Toughen Penalties for Stealing Packages, Retail Theft] MICHAEL STRAHAN:  Plus the latest state to crack down on porch pirates.  (....) 7:34 a.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: New This Morning; Florida Porch Pirate Crackdown; Governor Signs Bill to Toughen Penalties for Stealing Packages, Retail Theft] STRAHAN: Now to the porch pirate crackdown in Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill to make the Sunshine State the latest to raise penalties for stealing packages from outside homes as well as for retail theft. Melissa Adan is in Miami with more. Good morning, Melissa. MELISSA ADAN: Good morning, Michael. So, the state of Florida is actually going to make it a felony if you steal $40 or more worth of property. The police chief here in Coral Gables tells me he welcomes this news, as he sees hundreds of these cases here in his city and he hopes that these stiffer criminal charges make a difference. This morning, they are the brazen thieves striking in broad daylight and in the night. This porch pirate in Sacramento disguised as a trash bag captured stealing a package. Some homeowners like this one, have had enough, using a decoy package to catch this alleged thief. CARLOS MEIJIA [TO PORCH PIRATE]: Yo! Yo! ADAN: In Florida, the governor cracking down. A new law going into effect this October. If you steal property worth more than $40, it will be considered a felony. DESANTIS: Someone’s going to have hell to pay for stealing it. ADAN: The law, replacing an already existing one. This time, lowering the stolen property value from $100 to $40. It also includes stricter penalties for retail theft. WMR OWNER BOB BREWSTER: Everything in our store is a candy store for a criminal, things they can grab, sell fast and then take from us. ADAN: In Coral Gables, the police chief welcoming the law, sharing these videos of thieves in action. CORAL GABLES, FL POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF EDARD HUDAK: We’re able to make stronger cases against these repeat offenders and also kind of giving other diversionary sentences to people who are facing felonies. ADAN: It’s a growing trend across the country, with at least nine other states making porch pirating a felony. And that’s not all. According to the National Retail Federation, organized retail crime cost consumers $112 billion in 2022. The state topping the list? California. A proposed bill there calling for repeat shoplifters to serve jail time after a third conviction. Meantime, last month in New York, the governor there announced a $45 million plan to fight back against organized retail crime theft. Guys? ROBERTS: All right, Melissa. Our thanks to you.

OUCH: KJP Gets Waxed by Fox’s Heinrich, Lawrence on Inflation, CNN on Lack of WH Ethics

Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went solo for Thursday’s White House press briefing, so she shouldered all the questions, including the Middle East and the economy. It was on this latter topic where she was put through the gauntlet by Fox News’s Jacqui Heinrich and Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence as they called out the administration’s channeling of Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber in denying persistently high inflation. Lawrence cut to the chase with a brutal inflation fact-check: “[Y]esterday in the Rose Garden, the President said that when he came into office, inflation was skyrocketing, but it was 1.4 percent in January of 2021 and that was the 11th consecutive month at that time under two percent. So, it was the President misleading Americans?”     Unsurprisingly, Jean-Pierre refused to engage and instead doubled down about inflation having taken off because, when Biden took office, the country was “a pandemic” that “was closing down businesses, closing down schools, uh, and so, it was drastically disrupting the supply chain” followed by the war in Ukraine. Lawrence didn’t buy it: “But the President didn’t say the supply chain was being disrupted. He said inflation was skyrocketing.” Jean-Pierre doubled down on the dishonesty, leaving Lawrence to ask a third and final time if Biden’s really “being honest” with Americans (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: But that’s what he was referring to, right? That’s what was going on. Those were the things that were happening right before us. The pandemic — it was taking thousands of lives a day when he — he took office, schools were closed — or  majority of schools were closed, businesses were closing and we had a supply chain that was disrupted. And so, that’s what the President was speaking to and laying out and then, inflation, down the road became even more — increased even more because of the war that Russia had taken on into Ukraine. LAWRENCE: But...the Fed’s supply chain measure actually went down in — in November at that time. So — so is the President being honest about inflation? JEAN-PIERRE: The President has said — what he said what he saw when he was — when he took — when he took office. The pandemic was happening, right? It disrupted the supply chain. We know, you know what happens when the supply chain is disrupted. You know what that leads to. And so, that’s what he was speaking to and not only that — we — he had to — we also saw a war in Ukraine that Mr Putin — an aggressive aggression that Mr Putin was — was putting into Ukraine — set forth. And so, the president had to take historic action — take aggressive action in dealing with disruption in the supply chain. He had to — he released a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, so that we can deal with the supply chain and he continued to take action to lower cost. And that’s what we’ve seen, whether it’s health care costs, whether it’s dealing with junk fees, whether it’s prescription drugs, lowering those costs. That’s what the President took action in. But we saw what was happening when the President took office. We did. Heinrich cited a report in Politico from former Chief of Staff Ron Klain in which he allegedly said President Biden needs to focus more on soaring prices Americans are paying than fixing bridges. After bringing that up, Heinrich tied it to the lack of a White House statement on the latest Producer Price Index (PPI): “We didn’t get any statement today on the PPI index. You know, why aren’t we hearing more from the White House about the issues that people are facing at grocery stores and paying rent?” Jean-Pierre’s prepared answer cited the State of the Union as proof Biden has “made very clear about what he understands what the Americans are facing and he’s talked at almost every — every event that he’s had....about lowering costs”. Along with listing off five different events where an aspect of the economy came up, she closed with the reality that Klain still supports Biden and formulaic lies about Republicans wanting to end entitlements. Heinrich’s other economic question was about the Federal Reserve: “Is it all inappropriate for the President to be commenting on what the Fed might or might not do with interest rate cuts?” Jean-Pierre went down the ‘but, Trump’ route by claiming Biden has “giv[en] the Fed the space to make independent decisions” “unlike the last [President]”. Heinrich did, however, first ask about Iran: JACQUI TIME: “I just wanted to clarify one of your earlier answers. Did the administration sent a direct warning to Iran not to attack Israel?” KJP: “We've been very clear. I — I’ve — we've been — I mean, you heard from the President — right — and laid out our commitment to… pic.twitter.com/1ZF0W2QdFC — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 Elsewhere, CNN’s Kayla Tausche strayed from Team Biden’s lionization of the latest state dinner with the Japanese Prime Minister to grill Jean-Pierre over the ethical hypocrisy of inviting Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook when “regulators in the Biden administration have sued both Amazon and Apple, alleging anti-competitive behavior that has caused public harm.”     Jean-Pierre tried to meander with another mangled mess and affront to the English language about the necessity of “bipartisanship” and inviting “different types of people” to state dinners, but Tausche reiterated the inconsistency: The Justice Department said just less than a month ago that Apple uses its control over the iPhone to engage in a broad, sustained, and illegal course of conduct, saying that that lawsuit should send a strong signal to other companies. What signal is the White House sending? Jean-Pierre maintained a comical wall of separation between the White House and Justice Department, but Tausche pointed out the administration still “invite[d] them to dinner” and it would seem to show Biden “doesn’t think that those companies did anything wrong.” And, from the left, The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg provided the anti-Israel side of things by lecturing Jean-Pierre and the administration that “respectfully,” it’s “not true” that Biden “is doing everything he can on getting humanitarian aid into Gaza”. His second question was even more lubricious as he argued Republican presidential candidates — when challenging an incumbent Democrat — interfere in elections and national security (click “expand”): FEINBERG: Earlier this week, the former President met with Lord Cameron, the British Foreign Secretary. He has, in recent weeks, met with Viktor Orbán, the leader of Hungary. He has said he’s spoken to Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia. There is a long history of Republican presidential candidates meddling in foreign policy to undermine their Democratic opponents. Without getting into Hatch Act territory — you know, telling people to vote for or against someone — is the administration concerned that this private citizen could be working against U.S. interests in the interests of his own political ones? JEAN-PIERRE: And you’re talking about his meeting specifically with — FEINBERG: With — with foreign leaders: Lord Cameron, his talking with MBS, Viktor Orbán, and others possibly. JEAN-PIERRE: So, look, a- — look, as it relates to other — other leaders and those types of meetings — specifically, let’s — let’s talk about David Cameron. The UK noted earlier this week it is common for officials from other countries to meet with representatives of different parties. That includes the United States, as we routinely meet with political leaders of different parties as well. For instance, we hosted Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid yesterday — at the beginning of the week — at the beginning of the week.  And so, it’s not uncommon. I am going to be really careful here, because you’re talking about a presidential candidate. I’m going to be really mindful. I used David Cameron as an example, but I’m going to be really mindful. I’m not speaking beyond that.  To see the relevant transcript from the April 11 briefing, click here.

HUH?! KJP Gives BIZARRE Answer to AP When Asked About O.J. Simpson’s Death

Given the fact that much of Thursday’s news cycles were dominated by the death of O.J. Simpson, it shouldn’t have been that surprising Simpson was invoked during the White House press briefing. Somehow, the ever-inept Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre had a cringeworthy answer. The Associated Press’s Darlene Superville has always been a Biden hack, so she probably thought she was helping the White House out with her third question being about the corrupt and disgraced former NFL player (after two about Israel): “Was there any reaction from the President to O.J. Simpson’s death? Do you know if they ever crossed paths? If so, how? When?”     Setting aside the unintentionally somewhat on-the-nose “crossed paths” phrase, Jean-Pierre’s answer showed complete callousness to the family of those many believe Simpson killed, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. “So, I’ll say this,” Jean-Pierre began (as she often does) before adding “[o]ur thoughts are with — with his families during this difficult time — obviously, with his family and loved ones.” Yeeesh. Based on the creative litany of responses to a video tweet of the exchange, the public certainly has been left scratching its head. It was as though Simpson were some revered statesman or cabinet secretary, not a man with the nickname The Juice whose smarmy behavior led to a life of ruin after evading guilt in the criminal trial for the deaths of Nicole and Ron. Alluding to the tweet from Simpson’s account by his family announcing his death, Jean-Pierre concluded: [A]nd I’ll say this. I know that they have asked for some privacy and so, we’re going to respect that. I’ll just leave it there. To see the relevant transcript from the April 11 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] April 11, 2024 2:11 p.m. Eastern DARLENE SUPERVILLE: Was there any reaction from the President to O.J. Simpson’s death? Do you know if they ever crossed paths? If so, how? When? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: So, I’ll say this. Our thoughts are with — with his families during this difficult time — obviously, with his family and loved ones, and I’ll say this. I know that they have asked for some privacy and so, we’re going to respect that. I’ll just leave it there.

