NB Blog Feed

VILE CBS Smears Trump Voters as ‘Cultish’, Undemocratic With ‘Dangerous’ Views

Discussing the Trump verdict in the second hour of Friday’s CBS Mornings, chief political analyst John Dickerson and CBS Saturday Morning co-host Michelle Miller acted as the unofficial Democratic response to Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) interview from earlier as the partisan journalist (Dickerson) and wife of a far-left activist (Miller) smeared Trump voters as possessed with “cultish behavior” and “dangerous” views supporting a man who will “undermine” the country. Featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers kicked it off with an attempted historical comparison suggesting Republicans are too extreme compared to the 1970s when a chorus of congressional Republicans forced then-President Richard Nixon out.     Dickerson huffed that “politics has changed so much, since” then, chiefly Republicans not respecting democracy because “we saw a test to the electoral system after 2020 when the loser of that race lied, and then some amount of the party rallied behind him” with “an attack on the Capitol” and have still refused to respect “norms.” He then trashed Cotton for denouncing the partisan leanings of Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg as “very dangerous,” because Cotton and others were “now running down the legal system for the purpose as a