‘Journalistic Rape’; Here Are the Big Moments From Catherine Herridge’s House Hearing

On Thursday before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, former CBS News correspondent Catherine Herridge emerged to give her first set of extended public remarks about her sudden firing from CBS News and what she would describe as a “journalistic rape” and the crossing of “a red line that...should never be crossed again” in the (temporary) seizure of her files that contained sensitive details about sources. Joined by Sinclair’s Sharyl Attkisson, SAG-AFTRA’s Mary Cavallaro, and the Knight First Amendment Institute’s Nadine Farid Johnson, Herridge spoke out in favor of the bipartisan PRESS Act, which would largely protect journalists from being forced by the government to disclose the identity of their sources. Herridge has particular interest as, in addition to sudden unemployment, she was recently held in contempt and ordered (pending a stay) to divulge a source relating to a story from her Fox News tenure or face a $500/day fine. Herridge largely took the high road, such as in her opening statement thanking the House for “taking the time to focus again on the importance of protecting reporter sources and the vital safeguards provided by the PRESS Act”. She explained what the contempt case has done to her family and the impact it’d have on (actual) journalism (click “expand”): One of our children recently asked me if I would go to jail, if we would lose our house, and if we would lose our family’s savings to protect my reporting sources. I wanted to answer that, in this United States where we say we value democracy and the role of a vibrant and free press, that it was impossible, but I could not offer that assurance. The bipartisan PRESS Act, which came out of this House Committee, would put it into the sort of legal jeopardy that I had experienced firsthand in the federal courts. And without the legislation, more journalists will run into the uncertainty of the contempt gauntlet in the future. This legislation will provide protections for every working journalist in the United States, now and for the next generation. The legislation provides strong protections at the federal level for reporters and their sources. It would block litigants and federal governments from prying into reporters files, except when there’s imminent threat of violence, including terrorism and in defamation cases. At the state level, similar rules are already in place at the state level to protect press freedom. It is my sincere hope the passage of the PRESS Act will provide similar protections at the federal level. I hope I am the last journalist who has to spin two years in the federal courts fighting to protect my confidential sources. My current situation arises from a privacy act lawsuit. I am only a witness in the case. It is not common for these cases to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt. But when such cases happen, they have profound consequences, impacting every journalist in the United States. Forcing a reporter to dispose confidential source would have a crippling effect on investigative journalism because, without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will not come forward. The First Amendment provides protections for the press because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our democracy. If confidential sources are not protected, I fear investigative journalism is dead. Each day, I feel the weight of that responsibility. As you know, I was held in contempt of court for upholding the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources. Acknowledging this and losing your job “gives you clarity”, Herridge said it’s solidified “the importance of protecting confidential sources” with some having reached out when her CBS files were seized and “were concerned that, by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct, they would be identified and exposed.” Despite the fact she did receive her files, she added this “decision to receive my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should never be crossed again by any media organization in the future”, especially because such legal threats and fines would be crushing for smaller and independent journalists. For her part, Attkisson tied in the host of stories she’s covered, the Obama administration spying on her, and need for confidential sources to the Deep State’s unrepentant penchant for targeting those they perceive to be enemies. .@SharylAttkisson's full statement during the House @JudiciaryGOP on the free press: “In decades of reporting nationally at CNN, CBS, PBS, and for the last nine years on my tv show Full Measure, countless new stories that I broke or facets of them could not even reported without… pic.twitter.com/GD0P1WeIxI — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 Herridge refused to throw CBS under the bus for letting her go. In answering questions from Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) about whether “if CBS actions were influenced by the government in any way,” Herridge declined to answer as she’s “not someone who is known to offer speculation.” Attkisson, however, wadded in with the reality that government interference in the liberal media “happens everyday” with “[m]embers of committees, heads of committees, members of Congress and the White House” having “called the bureau in Washington, D.C., contacts that they have, editors and managers up in New York to try to shape our coverage.” Herridge did open up when Congresswoman Harriett Hageman (R-WY) astutely invited her to expand on why government coercion to reveal sources is dangerous (and in particular for stories aiming to hold those in power to account). At one point, Herridge said she hasn’t “lost a night’s sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources” and taking anonymity off the table severely decreases the likelihood whistleblowers will reveal government wrongdoing (click the tweet to read the full thread): @RepHageman: “Ms. Herridge, how fundamental to reporting is the protection of your sources?” Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge): “Congresswoman, I have not lost a nights sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources. That is the core of who I am as a journalist. I am… pic.twitter.com/jNgg5H0291 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 A little later on and after Congressman Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) walked Attkisson through many of her major, career-defining scoops and the necessity to have sources, Herridge told Jordan her career hasn’t been about focusing just on, say, the Biden family, but “call[ing] balls and strikes” and the seizure of her files was “not my experience in the other two networks I worked at or with my colleagues at CBS News.” “When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes the reporting files, including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism,” she added. Jordan laid out summation of what seems to happen to journalists who dare to be “critical of the government”, which is “a pattern” in which “all kinds of strange things” happen to them, whether it’s suddenly losing one’s job to having files seized to communications surveilled. “That’s scary...[Y]ou talk about a chilling effect on the First Amendment, I don’t know how we could be more chilly,” he said. Herridge became more pointed: Wherever you work, if this happened to you, it’s an attack on free press. It’s an attack on the First Amendment. It makes it more challenging for reporters to work in the future. That disrupts the free flow of information to the public. They call it — journalism a profession for a reason because it’s about an informed electorate, and it’s a cornerstone of our democracy. I can only speak for myself. When my records were seized, I felt it was a journalistic rape. Herridge further opened up to Subcommittee Chairman and Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) about pressure she felt at CBS when covering Biden family corruption after Roy observed there was “[n]othing” to “indicate that there was a failure to perform your duties” when CBS laid her off (click “expand”): HERRIDGE: Congressman, I think what you are asking me is whether I was terminated for — for poor performance. I don’t believe that my record would reflect that. I don’t know what factors the CBS News executives considered when they terminated my position. There was tension over the Hunter Biden reporting and the Biden administration, but I can’t speak for sure why I was let go. ROY: And you mentioned tension. You had been one of the — the reporters certainly in what we might define as the mainstream media that was focusing intently on the Hunter Biden laptop, on the various facts surrounding the Biden family and the flow of money and all of those things involved with that. Is that correct? HERRIDGE: That is correct. For the full picture, though, I was also the reporter at CBS News who obtained the audiotape of former President Trump apparently bragging about the Iran classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and I also exposed how 50 soldiers were denied the Purple Heart under the Trump administration in an effort to descalate after a ballistic missile attack in Iran. I — I’m someone who calls balls and strikes, Congressman. I just follow the facts where they lead. That has always been my calling card. ROY: When CBS let you go, was it around the time of you calling out the Trump administration or around the time that you were pursuing more of the Hunter Biden? HERRIDGE: Ah, I was let go a few days after the Special Counsel — Robert Hur report into President Biden’s handling of classified information. (....) ROY: In closing, can you just reiterate the extent of your belief of what this means for other journalists/ And you alluded to before, smaller journalists without the protection of the kind of corporate structure that we’ve got with Fox backing you up from your previous reporting. HERRIDGE: I just don’t think any journalists could withstand the threat of significant and crippling financial sanctions. They may not have a former employer or a current employer who’s in position to mount a vigorous or costly defense. I think it’s a very dangerous period for journalism. The PRESS Act would close the legal cap in the system, this ambiguity I’ve had to deal with for two years and I want to emphasize. This is not about a single journalist. It’s not about a single-story. It’s not about a single network. What happens in my case, the passage of the PRESS Act is going to impact every journalism — journalist working in this room and it’s going to impact every journalist in the United States and for the next generation to come. If there’s anything I can accomplish in my career as a journalist, it’s going to get this over the finish line. I feel this with every core of my being. Herridge showed more of her cards to Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC) as he closed out the hearing, including an admission about the bias she saw at CBS: Fascinating exchange at the end of the House hearing on the free press in which Catherine Herridge emphasizes real journalism must include “diverse points of view” and, while at CBS, bosses “limited points of view and voices” that made her “uncomfortable” (1/3):@RepDanBishop:… pic.twitter.com/KPP4a6ScR0 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 The left often parodies conservatives and Republicans as anti-media, but like most things out of the so-called fact-checkers, it couldn’t be any further from the truth. Click the tweet to see a thread containing the opening statement from Roy: .@ChipRoyTX: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost. Those words were true when Thomas Jefferson wrote them in 1786 and they are still true today. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and… pic.twitter.com/oYqv4BE0Zt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 Jordan sounded similar tunes, noting: “[i]t’s not just the press that’s under attack” in recent years, but “[e]very single liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment’s been assaulted in the last couple years”: .@Jim_Jordan: “It’s not just the press that’s under attack. Every single liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment’s been assaulted in the last couple years. I mean, you think about it — your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the… pic.twitter.com/9hwMjY824s — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 11, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the April 11 hearing, click here.

Tlaib MELTS DOWN When FBN’s Vaughn Asks Why Her District Chanted ‘Death to America’

In footage first aired Wednesday night on Fox News’s Jesse Watters PrimeTime, Fox Business correspondent Hillary Vaughn doggedly ran down Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) earlier in the day over video from a Dearborn, Michigan event inside her district which featured chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel”.  Not surprisingly, the far-left, raging anti-Semite declined to condemn the chants and instead accused Vaughn and her Fox colleagues of being “Islamphobic” people engaging in “racist tropes”.     The footage began with Vaughn only being able to call out to Tlaib before the Michigan Democrat shouted back, “I don’t talk to Fox News! I don’t talk to Fox News!” Vaughn nonetheless asked her question as a staff member tried to move Vaughn out of the way and Tlaib reiterating she wouldn’t speak to Fox: “At a rally in your district, people were chanting death to America. Do you condemn?” When Tlaib again said she wouldn’t talk to Fox News, Vaughn asked again why she wouldn’t “condemn chants of death to America.” Clearly flustered, Tlaib dodged the question by claiming she doesn’t “talk to people that use racist tropes” even though it’s a known fact it was indeed chanted and pointing that out isn’t “racist”. “Why can’t you just say whether or not you condemn people chanting death to America,” Vaughn wondered, to which Tlaib played a broken record, “[b]ecause I don’t talk to Fox News.” As the first elevator Tlaib and a staffer had rushed to hide in wouldn’t open, they rushed to try another close by. Vaughn kept following them and tweaked her question to reflect Tlaib’s screeching: “Why are you afraid to talk to Fox?” Tlaib’s answer sounded like it was curated by her friends at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): “Fox News is not nice. Listen, using racist tropes towards my community is what Fox Tunes [sic] is about and I don't talk to Fox News.” Vaughn tried one last time: “Is death to America racist? Is chanting death to America racist?” Tlaib restated her position of ignoring Fox and, as she finally walked into an elevator, The Squad member reiterated her Fox smear and called the network “Islamophobic”: “I’m talking about your guys’s racist tropes. You know, you guys are — you guys know exactly what you do. And I know you’re Islamophobic, but you guys gotta go deal with it on your own selves, not going to use me.” This was not the first run-in between these two. For example, back on October 10, Vaughn chased Tlaib down and called out her silence on some of the most brutal atrocities committed by Hamas during their animalistic attacks in Israel on October 7. To see the relevant exchange from April 10, click “expand.” FNC’s Jesse Watters PrimeTime April 10, 2024 8:25 p.m. Eastern HILLARY VAUGHN: Congresswoman Tlaib — CONGRESSWOMAN RASHIDA TLAIB (D-MI): I don’t talk to Fox News! I don’t talk to Fox News! TLAIB STAFF MEMBER: Excuse me. VAUGHN: At a rally — TLAIB STAFF MEMBER: Sorry. VAUGHN: — in your district — TLAIB: I’m not talking to Fox News. VAUGHN: — people were chanting death to America. Do you condemn? TLAIB: Do not talk to Fox News. VAUGHN: But do you condemn chants of death to America? TLAIB: I don’t talk to people that use racist tropes. VAUGHN: Why can’t you just say whether or not you condemn — TLAIB: Because I don’t talk to Fox News. VAUGHN: — people chanting death to America? TLAIB: [Inaudible] VAUGHN: Why are you afraid to talk to Fox? TLAIB: Fox News is not nice. Listen, using racist tropes towards my community is what Fox Tunes [sic] is about and I don't talk to Fox News. VAUGHN: Is death to America — TLAIB: [Inaudible] VAUGHN: — racist? TLAIB: — never speak to Fox News. VAUGHN: Is chanting death to America racist? TLAIB: No — [inaudible] — I’m talking about your guys’s racist tropes. You know, you guys are — you guys know exactly what you do. And I know you’re Islamophobic, but you guys gotta go deal with it on your own selves, not going to use me.

Nets Proclaim ‘Game Changer’ AZ Ruling Means Abortion Will ‘Define’ 2024 as #1 Issue

On Wednesday, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC all led off their flagship morning news shows with coverage of the Arizona state Supreme Court ruling reinstalling an abortion law dating back to 1864 that protects unborn babies unless the life of the mother is threatened.  Given the liberal media’s ebullience toward killing babies, they were giddy about this “bombshell ruling” and argued this “game changer” ensure abortion — not the economy, inflation, national security, or anything else — will “define” and “be at the center of this presidential election” to help elect Democrats.     They weren’t really interested in the facts, including the reality that while this was framed as something originally enacted during the Civil War before Arizona became a state, our friend Erick Erickson noted this was around for over a century until Roe v. Wade in 1972. CBS Mornings was all-in on wanting to use abortion to fear-monger voters, giving it a hefty 12 minutes and 42 seconds. Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King reacted to a riff on the ruling from Tuesday’s Daily Show to sound all crestfallen about what “unfortunately...is not a joke” because the Arizona might end up “reinstating a law from the 1800s – the 1800s — that bans nearly all abortion in the state.” On the flip side, she reveled in the fact that “it could have a big political impact and a very important swing state this November.” Senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang concurred by calling it “a game changer” for 2024 in “a battleground state that has been trending Democratic” and led by a Democratic governor in Katie Hobbs who “blasted the state’s conservative Supreme Court.” In the second half-hour, the show brought in Hobbs and, aside from a question about a 15-week limit on abortion from co-host Tony Dokoupil, were pathetically soft and even argued Arizona is now a real-life Handmaid’s Tale (click “expand”): KING: You called yesterday’s decision a dark day in Arizona. I’ve heard people use the phrases like “Is this Handmaid’s Tale come to life in real life?” How should we all be processing this? What are you thinking? (....) KING: Governor Hobbs we’ve heard what it is. I’m just curious about what do we do now? Even Kari Lake who challenged you for the governor’s race during the last election has come out against it? Are you talking to your top legislative leaders? What are you trying to do to make sure this does not actually happen? (....) DOKOUPIL: Governor, I want to get into that ballot initiative and the politics of this particularly come November because that’s a very big deal. But on the question of what to do right now, do you support a 15-week ban that your predecessor signed that was the law there in Arizona before this court ruling? HOBBS: Well, that’s the ban that will be in place if the 1864 ban is struck down, but Arizonans don’t support extreme abortion bans and this 15-week ban is still extreme. Again, no exception for rape or incest, no regard for complications of pregnancy. That’s what will be in place. And again, Arizonans will have the ability to weigh in on this with a constitutional amendment in November. DOKOUPIL: So it sounds like you’re saying repeal the 1864 law and go back to the 15 week-ban until November when you want to push it to the voters. HOBBS: Absolutely, yes. DOKOUPIL: So this — the health complications and women’s right to access, all that is important. I want to put it to one side, though for a question to just ask politically. Bottom line, is this advantageous for Democrats strategically, politically with the White House, the Senate and Congress potentially on the line with Arizona’s outcome in November? (....) NATE BURLESON: Governor, a couple of questions before we let you go. Vice President Kamala Harris will be visiting Arizona following this ruling. Have you talked to the White House about this? (....) KING: You know, Governor, when the interview started, you used the word “reeling.” I think a lot of people are feeling that way. How did it come to this? I think many people who woke up and heard this news yesterday, woke up this morning and heard more of it were thinking, this was a Civil War — that was around during the Civil War. HOBBS: Yeah. KING: Women couldn’t even vote, how does what’s happened in 2024 in your state, with you at the helm? ABC’s Good Morning America was also licking its chops at what this means for their party. Co-host Robin Roberts groused about Arizona “bracing for one of the strictest abortion bans in the country” with “President Biden calling it extreme and dangerous.” Co-host and former Clinton hack George Stephanopoulos proclaimed that “the bombshell ruling on abortions rights out of Arizona” means “[i]t is very clear that this issue is going to be at the center of this presidential election.” Chief congressional correspondent Rachel Scott is a progressive tool in her own right, so she too bragged that Arizona’s state Supreme Court handing down “one of the strictest abortion bans in the country” has “turn[ed] up the heat on an issue that could define this election.” For good measure, Scott doubled down on this deciding 2024 in the second hour. Finally, on NBC’s Today, co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Craig Melvin also played along. In opening teases, Melvin called it “a bombshell ruling” while Guthrie said the decision sent “shockwaves” across the country and “[t]hrust[ed] the abortion issue front and center”  “Battleground, a new ruling by Arizona's Supreme Court sending shockwaves. Judges upholding a near total abortion ban dating back to the civil war, punishing doctors who perform the procedure...Just ahead, how some Republicans distancing themselves from the decision...and Democrats ready to pounce,” she added. Correspondent and NBC News NOW anchor Hallie Jackson also used the “shockwaves” bit and proclaimed it further emphasized why “abortion access will be” such a “critical...issue” in the presidential election. After her report, Guthrie dubbed abortion “a potent political issue” for November and, as if the liberal media aren’t interested in also making abortion the #1 issue, Jackson boasted about “Democrats...hoping to press this issue from now until November” (click “expand”): GUTHRIE: Hallie, as mentioned, this is a potent political issue — JACKSON: Yeah. GUTHRIE: — with major repercussions for the 2024 presidential election in Arizona, a key battleground state and there's an effort to have an abortion issue — a ballot issue in November. What's the status of that and what's the implication? (....) JACKSON: Since the midterms in 2022, when this has been on the ballot, voters have voted to provide some level of abortion access. We've seen that in polling too with the majority of Americans saying that this is something they support. This is why this is a tricky issue for Republicans to walk right now. We saw some in the GOP trying to thread that needle even on reproductive rights when the Alabama/IVF issue came up, for example. Keep in mind. Democrats are going to make this front and center. They’re going to try to highlight this now through November. We've talked about that new ad out from the Biden campaign — that emotional abortion ad going after Donald Trump. A senior Biden campaign adviser tells me overnight that, since this Arizona court ruling came out just yesterday, they have decided to spend what they call significantly more money on that ad in the state of Arizona, Savannah, which is a real indication how the Biden team, how Democrats are hoping to press this issue from now until November. To see the relevant CBS transcript from April 10, click here.

Editor’s Pick: NY Post Explains Why It’s So Hard for ICE to Deport NYC Criminals

In a front-page story for Wednesday’s print edition, New York Post reporters Steve Janoski, Craig McCarthy, and our friend Jennie Taer detailed why, amid a long and steady stream of high-profile crimes allegedly committed by illegal immigrants, “federal immigration authorities aren’t deporting suspected criminals at a more rapid rate” in New York City. The trio explained that, as per “immigration experts...it can be hard — both legally and logistically — for the feds to remove migrants before they’re convicted of a crime.” And, thanks to soft-on-crime policies such as barring law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (and, of course, things not mentioned like bail reform), alleged criminals can skate by. Janoski, McCarthy, and Taer pointed to two laws in the Big Apple that have hamstrung ICE and thus left New Yorkers susceptible to illegal immigrant crimes with one barring “the city from honoring ICE’s requests to hold someone for possible deportation — unless they’ve been convicted of specific violent offenses” and approved by a judge. “The other,” they said, is a ban on “the use of city resources to help immigration enforcement.” They highlighted one recent example of illegal immigrant crimes: A current ICE official told The Post that the sanctuary city laws are helping propel the recent crime wave — which includes the April 2 incident in which two Venezuelan migrants accused of shoplifting in Manhattan fought back during arrest. The NYPD, the official said, “will not contact immigration at all.” “ICE has no idea,” the official said, adding that the city also bars the agency’s officers from entering its shelters to make arrests. While ICE can deport someone “fairly quickly” if they are able to detain someone and/or they’re convicted of their alleged crimes, the Post reporters said the sheer number of illegal immigrants in the criminal justice system is a “logistical headache”. In turn, they noted, “if a migrant is arrested for a more substantive crime, the agency will typically wait for the legal system to do its job, according to Robert Osuna, a criminal defense attorney in Manhattan who often works immigration cases.” Osuna then added that, according to the Post’s summation, ICE “isn’t really targeting low-level criminals who commit relatively minor crimes like shoplifting”, Check out their full reporting here.

FNC’s Heinrich Grills KJP Over Islamists in Dearborn, Biden Implying GOPers Are Killers

After a White House press briefing dominated Tuesday by questions about foreign policy (Israel, Japan, and even Haiti to name a few) for National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, little time was left over for Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Jacqui Heinrich was back in the Fox News Channel seat and she pressed Jean-Pierre over new anti-Israel rhetoric from the radical Islamists who populate Dearborn, Michigan and then President Biden appearing to claim Americans in the Republican Party are murderers. “A couple days ago in Deaborn, there were protesters chanting, ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel.’ Does the President condemn that,” Heinrich asked, cutting right to the chase.     When Jean-Pierre said “yes”, Heinrich drilled down: “Is the President at all concerned that Dearborn is becoming – is facing a risk of becoming a hotbed of any sort of homegrown threats?” Jean-Pierre somehow didn’t invoke Islamophobia and instead replied she didn’t “have any intelligence to share with you on that”, but said it’s “something that we're always very vigilant about”. Oof. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if Jean-Pierre is forced to clean this up in a few days. After some sputtering along about how the Biden regime “will condemn any – any of violent rhetoric” and they’ve been “very consistent”, Heinrich had one more missive concerning whether Biden himself would speak publicly about it: “Should we see a – should we expect a statement from the President on that? It was a pretty significant display.” Jean-Pierre shrugged it off as any Press Secretary should do (if they had any self-worth): “I mean, you're hearing from me. I think that's important.” Once she made clear Biden supports “peaceful protest”, Heinrich shrewdly pivoted to a case of what was clearly “violent rhetoric” just hours earlier by the President himself: [D]id the President mean to – essentially accuse Republicans of – of murder? I mean, the – the language that he was using to describe opposition to the Affordable Care Act – the quote was, um, “they want to terminate the Affordable Care Act. Terminate will – guess what – kill millions of Americans.” Does he think that Republicans are trying to kill Americans? Jean-Pierre insisted Biden said nothing of the sort and accused Heinrich of “taking the most extreme – extreme definition or extreme evaluation of what the President said.” Hilariously, after a few muddled pricks from Heinrich, Jean-Pierre proved the Fox correspondent’s point with increasingly heated rhetoric claiming Republicans oppose Americans receiving “access to – to health care” when battling “diabetes or cancer” (click “expand”): [L]et's be really clear. People having health care is important. It saves lives. It is important to have that. The fact that this President was able to expand that is important, right? We’re talking about people who didn’t have access to – to health care, that could – whether they’re dealing with diabetes or cancer or something that is affecting their every life, right? And I think, you know when you have a party that is trying to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and says it bluntly and wants to repeal – they tried to repeal affordable health care – or Affordable Care Act, to be more specific, more than 60 times – they literally voted on it when it is saving people’s lives. Why? Why do they do that? Why? Do they not want Americans to have health care – affordable health care, to protect themselves, to save their lives? I mean, that’s the question to be asked. The President’s trying to do the right thing. He’s trying to be where majority of Americans are and protect – protect their healthcare, protect their Medicare, protect their Medicaid. And you don’t see that from the other side. You just don’t. He literally had a back-and-forth with them during the State of the Union about that. So – [SHRUGS]. Elsewhere in the briefing, Time magazine’s Brian Bennett had the last question, which was the only one to mention impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and the (eventual) transfer of articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Naturally, he asked it in a softball way to allow Jean-Pierre to offer a very lengthy rebuttal about the “blame [sic] act of unconstitutional partisanship” by Republicans: .@Time's @ByBrianBennett: "I want to ask about the Mayorkas impeachment, how Republicans are planning to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. What is the President's response to this and has the President personally reached out to members of the Senate to talk about this?"… pic.twitter.com/UaHj68QOQt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 9, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the April 9 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] April 9, 2024 2:56 p.m. Eastern JACQUI HEINRICH: A couple days ago in Deaborn, there were protesters chanting, “death to America” and “death to Israel.” Does the President condemn that? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes. HEINRICH: Is the President at all concerned that Dearborn is becoming – is facing a risk of becoming a hotbed of any sort of homegrown threats? JEAN-PIERRE: I don't have any intelligence to share with you on that. Obviously, that's something that we're always very vigilant about, but don't have any national intelligence to share with you. HEINRICH: And then – JEAN-PIERRE: But, obviously, we will condemn any – any of violent rhetoric – HEINRICH: – would we be seeing a statement? JEAN-PIERRE: – which – which we have been very, I mean, you're hearing from me, right? You're asking me a question. I'm answering it and we've been very vigilant about – or very consistent about denouncing that type of that type of rhetoric. HEINRICH: Should we see a – should we expect a statement from the President on that? It was a pretty significant display. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you're hearing from me. I think that's important. The other part, too, that I do want to be very clear about – you know, peaceful protest is something that the President has also been very, very clear that is important for – to give folks space to peacefully protest, but any type of violent rhetoric, we are going to denounce. HEINRICH: And then, on some of the comments he made today, did – did the President mean to – essentially accuse Republicans of – of murder? I mean, the – the language that he was using to describe opposition to the Affordable Care Act – the quote was, um, “they want to terminate the Affordable Care Act. Terminate will – guess what – kill millions of Americans.” Does he think that Republicans are trying to kill Americans? JEAN-PIERRE: I think you're – I think you're taking the most extreme – extreme definition or extreme evaluation of what the President said. Here's the reality. The Affordable Care Act, which obviously started in the Obama-Biden administration, the President expanded on that, making sure that people have affordable health care that saves lives. It does. It is important. HEINRICH: [Inaudible] use other language, though? It – it’s a stronger than usual – JEAN-PIERRE: But you're taking what he said to the most extreme part of – of your definition or your realization. HEINRICH: Well, he said it. JEAN-PIERRE: I know, but let's be – let's be really clear. HEINRICH: He – he said – JEAN-PIERRE: Let's – HEINRICH: – harm and – JEAN-PIERRE: – let's be really clear. People having health care is important. It saves lives. It is important to have that. The fact that this President was able to expand that is important, right? We’re talking about people who didn’t have access to – to health care, that could – whether they’re dealing with diabetes or cancer or something that is affecting their every life, right? And I think, you know when you have a party that is trying to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and says it bluntly and wants to repeal – they tried to repeal affordable health care – or Affordable Care Act, to be more specific, more than 60 times – they literally voted on it when it is saving people’s lives. Why? Why do they do that? Why? Do they not want Americans to have health care – affordable health care, to protect themselves, to save their lives? I mean, that’s the question to be asked. The President’s trying to do the right thing. He’s trying to be where majority of Americans are and protect – protect their healthcare, protect their Medicare, protect their Medicaid. And you don’t see that from the other side. You just don’t. He literally had a back-and-forth with them during the State of the Union about that. So – [SHRUGS]. (….) 3:01 p.m. Eastern BRIAN BENNETT: I want to ask about the, uh, Mayorkas impeachment, how Republicans are planning to send, um, uh, article of impeachment to the Senate. Uh, what is the President's response to this and has the President personally reached out to members of the Senate to talk about this? JEAN-PIERRE: So, the President spoke, I think the last time they tried to do this and were unsuccessful, the President put out a statement and he said that the history will not look kindly on House Republicans about this. Uh, it is a blame [sic] act of unconstitutional partisanship. That's what the President has said. He continues to believe that. Look, the President was in Madison, Wisconsin yesterday. He talked about student loans. He talked about ways to give Americans a little bit more of breathing room, making sure that they can go after their dreams – right – making sure that borrowers who have been really crunched by, uh, by student loans has an opportunity to get out from that. That's something that Republicans could be helpful with, but instead they get in the way and they get in the way and block what the President is doing, but he's going to continue to do that. There is a national security supplemental that could go to the floor in the House – in the House that the speaker can put to the floor. We know it passed overwhelmingly. We know that it would protect our national security. It would help Ukraine – the brave people of Ukraine who are fighting, uh, for their democracy, help them. They are getting in the way of that. So, look, there – there are ways – let's not forget the bipartisan border deal – right – that the former President said to Republicans to reject that deal because it’s going – it would help Joe Biden and hurt him. Who, who are they working for? Are they actually working for the constituents who put them into office? I mean, that's a question for them to – to – to have to answer. Majority of Americans –the things that I just listed out – the majority of Americans want to see action. They want to see us work in a bipartisan way. We saw that, coming out of the 2022 midterm election, they want to see us come together and get things done. So, House Republicans need to stop playing politics. They need to stop being part about these issues that matter to majority of Americans and get to work – and get to work. We expect them to be leaders, but so do Americans expect them to be leaders as well.

NBC News NOW, William Shatner Tie Solar Eclipse to Need to Fight Climate Change

On NBC News’s streaming platform NBC News NOW ahead of Monday’s total solar eclipse across large swaths of the U.S., correspondent Maura Barrett had to make the once-in-a-generation event political by invoking climate change alongside Star Trek legend William Shatner.  Barrett reported from Bloomington, Indiana where Shatner would “be narrating the moments leading up to totality” and he “made a climate connection, that I think’s important to point out here” with the supposed argument about the solar eclipse drawing attention away from...climate change?!     “I asked him about people that are concerned, you know, shouldn’t we be focused on tackling climate here on Earth rather than going out and exploring space? And he said, you know, we can do both,” she explained. Having set up this false dichotomy so as to invoke a far-left pet cause, she then played two soundbites from Shatner wondering “what’s the point of going into space, you can’t come back and you are overcome by the fumes” with the Earth now “in a dire situation”: Well, you can do both. I mean, there’s a — but you have to have a focus on the most important part, which is staying alive. I mean, what’s the point of going into space, you can’t come back and you are overcome by the fumes. No — we are in a dire situation. [SCREEN WIPE] We’ve got to do both. We’ve got to clean up the environment and our curiosity and our ambition. Back live, Barrett was satisfied: “So, that’s just something to think about.” Barrett was back almost two hours later on NBC and she made sure to praise his “interesting observation” that seemed all too convenient.     “Basically, he's so interested in space exploration...and he said what's the point to explore space if you can't come down to a healthy planet. So he talked about the — the need to do both and exploring, what we’re looking at around us, understanding the universe, but also keeping our planet healthy and taking the climate crisis,” she gushed. Tossing back to NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt, she reemphasized how it was such “an interesting perspective with — from William Shatner.” How embarrassing for NBC, especially considering the fact that even CNN and the rest of the liberal TV networks (except ABC’s The View) were able to keep it together and not go woke. To see the relevant NBC News NOW transcript from April 8, click “expand.” NBC News NOW April 8, 2024 12:33 p.m. Eastern MAURA BARRETT: I actually spoke with William Shatner, who played Captain Kirk in Star Trek. He’s going to be narrating the moments leading up to totality. He talked about how magical it’s going to be to see celestial bodies lineup long each other. But he also made a climate connection, that I think’s important to point out here. I asked him about people that are concerned, you know, shouldn’t we be focused on tackling climate here on Earth rather than going out and exploring space? And he said, you know, we can do both. Here is some of our conversation.  WILLIAM SHATNER: Well, you can do both. I mean, there’s a — but you have to have a focus on the most important part, which is staying alive. I mean, what’s the point of going into space, you can’t come back and you are overcome by the fumes. No — we are in a dire situation. [SCREEN WIPE] We’ve got to do both. We’ve got to clean up the environment and our curiosity and our ambition. BARRETT: So, that’s just something to think about. We also talked about how this is going to be such an emotional, unifying experience as thousands of people all look up to the sky at the same time. Again, Shatner leading into the total eclipse — we’ll be watching from here and then Jan — Janelle Monae will be doing a concert to wrap it all up your in Bloomington, Vicky. VICKY NGUYEN: Pretty star-studded out there. NBC News correspondent, Maura Barrett. Maura, thank you. (....) NBC’s Total Eclipse 2024 April 8, 2024 2:25 p.m. Eastern BARRETT: And I actually got the chance to speak with William Shatner just before as he’s going to be doing a spoken word performance leading up to totality and he spoke to that, that this is an emotional experience, it's huge that we even know why an eclipse happens, let alone can experience it all together like this across the continent of North America and he also made an interesting observation that I think’s important to note. Basically, he's so interested in space exploration — these were the oldest people to ever go up into space – and he said what's the point to explore space if you can't come down to a healthy planet. So he talked about the — the need to do both and exploring, what we’re looking at around us, understanding the universe, but also keeping our planet healthy and taking the climate crisis. And so, I thought that an interesting perspective with — from William Shatner, along with an astronomer I spoke with here at Indiana University, talking about how this event will connect us to the universe in a way that we have not been able to — we can’t do frequently and how it gets us even closer to nature. 

‘Come on Now!’; Doocy, Kirby Tangle in Tense Battle Over Biden Turning on Israel

While the liberal media spent Thursday’s White House press briefing in a state of amazement and curiosity over the Biden administration’s hard pivot away from Israel by warning of unspecified moves if more isn’t done to placate to Hamas-run Gaza, Fox’s Peter Doocy called out this possible abandonment of a democracy in favor of Islamic terrorists holding innocents hostage.  As a result, things got tense with the National Security Council’s John Kirby.  Doocy started with a question about who warned Israel about alleged and specific threats to Israel’s security from Iran in the next 48 hours, but then made the pivot with this hardball: “On October 7, President Biden said, ‘my administration’s support for Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering.’ That is not true anymore, correct?” Kirby claimed “still true today”, which left Doocy incredulous: “[H]ow support unwavering, but you’re also reconsidering policy choices?”     Things quickly grew tense with Kirby having a look of utter disgust that left the liberal press corps laughing at Doocy: KIRBY: Both can be true. DOOCY: They cannot be true. They’re — they’re completely different things. KIRBY: No, no, no. I just — DOOCY: He is — KIRBY: — I’m sorry. DOOCY: — he is wavering. KIRBY: Ah, now, now, now. Come on, Peter. Get out. DOOCY: How is he not? [REPORTERS LAUGH] KIRBY: Ah, come on. Come on now.  Doocy then let Kirby drone on for a little bit about how “both things are true” that “the manner in which they’re defending themselves...needs to change” and “our support for Israel’s self defense remains ironclad” given “[t]hey face a range of threats”. Kirby even went as far as to say the Biden regime’s backing of Israel is “not gonna waiver” other than “some policy changes that we might have to make”. Having let him go on long enough, Doocy interjected to lambaste Kirby for his use of the phrase “not gonna waiver”: “How is that unwavering? It sounds like you guys are trying to have it both ways here. You support Israel but we are going to make all these changes because we don’t support Israel?” In the midst of that, either another reporter or White House staffers chided Doocy, yelling out his name! For Kirby’s part, he insisted he “didn’t say we’re going to make changes” and then went personal to sarcastically presuming Doocy doesn’t see innocent people starve and face slaughter.  When Doocy pointed out “nobody wants to see that” and kept pressing, Kirby had an unfortunate flub by saying, “[o]n October 7, we didn’t see thousands and thousands of innocent people killed” (click “expand”): KIRBY: I said, we need to see how Israel’s responds to the humanitarian crises in Gaza and how they respond to protection of aid workers. I think we can all agree. I think you would agree. You don’t want to see innocent civilians killed and targeted, do you? You don’t want to see Gazans starve. You don’t want to see famine in Gaza, do you? DOOCY: Nobody wants — KIRBY: Of course not. DOOCY: — to see that, but — KIRBY: So — DOOCY: — you’re a policy maker and you’re talking about policy changes. KIRBY: — so — DOOCY: That is not what you were talking about on October 7 — KIRBY: — because things have — DOOCY: — when it was solid and unwavering. KIRBY: — on October 7, there wasn’t near famine in Gaza. On October 7, there wasn’t, um, a diminution of trucks getting into Gaza. On October 7, we didn’t see thousands and thousands of innocent people killed. Uh, I mean, I could go on and on. We’re talking about a conflict there which is dang near at six months here this weekend, six months, and it has changed over time and the — what the President’s message today was we need to see some changes in the way Israel is dealing with that threat. DOOCY: And — KIRBY: That’s — that’s what two good friends and allies can discuss. This isn’t about un — this isn’t about changing our support to Israel or the security of the Israeli state, and I — I just have to take issue with the premise of the question. Doocy wrapped with what should have been asked way earlier in the Q&A, not at almost the 30-minute mark: “Where is President Biden on any of this? When he wants to talk about how angry he is or frustrated he is about the high cost of insulin, he comes out and gives an impassioned speech. Where is he on any of this?” Kirby tried to play cute: “He’s been talking about this. He’s been issuing statements on this.” Doocy noted that’s something concocted in “private”, but again Kirby played it off by saying presidential statements are “public”. Only after a third time did Kirby change his tune: “I’m sure you’ll continue to hear from the president about this, and many other national security issues.” Fast-forward to the end of his turn at the podium and HuffPost’s S.V. Dáte asked an important question (albeit gently) that correctly pointed out the Biden administration’s dramatically increased opposition to Israel and demands for a ceasefire would lead one to think they’re no longer prioritizing Hamas returning the remaining hostages. Kirby said this wasn’t the case, but with only a mere throwaway line in his last sentence about hostages: HuffPost’s S.V. Dáte: “Admiral, could you clarify on the — the — the ceasefire language that the President used the statement? He says that, uh, that there should be a ceasefire, um, and then the next — after a comma, it’s ‘he urged Prime Minister to empower negotiators to… pic.twitter.com/0qbFCOrZIV — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 4, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the April 4 briefing (including questions about EVs, TikTok, and a report of a sexual harassment scandal in the White House), click here.

NY Post’s Nelson Draws Out Angry KJP Over Report of WH Sexual Harassment

Near the end of a tense White House press briefing Thursday dominated by questions about Israel, the New York Post’s Steven Nelson drew terse replies from Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre over his recent reporting on powerful White House aide Anthony Bernal being accused of “bull[ying] and verbally sexually harass[ing] colleagues over more than a decade.” Not only has Bernal has vehemently denied the allegations in Nelson’s heavily-sourced story, but Chief of Staff Jeff Zients went on the record to defend him and Bernal could be viewed as unfirable given he’s so close to First Lady Jill Biden she’s reportedly called him her work spouse. Nelson began with that description of Bernal, adding “[t]hree former colleagues have made allegations of sexual harassment against him, building on prior reports of bullying” and not only have “[s]ome of these sources have worked with you,” but “you’d find them credible.” Given that, Zients’s statement and his “sources” being “alarmed...it could chill sexual harassment and bullying reports”, he wondered “[h]ow can the White House...possibly justify not...investiga[ing] these allegations.” Jean-Pierre stepped in before he could finish with the well-known declaration from Biden in 2021 that he’d fire on the spot anyone who mistreats a colleague, scoffing that she doesn’t “know who your sources are, so....I can’t speak to that” since “they’re blind sources.”     Adding she won’t ever speak about “personnel investigations”, she sang Bernal’s praises as someone she’s “known...for more than a decade” and counts him as both “a friend” and “a colleague” she’s “worked closely with”. To Nelson’s credit, he eventually stepped in despite Jean-Pierre’s continued filibustering: “I just gotta press you on this because the President said he would fire people for disrespecting colleagues and there’s no investigation.” Jean-Pierre continued to screech and make Nelson’s point, insisting this is all “unfounded” claims. Nelson tried a third time by noting there certainly seems to be “special status” granted to Bernal given what seems to be “the First Lady shielding him as some sources believe.” Jean-Pierre again rallied around Bernal one last time (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: Steven, I’ve answered the question. I’ve answered the question. Bernard [sic] — Anthony Bernal spoke for himself. You heard from our chief of staff — our chief of staff — and gave your publication a statement, obviously. And you’ve heard from me. I — I’m — I don’t have it. NELSON: Is that going to have a chilling — JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t — NELSON: — effect, though, on people who suffer — JEAN-PIERRE: I don’t have anything else — NELSON: — sexual harassments or bullying. JEAN-PIERRE:— to share. I don’t have anything else to share on that. Before asking about Bernal, he brought up both the ongoing legal odyssey of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the bipartisan push to make the PRESS Act law. Not surprisingly, Jean-Pierre all but ignored the former to only talk about the latter (click “expand”):  NELSON: [O]ur government appears to be closer to potentially extraditing Julian Assange. Press freedom groups say this case threatens to criminalize or professional, so I’m wondering what the White House is thinking is regarding that matter and potential threat to press freedom. Does the White House have a stance on the depending federal press shield legislation that passed the House and that Senator Schumer told me he hopes reaches President Biden’s desk here? JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about the press acts — NELSON: Yes. JEAN-PIERRE: — more specifically? Look, and I said this — I said this many times — I said this last week where journalism is not a crime. We’ve been very clear about that. Uh, and as it relates to this particular legislation, I haven’t reviewed. It would have to talk to our Office of Leg Affairs on that particular legislation. But I do want to say, back in October of 2022, the Justice Department codified a policy to ban subpoenas of journalist records. The President strongly supports the right of free and independent press. That is something that the President talked about when he was at the Gridiron. The president talked about this at the last White House Correspondents Dinner. He has been very consistent about this, and I’ll just quote him for a second: “A free press is a pillar of any free society and while we may not always agree with certain coverage or admire it, we do admire the courage of the free press.” Journalism, again, is not a crime. NELSON:  Before moving on, just to confirm, no stance yet on the Press Act that you’re aware of? And the Assange matter, is there concerned about that? JEAN-PIERRE: Ah. You know, I don’t have much more to share besides what I just laid out here, so I would just leave it as what I just stated to you. A few minutes before Nelson, the Fox Business Network’s Grady Trimble called out the Biden administration’s failed attempts to make fetch happen and force Americans to buy electric vehicles (EVs). Jean-Pierre, appearing prepared for the question threw out a littany of numbers in attempt to make it seem like EVs are both afforable and exploding in popularity: Fox Business’s @Grady_Trimble: “Ford said today it's delaying production on an electric SUV. Tesla, earlier this week, said its sales are plunging. Do these types of developments make the administration rethink their EV policy?” KJP: “No, not at all. Look, you know, when it… pic.twitter.com/kkRwTWO4gD — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 4, 2024 Thankfully, Trimble followed up on this gobbledygook: “So, is it realistic to go from about seven or eight percent of sales to 50 percent of sales in eight years if the automakers themselves are cutting back pro — on production?” It was here the Jean-Pierre we’ve come to know emerged as she fumbled through with claims “that— that U.S. manu — U.S. manufacturing jobs have increased” and “[j]obs have indeed increase [sic] and when you see a boom like this, that means you need auto workers, right? It can’t happen on its own...and we want to see a manufacturing industry that’s for the future of this — of this country”. Trimble’s other subject concerned President Biden’s hypocrisy on Chinese-owned TikTok: “If President Biden is concerned enough about TikTok to bring it up on a call with the president of China, why is he and why is the Vice President — why are they still making videos for TikTok?” Though Jean-Pierre isn’t adept at many things, one thing she does know what to do is what she did here: punt to the reelection campaign. To see the relevant transcript from the April 4 briefing (including questions about Israel), click here.

Potpourri: Doocy Time Leaves KJP Fumbling, Taxpayer-Funded NPR Bashes Israel

Given Wednesday’s White House press briefing ran less than 40 minutes, its abbreviated state largely made it uneventful aside from a truly comical Doocy Time having left the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre even more incoherent than usual and, on the other end of the spectrum, taxpayer-funded National Public Radio’s (NPR) Asma Khalid pled for Israel to suffer “consequences” for its war against Hamas. Fox’s Peter Doocy first question dealt with a little-discussed but important topic to national security: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).  “[S]o, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with ‘the Putin Price Hike’ a few years ago. Said You were going to refill it. But now it doesn’t seem like that’s happening. Why,” he asked. Jean-Pierre’s stammering, stumbling answer was one for the ages: Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that, so I would refer to the Department of Energy. I know there are certain components to that and how they were going to move forward and refilling — refilling it. Uh — I — they would have had more specifics on that for you. Doocy’s remaining time focused on the Biden border crisis, starting with this query that left Jean-Pierre playing dumb and asking for more information: “And why isn’t federal immigration law tougher on border crossers who come here and are accused of serious crimes?”     Given Jean-Pierre’s befuddlement, Doocy explained more: “There’s this story in New York — an eight-person crew of border crossers found with drugs and guns. Six of them now are out on bail. Does President Biden think policies like that are making the country safer?” Jean-Pierre ducked, citing this example as being “an active case, so don’t want to comment on an active case, but anyone found guilty — and we’ve been very clear about that — anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable” and that the Biden regime has “been very, very clear about that.” Doocy last question touched on the left’s pro-crime tendencies: “So, more generally then, do you guys think that some big cities in this country have liberal DAs that are too soft on crime?” Of course, Jean-Pierre also refused to answer other than reiterating her previous answer and declining “to speak to every state or city here.” Khalid immediately followed Doocy and made sure to represent the pro-Gaza, anti-Israel (so, pro-Hamas) voice that applies to a small subset of the country: Your tax dollars at work..... NPR's Asma Khalid: “[Y]ou heard the President being outraged strike on aid workers. In the past, the president has also referred to indiscriminate bombing. I'm wondering if you can articulate why, thus far, there has been no consequences [for… pic.twitter.com/QgF4A6adkp — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 3, 2024 Khalid wasn’t satisfied, so she kept pressing (which was more than NPR would on caught dead doing for a conservative or Republican cause) (click “expand”): KHALID: Can you articulate why there have been no consequences thus far for any types of behavior that the President has been outraged by? JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, look, we’ve had — we are having conversations with the Israeli government. We’ve been very clear about that. Those conversations have been tough. We’ve been very public about those conversations. On this particular instant [sic], there will be an investigation. There is an investigation currently happening. The President has said he wants it to be swift. He wants it to be comprehensive, and he wants to be there — to see accountability — to bring account — account — right — to bring accountability. He said that in his statement, and he wants to make sure that it is public. So, we’re going to let that process move forward and, you know, You said it yourself. The President also has been publicly clear here about what — how he feels about what he has seen. We do not want to see innocence civilians die here. We do not want that and we’re going to continue to be clear and have those conversations from the President on down with our counterparts in in the Israeli government and those conversations — iditions are tough, right? You think about Rafah — the Rafah operations. We’ve been clear about that how — where we stand that a military operations [sic] is not the way to go. There are alternative ways of getting those Hamas operators in Rafah. That’s why we had a meeting — a virtual meeting on Monday. That’s where we’re going to have an in-person meeting with Israeli government. The person take — the President takes this very seriously. He wants to make sure that innocent civilian lives are protected, including those humanitarian aid workers who are out there and, yes, he’s outraged and he’s heartbroken by what happened yesterday and we’re going to have those conversations with the Israeli government — as we have been. It’s going to continue. This back-and-forth went on a few more rounds as Khalid even interrupted to whine she’s “privately” asked Biden officials about as to whether Biden has personally met with anyone who had been to Gaza since October 7. Gee, what happened then, Asthma? And whose fault is it that Gaza looks far different than it did prior to October 7? Jean-Pierre offered plenty of platitudes about the Arab American “community” but wouldn’t say yes or no out of respect for “private” meetings. To see the relevant transcript from the April 3 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] April 3, 2024 1:25 p.m. Eastern PETER DOOCY: First, the — so, you guys started draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try and help with “the Putin Price Hike” a few years ago. Said You were going to refill it. But now it doesn’t seem like that’s happening. Why? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Well, from — I believe the Department of Energy is — is responsible for — for that particular component — is refilling — refilling that, so I would refer to the Department of Energy. I know there are certain components to that and how they were going to move forward and refilling — refilling it. Uh — I — they would have had more specifics on that for you. DOOCY: Okay. And why isn’t federal immigration law tougher on border crossers who come here and are accused of serious crimes? JEAN-PIERRE: So — um — are you speaking of a specific case? DOOCY: There’s this story in New York — an eight-person crew of border crossers found with drugs and guns. Six of them now are out on bail. Does President Biden think policies like that are making the country safer? JEAN-PIERRE: So I want to be really careful. That’s an active case, so don’t want to comment on an active case, but anyone found guilty — and we’ve been very clear about that — anyone found guilty of a crime should be held accountable. We have been very, very clear about that and if they if a person poses a danger to the community, they should be detained pretrial. DOOCY: So, more generally then, do you guys think that some big cities in this country have liberal DAs that are too soft on crime? JEAN-PIERRE: Look, what I will say is, I’m not going to speak to every state or city here. I — it’s not for me to speak to. We have been very clear about this. Anyone who commits a crime and is found guilty needs to be held accountable. That’s what this President believes, and we are certainly very much. We welcome local law enforcement support and cooperation and apprehending and removing individuals in this country who pose a risk to our national security or also public safety. If they are found guilty. They should be held accountable. That’s our — that’s where we stand on this. [TO KHALID] Go ahead. ASHMA KHALID: Thank, Karine. Two questions, one is you heard the President being outraged strike on aid workers. In the past, the president has also referred to indiscriminate bombing. I’m wondering if you can articulate why, thus far, there has been no consequences and why there are no consequences? So, beyond — JEAN-PIERRE: So I want to be clear. It’s — it’s not me, referring to that. this is the President’s statement. I’m just lifting up the statement from last night where he says — KHALID: Yeah, and I understand that. JEAN-PIERRE: — I am outraged and heartbroken. The first — the first — basically — line — part of the first line of the President’s — President’s statement from last night, and it speaks for itself and he talked about — how he talked about how there’s more that needs to be done to protect innocent civilians in Gaza. KHALID: Can you articulate why there have been no consequences thus far for any types of behavior that the President has been outraged by? JEAN-PIERRE: Hey, look, we’ve had — we are having conversations with the Israeli government. We’ve been very clear about that. Those conversations have been tough. We’ve been very public about those conversations. On this particular instant [sic], there will be an investigation. There is an investigation currently happening. The President has said he wants it to be swift. He wants it to be comprehensive, and he wants to be there — to see accountability — to bring account — account — right — to bring accountability. He said that in his statement, and he wants to make sure that it is public. So, we’re going to let that process move forward and, you know, You said it yourself. The President also has been publicly clear here about what — how he feels about what he has seen. We do not want to see innocence civilians die here. We do not want that and we’re going to continue to be clear and have those conversations from the President on down with our counterparts in in the Israeli government and those conversations — iditions are tough, right? You think about Rafah — the Rafah operations. We’ve been clear about that how — where we stand that a military operations [sic] is not the way to go. There are alternative ways of getting those Hamas operators in Rafah. That’s why we had a meeting — a virtual meeting on Monday. That’s where we’re going to have an in-person meeting with Israeli government. The person take — the President takes this very seriously. He wants to make sure that innocent civilian lives are protected, including those humanitarian aid workers who are out there and, yes, he’s outraged and he’s heartbroken by what happened yesterday and we’re going to have those conversations with the Israeli government — as we have been. It’s going to continue. KHALID: Yeah and if I can also go back to something that was asked earlier about the presidential meeting with any aid workers or anybody who’s been inside of Gaza since October 7. I mean, it is a question of also privately posed to some of your colleagues and it feels like a yes or no question whether or not he’s actually met with somebody who’s been inside. And the reason I’m asking is a number of people at the meeting said, to their knowledge this was the first time the President had actually spoken to anybody who’s been inside of Gaza since October 7. And [inaudible] — JEAN-PIERRE: Here’s what I can tell you. He’s met with community leaders who are obviously from the Muslim community, the Arab community, the Palestinian community. I would let them speak for themselves on if they’ve been to Gaza. You know, I don’t have any — we don’t have any information to share about that. We want to be really mindful that the — this meeting and many meetings that we’ve held had have been private. We want to respect that and so, just going to leave it there. I think what is important, though — like, I understand the question. KHALID: [Inaudible] updates — JEAN-PIERRE: Wait. No, no. No, no, no. KHALID: — from, you know, what the situation tangibly looks like. JEAN-PIERRE: — no, I — I understand, right? I —  I get what you’re saying — the importance of hearing from folks who have been on the ground in Gaza. I totally understand that, but I think it’s also important that the President is hearing directly from the community — directly from the community — who are — some of them — are personally affected by what’s happening in Gaza, right? And so, the fact that senior White House officials are having those conversations — tough conversations — is important — that the fact that the President has done so as well is important. But I — I hear your question, but we are also hearing from folks from the community having these sit-down conversations. the community leaders that were here yesterday — and met with the President and the Vice President — they asked for a working-group conversation and we listened and we made that happen and the President heard directly from them what they are going through, what they see, how painful it has been for them. So, I think that’s important as well. We can’t — we can’t — not — you know — um — lift that up as well.

CNN Panel Melts Down When Conservative Brings Up Obama’s Cult of Personality

Wednesday’s CNN This Morning twice devolved into hysterical bewilderment among the three liberals on-set when conservative strategist and former Tim Scott 2024 adviser Matt Gorman responded to the left’s pearl clutching around fervent support for Donald Trump by reminding them of the cult of personality that surrounded Barack Obama. Host Kasie Hunt premised the discussion around a New York Times piece from reporter Michael Bender that claimed Trump supporters belong to the “Church of Trump” that views Trump as a deity and the repugnant smear of non-Democrat Christians by Tim Alberta in his finger-wagging book.     Gorman said he saw this whole take “a little bit different”, but Hunt tried to have him badmouth Republican voters by wondering what he made of “people view[ing] Trump as a seemingly — or treat him like a seemingly Christ-like figure when..the Bible specifically says, like, you’re not supposed to do that.” Gorman then dropped the truth bomb: “But I will say this though, in a — in a secular sort of way, not in an evangelical directly away, you saw Obama treated like this.” Having left a grimacing look of disgust from liberal Washington Post reporter Toluse Olorunnipa and liberal panelist Karen Finney mumbling in disagreement, Gorman further unspooled: [Y]es, absolutely. Absolutely. There was a sort of — people — not an — not an evangelical, religious way...But, look, I will say this, when you are president of your party and you’re a leader of your party, there is among — a base where it is a social — it is a secular deification in a way. It is. Yes. In contrast, Finney went the way Hunt wanted by repeatedly invoking Alberta’s book and arguing Trump’s “perverting the words of God” with his rhetoric in this campaign having turned “frightening” after, in 2016, merely running to appease “a cadre of voters who were afraid of a changing America...by demonizing...black and brown people and immigrants”. “Well, he has said in the past that has favorite Bible verse is an eye for an eye, which is firmly in the Old Testament, not the New,” Hunt replied. The conversation then changed to a cockamamie narrative that, because there’s comparisons that have been made between Trump and Jesus, that Christian women will abandon Trump.  Thankfully, Gorman wasn’t having any of this and lambasted Finney for this absurdity that, after having been on the political scene for nearly a decade, a whole block of voters will abandon Trump (click “expand”): FINNEY: And you can see that they were — that — in the Iowa caucus we did see that that — the ad that we’ve played here before, that was likening the birth of Trump to the birth of Jesus — right — where he literally compared it — HUNT: Right. FINNEY: — there have been evangelicals who have said, Okay, that’s too far. And Tim Alberta, in his book, talks about how some in the evangelical movement have — had — are uncomfortable with this fusion and perversion of the teachings. HUNT: Matt, do you agree? GORMAN: No, because, look, like I — FINNEY: Of course not.  GORMAN: — look, I — no, no — FINNEY: You’re a Republican. Why would you agree with me? GORMAN: — of course not. But like — but I think the ad in the Republican primary, where there’s a trust among Republicans is a little different. When you get to a general election, that — that choice will fuse. I don’t think you’re going to see Biden evangelical votes in Iowa suddenly gaining steam here. Look, he’s not going to — FINNEY: Yes, but I think they could not vote for him. GORMAN: — he’s not going to lose — he’s not going to lose any votes off that. You know, I think it’s — that’s a winning issue for us? HUNT: You don’t think he’s going to lose any votes off that? GORMAN: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That is a winning issue for him and press that advantage if you’re Trump. FINNEY: So you think suburban women — let’s go back to them — GORMAN: Yes. FINNEY: — are comfortable with Donald Trump comparing — GORMAN: Those — FINNEY: — no, no, no, let me finish —  GORMAN: Yes. FINNEY: — are comfortable with him — literally saying, I’m your god.  GORMAN: I want to meet those — FINNEY: I don’t think so. Please show me those voters. GORMAN: — those are suburban women who all of a sudden see that — that one thing, like, you know what, now I’m turned off. They — after almost a decade of this, that’s going to break it? FINNEY: No, it’s not just that. GORMAN: Yeah. FINNEY: What that shows is someone who will do anything to win, who has no boundaries, who has no sense of decency, who has no sense of what’s appropriate, what’s not appropriate. He will do anything to win. If it means comparing himself to God, that’s what he’ll do[.] (....) GORMAN: [W]e’ve been having the same conversation for a decade. Like, again, we talk about meanness. This is the same sort of thing that Hillary Clinton talked about. I just suddenly wonder that, you know, suddenly, in the year 2024, after Donald Trump’s been on the — for — this for a decade that people are going to wake up and be like, you know what? Now he’s too mean. You know what? I was going to vote for him, but, you know what? That one thing, no. This thing is big.  Hunt returned back to the cult of personality, granting it to Trump supporters because he’s “treated....totally different than other political candidates” but not for Obama because while “people got — were very excited about Obama, but — but it was secular and political”. Spoken like a former Obama Zombie herself, Finney concurred the support for Obama “was hopeful” and what that warm fuzziness “said about the country, that maybe we had moved to a [better] place” whereas Trump’s movement has been “about grievance and retribution”. Hunt called this “definitely objectively true” as “hope and change is not the same as” a movement of “grievance.” Gorman closed with what should be a basic observation of history and politics that “popular presidents...always have a certain cult of personality around them” (and especially in their own parties), so no one should “act like this suddenly” is new with Trump voters. Hunt had said Gorman would have the last word, but she took that back to defend Obama’s honor: “Yeah, but the shoot — you know, his — I could shoot people on Fifth Avenue and my base would still be with me. There is something about him that is different from Reagan and Obama.” To see the relevant CNN transcript from April 3, click here.

VILE: WH Reporters Gang Up to Smear Israel Over World Central Kitchen Tragedy

Sadly, the virulently anti-Israel pockets of the White House press corps took center stage on Tuesday during the first briefing since what appeared to have been a horrible, tragic accident in which Israeli airstrikes killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers in Gaza. Naturally, numerous reporters took the opportunity to claim without evidence that the ever-unrepentant Israel purposefully targeted these innocents in defiance of international law.     ABC’s Selina Wang was first to stray into this territory, though she was nowhere near as explicit as the others.  After first asking Kirby for his “reaction to” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying these kinds of tragedies happen in war (and Kirby saying the U.S. will look forward to a full investigation from Israel), Wang shot back by implicitly opining Netanyahu can’t be trusted and questioned why the U.S. “continue[s] to send aid to Israel without any conditions.” Kirby hit back at this take by noticing “we’ve had this discussion, you and me, quite a bit” and “you want us to hang some sort of condition over their neck”. He also told her Israel’s “still under a viable threat of Hamas” and the U.S., like Israel, believes another October 7 can’t “happen again”. To throw a bone to the anti-Israel left, Kirby reiterated “[t]hat doesn’t mean we’re — whistling past graveyard” and “not paying attention to — to the civilian casualties or the civilian suffering” in Gaza. Unlike Wang, The Hill’s Niall Stanage has been more explicit in his hate of Israel. He’s also from Northern Ireland, so it’s never been all that surprising when he tees off:  Just wanted to follow up with a question that came from the front row about the conditions of military aid and you said that the questioner wanted you to hang some conditions over their necks, that [of] the Israelis, and your tone suggested you wouldn’t do that. Why not? Kirby had to have recognized Stanage as a frequent flier as he showed a tinge of attitude as he replied in part “I’ve already answered this question a whole bunch of times”. Stanage then flew off the handle by arguing without evidence Israel engaged in premeditated murder of the World Central Kitchen workers in “violation of international humanitarian law”. As any sensible person would, Kirby wasn’t having it and slammed Stanage for claiming with “no evidence” this “was a deliberate strike” (click “expand”): STANAGE: But on the point of conditions, the President, on February 8, issued a memo and it said — you already know this, but just for context — it said that it was the policy of this administration to prevent arms transfers that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Is firing a missile of people who live in food and killing them not a violation of international humanitarian law? KIRBY: Well, the Israelis have already admitted that this was a mistake that they made. They’re doing investigation. They’ll get to the bottom of this. Let’s not get ahead of that. Your — your question presumes, at this very early hour, that it was a deliberate strike, that they knew exactly what they were hitting, that they were hitting aid workers and did it on purpose and there’s no evidence of that. I would also remind you, sir, that we continue to look at incidents as they occur. The State Department has a process in place and, to date as you and I are speaking, they have not found any incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law. And, lest you think we don’t take it seriously, I can assure you that we do. We look at this in real time. STANAGE: They have never violated international humanitarian law — ever — in the past five to six months? KIRBY: I’m telling you the State Department has looked at incidents in the past and has yet to determine that any of those incidents violate international humanitarian law. Always willing to openly promote Hamas propaganda, an angered Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al Arabiya came next and had the gall to condemn Israel for killing Hamas leaders. She argued that Israeli strikes on Hamas officials in Lebanon and Syria, along with the World Central Kitchen tragedy “debunk[s]” his “theory and defense of Israel that it is difficult for them” to completely avoid civilian casualties “because Hamas embedded with the civilian population where they can go after Hamas leaders in the heart of the civilian population[s]”. While Jean-Pierre, Jake Sullivan, or Biden might budge, Kirby largely didn’t by saying he’s “talked about this for months now that fighting in an urban, high — highly populated, condensed environment like that’s tough” and the IDF has “successfully taken strikes against Hamas leaders in Gaza”, but an investigation will get to the bottom of what went wrong this time. Fast-forward to the end of the Kirby block and The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg demanded Kirby refute the assertion that, based on reporting from the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the three strikes that hit the World Central Kitchen convoy were proof the workers “were targeted with the intent of killing everyone in that convoy.” Kirby remained level-headed as Feinberg twice pushed the claim this was intention and Israel should face “criminal penalties” (click “expand”): KIRBY: First of all, there’s an investigation going on, so why don’t we let it get done and why don’t we see what they find in terms of the decision making process that led to this terrible outcome? Prime Minister and the IDF have noted that it was their error. If you don’t like the word mistake, their error. They’re investigating it. Let ‘em do that work and let ‘em see what they come up wit and then we’ll go from there. FEINBERG: Sorry, one — one more, John. Two years ago, the IDF killed an Al Jazeera journalist. They said that that was a —a mistake, that she was wearing a mark press vest. She was shot anyway in that. KIRBY: They investigated it and they released the findings — their investigation which found that they were at fault. Go on. FEINBERG: They did, but my — my question, sir, is — in that case, these Israelis did not initiate any criminal proceeding. In this case if it’s found that marked convoy was deliberately targeted, if not with the first shot, but the second two shots, would the U.S. support criminal penalties? KIRBY: As I said, we would expect that, should there be a need for accountability, that account — accountability be properly put in place for whoever may be responsible for this, but again, that’s going to — a lot of that’s gonna depend on the investigation. To see the relevant transcript from the April 2 briefing, click here.

AP Lobs INSANE Softball Cheering Illegal Immigration as Doocy Brings Heat on Crisis

For the second day in a row, the Associated Press opened the questioning Tuesday of the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre by lobbing a puke-tastic softball so she could bash Donald Trump. This time, it was the insane claim that illegal immigration makes America...well, great. And, in contrast to all this, Fox’s Peter Doocy stood alone on the border crisis. AP White House reporter Will Weissert had the hot take on Monday about Sunday’s Transgender Day of Visibility, but it was his colleague Josh Boak who this time opened the Jean-Pierre portion by inviting her to explain why illegal immigration has helped create a roaring American economy. Boak first alluded to Trump’s latest application of the word “bloodbath” — this time, to describe illegal immigrant crime under President Biden — before putting a positive spin on the tens of millions who’ve illegal crossed the border and roam freely: [O]n Friday, we’re going to get jobs figures and past jobs reports have shown that immigrants are helping the U.S. economy. Is the view of this administration that the inflow of immigrants do more to strengthen the United States or hurt the United States? Does it do more? Yes, that’s right. Boak wants you to think this has made America great.     Jean-Pierre’s initial response was a classic indication that what Boak fired off was a joke: “So, Josh, I appreciate that question, and I think it’s an important question.” Adding there’s been “clearly awful rhetoric from the other side”, Jean-Pierre’s lengthy word salad also conflated illegal immigration with legal immigration as she proclaimed Biden and his regime “know immigrants strengthen our country and our economy” and said Biden believes we need “an economy that works for everyone”, presumably including illegals. Doocy actually set the tone before Boak and Jean-Pierre as he asked John Kirby this: “John, there’s another case of somebody who was in this country illegally allegedly murdering the young woman, this time in Michigan. Her name was Ruby Garcia. Donald Trump is out there now calling this Biden’s border bloodbath. What do you call it? Kirby did get political by invoking the Senate deal and blaming Republicans for not holding a vote, but he at least conceded while he hadn’t heard of Garcia, “that’s just terrible news and our thoughts and prayers obviously go to the family of Miss Garcia” as “that’s kind of news no family ever wants to get ever.” This led Doocy to point out the obvious, which was the Senate deal is dead. A brief back and forth ensued with Kirby attempting to play Captain Optimist, but Doocy wasn’t having it because “there are real problems at the border” with 140,000 known gottaways posing a national security threat. Doocy wrapped with this: “[A]s the person in charge of presenting — preventing a terrorist attack in the homeland, does President Biden think that some of these border crossers could be in the United States right now plotting a terrorist attack against Americans?” Kirby gave the standard answer one would expect any presidential spokesman to give: “The President’s confident that....we’re doing everything we can to be as vigilant as we can to ensure the safety and security of the American people here at home.” With Jean-Pierre, the bloodbath hubbub returned after Boak with softballs from CBS’s Nancy Cordes (click “expand”): CORDES: Going back to the bloodbath question, the former President used that terminology a week or two ago, but is talking about it again today. What’s the White House reaction to the use of that term bloodbath? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be really mindful here because it is — president — the — the — obviously, the former president is also a candidate here, so wanna follow the law with the Hatch Act — but we have to denounce our responses. We have to denounce any — any violent rhetoric that we hear, certainly from our leaders — right — that tears our country apart. It could tear up our country apart and puts our fellow Americans in harm’s way — in danger, so we have to denounce that. And look, you know, I think and we think that the American people wants [sic] to see the country coming together. that’s what they want. They want to — they want to make sure that we respect our democracy. They want to make sure that we respect the rule of law. That’s what they want. And so, that is what the President’s going to continue to fight for. I — we’re going to any type of violent rhetoric, we’re going to denounce that. It doesn’t matter who it comes from. We’re going to denounce it. CORDES: Does the White House believe that there is a bloodbath taking place or a wave of migrant crime? JEAN-PIERRE: Look — um — we’ve been very clear about — I just laid out to Josh, when it comes to immigrants, how important they are to the fabric of this country, how important they are to the strength of this country, to our economy, and that continues to — to be true, right? That’s something that this President believes, and we’ve always called out any — if there is any form of — of violence that — that could be caused by one person — right — that we may have seen, we call that out as well — and — and that is always important to do. But, in this instance, it is used to — in the way that this violent rhetoric is being used, it is being used to tear our country apart. That’s how it’s being used, and we have to — we can’t allow that, right? This is not what Americans want to see. Americans want to see us bringing the country together and — and so, that form of rhetoric it is. It’s not helpful to us, so we’re going to continue to call that out, and we’re going to be very, very clear about that. But this — you know, if — if a violent act is — it happens, as we have seen — um and someone is killed, we want to make sure that — that You know, we’ve got to condemn that and want to make sure that the law comes into place and we let the law enforcement on the ground deal with that, but to denounce entire community, we can’t allow that. We have to denounce that any type of violent rhetoric. Having sat through these softballs, Doocy dropped a devastating receipt: “So, when Donald Trump is talking about a bloodbath, it is violent rhetoric. What was it when Joe Biden said in 2020, we — ‘what we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath’?” Try and follow this mess of an answer from Jean-Pierre: “So, I’m going to be really mindful and careful about Donald Trump, but if you read — because he is a — he is a candidate — we’re talking about the 2024 election. You should read — hit — what he said in its context, so you got to read what he said in context.” Doocy clapped back with a helping of attitude: “Bloodbath is an ugly word when Trump uses it. What is it when Biden uses it?” Jean-Pierre instructed Doocy that he should have “asked me the question in context of what it was said — right — and what the — what it was said when he said that — right — in his remarks in his speech, right?” Thus, she argued, he was “being disingenuous.” An incredulous Doocy returned fire then showed respect by letting Jean-Pierre drone on. Her impeccably lazy defense as to why Joe Biden is allowed to use the word “bloodbath” but Donald Trump can’t? January 6 (click “expand”): DOOCY: I’m reading a direct quote from Joe Biden. “What we can’t let happen is let this primary become a negative bloodbath.” JEAN-PIERRE: He’s talking about — he was talking about a group of people — a group of people. That’s what he’s talking about. What the President was talking about during the primary was not to allow it to be — the words — and — and the primary and that election to become negative. Two different — two different things. DOOCY: Okay! JEAN-PIERRE: They’re not the same. They’re not the same — and your question is disingenuous. And so, look, I’m going to be really mindful here. I’ve got to be really careful. We have to denounce violent rhetoric, which — wherever it comes from — a former leader, we have to denounce that because we saw what happened on January 6. We saw what happened there — when you have a mob of 2,000 people go to the Capitol because they didn’t believe in free — the free and fair election that just happened months prior because of violent rhetoric. You got to denounce that. That’s not what leaders should be doing. To see the relevant transcript from the April 2 briefing (as well as anti-Israel questions about the deadly strikes that left numerous World Central Kitchen workers dead), click here.

Editor’s Pick: WashTimes Exposes Biden Regime Allowing ‘X’ as Gender for Citizenship

In another jaw-dropping story for Tuesday’s print front-page of The Washington Times, the indefatigable Stephen Dinan revealed the Biden administration’s latest chicanery endorsing the false and dangerous idolatry surrounding gender manipulation as those seeking U.S. citizenship will have options other than male or female as their listed gender. “The government introduced a citizenship form Monday that allows immigrants to select X as their gender, giving them a new option beyond male and female. The Biden administration saw the move as a step toward inclusiveness for immigrants who feel they don’t fit cleanly into either of the two sexes,” Dinan explained. He added that on “[t]he new citizenship form, known officially as the N-400 Application for Naturalization, offers the options of Male, Female and Another gender identity as checkboxes” with that third option resulting in “documents that reflect their gender as X.” The Department of Homeland Security’s United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said this “third gender option helps ensure that secure identity documents and biographical data are accurate and helps both external stakeholders and individuals requesting immigration benefits” and mimics a State Department directive to allow passport holders to select “X” as their gender instead of what they actually are (male or female).  Responding directly to Dinan, USCIS insisted they’re “committed to the integrity of the immigration system” and that allowing someone to play make believe with their gender won’t affect “key identity verification – such as biometrics submission and fraud prevention procedures.” For those who went through with naturalization prior to this change, Dinan said “must wait for updates to other forms, which are still in the works” while those in the midst of the immigration process “can submit a request for a gender change”. To read Dinan’s full story, click here.

AP Reporter, KJP Link Up to Smear ‘Hateful’ GOP Over Transgender Visibility Day

On Monday, the day-after-Easter White House press briefing began on a hacktastic note as the Associated Press reporter on duty asked about what could generously be described as hubbub surrounding Easter Sunday falling on March 31 and President Biden issuing a presidential proclamation for Sunday as Transgender Day of Visibility. AP reporter Will Weissert could have asked about this in any number of productive ways, such as why was this tweeted from the White House’s main account, but not their Spanish-language profile, or why did Biden use only half of Genesis 1:27 to endorse transgenderism when the second, omitting portion would show God vehemently opposes it. Instead, Weissert did this: “So, the criticism over the Transgender Day of Visibility, the White House said that the President wouldn’t abuse his faith for political purposes. Does the President think that’s what Republicans are doing on this?”     Despite having notes, Jean-Pierre still stumbled (see the video above) in expressing surprise at “the misinformation...out there”, explaining while Easter changes every year, Transgender Day of Visibility is always March 31. Arguing the backlash was “misinformation done on purpose”, the Biden flack seemed to imply Biden — who celebrates transgenderism and believes they’re some of the bravest people he knows — was a real Christian while those who feel differently aren’t and thus possess “cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric”: And, as a Christian who celebrates Easter with family, President Biden stands for bringing people together and upholding the dignity and freedoms of every American. Now, sadly — and it’s not surprising — right — it is actually unsurprising that politicians are seeking to divide and weaken our country with cruel, hateful, and dishonest rhetoric. It is dishonest what we have heard the past 24 hours. It is untrue. Jean-Pierre then cited a 2021 Fox network tweet endorsing that year’s Transgender Day of Visibility and ironically proclaimed “President Biden will never abuse his faith or — for political purposes or for profit”. Like a loyal foot soldier, Weissert didn’t ask any follow-ups, but offered Jean-Pierre a “thank you.” Fox’s Peter Doocy, in contrast, brought the heat and asked actual questions. While he didn’t ask about the Transgender Day of Visibility, Doocy started with the disturbing development in the disturbing March 21 incident at the U.S.-Mexico (captured by our friend Jennie Taer of the New York Post): “Most of the border crossers accused of beating up Texas National Guardsmen in a riot last month were released on their own recognizance Sunday. How does that make people in this country any safer?” Jean-Pierre told Doocy to speak with Departments of Homeland Security and Justice before retreating to her talking points praising the Border Patrol for having “act[ed] quickly” and attacking Republicans for “put[ting] politics ahead of the American people” by refusing to address the “challenge at the border” with the proposed Senate deal. Like a good reporter responding to word salad, Doocy followed up: “So, does President Biden wish that Republicans in Congress would help him make a law that made it easier to deport people?” Jean-Pierre more or less said he wouldn’t want that because, instead, she said “[w]hat the President wants to see is....congressional Republicans to pass, to move forward with a bipartisan border security agreement”. Doocy pivoted to wondering what the administration made of the rise in squatting with some localities even having laws allowing the homeless (or anyone) to seize homes that aren’t theirs (click “expand”): DOOCY: Totally different topic. How worried do Americans need to be about squatters? JEAN-PIERRE: About squatters? DOOCY: Well, here’s a lot of stories out there. Homeowners are showing up at places that they own where the locks have been changed. Some squatter has moved in, and the homeowner has no rights. Does President Biden think that is right? JEAN-PIERRE: So, if — if my understanding is that this is, obviously, a local issue, we are certainly tracking that issue. The rights of property owners and renters must be protected and we believe that, you know, ultimately, what needs to happen is the local government needs to make sure that they address this and they take action.  And so, everyone in their community, in this country wants the same thing, right? They all want the same thing. They want their families to be safe, and that’s what we want as well. We want to make sure that Americans and their families feel safe. DOOCY: In Florida, there’s a new law where victims of squatting can call the cops and have the squatters removed. Would President Biden support something like that? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m not going to get into — into — into hypotheticals from here. What I can say is that, ultimately, this is a local issue.  And it is critical that — that local governments take action to address it. Again, everybody wants the same thing. They want to feel safe in their communities. That’s what they want. We certainly are tracking these stories. And, as is usually the case, pro-Hamas reporter Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya was up to her usual theatrics: As always, Arab reporter Nadia Bilbassy of Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya used the WH briefing to peddle the Hamas propaganda of the day, claiming the IDF went into Al Shifa hospital to slaughter innocent doctors and babies. KJP plays right along. If this were a Republican… pic.twitter.com/qs2k5TBI8O — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 1, 2024 if this were a Republican presidency, you’d best believe Bilbassy would be absolutely torched with missives such as that. To see the relevant transcript from the April 1 briefing, click here.

Gag: NBC’s Roker Shills for Bidens in Another Puffball Easter Egg Roll Interview

On Monday, NBC’s Today sent co-host Al Roker for yet another softball interview with President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden ahead of the 2024 White House Easter Egg Roll and, while it wasn’t as infamously ludicrous as 2023, Roker still did his part channeling North Korean state-run TV news anchors by wondering how he’ll get Americans to “engage and get out there to vote” for his reelection.     Something Roker wouldn’t be caught dead covering during the Trump years, he began the nearly five-minute chat by asking them how their Easter went. This led to the first of many Biden answers consisting of slurring his words and sudden whispers: ROKER: Happy day after Easter. How was Easter for you guys? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Great. We spent it up at Camp David as a whole family. My dad used to say family is the beginning, middle, and end. We had them up there. We went to Mass on Saturday and we had a great Easter egg hunt. We actually take these plastic eggs and put some dollars in them. ROKER: Oh, nice! A little cash. JILL BIDEN: We’re still missing one. Roker shifted to the First Lady with a softball about the Egg Roll: “[W]hat’s the theme this year? This is something close to your heart.” After Jill Biden said it was again “Egg-ucation” with stations on the South Lawn covering school subjects like reading, physical education, and science, Roker went back to President Biden: “When you think back on — on this time so far, what are one — some of your favorite memories, Mr. President?” This gave the President the chance to go full creep: “Well, my favorite memories are a little girl who was having trouble with her egg, looked at me — she’s three-years old, said, ‘can you help me, Mr. President.’ So, I gave it a push. That’s my favorite.” Following an out-of-touch Biden answer about how he loves “opening up” the White House so he can see “average Americans just walking around”, Roker went full Democratic National Committee staffer with a puffball query about how Biden will win this “final campaign”and have the right “message to people about why they’ve got to engage and get out there to vote coming up.” Biden bumbled his way through that sounded as though he wasn’t running as the incumbent and in charge for the last four years (click “expand”): PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I think people are going to surprise people again. They’re going to engage. It’s an overwhelming response when we’re out on the road. Look, we have tens of thousands of people contributing five, $10 a — a — a pop. We’ve opened up 100 headquarters. We have people waiting to get engaged. I mean, I just think people are so tired of the negativity that is propagated that they just — they just want to get engaged. They want to change things, and I’m optimistic, I really am. ROKER: When — when people are saying, you know, but Mr. President, I’m feeling — I’m feeling, you know, my buck isn’t going as far, what do you say to those folks about the economy and what’s going on? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, I say we have the best economy in the world. We got to make it better. We really do have the best economy in the world. Jobs are up more than they’ve ever been. We’re in a situation where the lowest unemployment in 50 years is maintained. We have people who are just — but people — look, I think we’re going to find out that what happened is consequence of the crisis we had in health is going to have a lasting effect. I mean, we’ve got to get people to move again. We’re — we’re ready. I think the country is ready to come together in a way that I never — I mean that sincerely. I’m — I’m truly optimistic. ROKER: Yeah. And how are you feeling going into this last campaign? JILL BIDEN: I feel great. You know, I’ve been traveling across the country. People are ready to go and we’re going to win this. Roker concluded by inviting the Bidens to join him for lunch at Ben’s Chili Bowl, but he had one last eye roll of a question for the President about what it’s been like to live in the White House (which elicited another creepy answer): ROKER: And — and as far as — you know, your — your memories of this house, you know — I mean we’re assuming, I don’t know what — what the future holds, but what are your favorite memories about this place? PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Our kids jumping in bed with us. Our grandkids when they’re down here. Just sneaking up and jumping in bed with us. That’s my favorite memory here. They love it. They love wandering through the halls. They love — there’s two floors upstairs. A lot of bedrooms. It’s a private residence and they just love coming down. To see the relevant NBC transcript from April 1, click here.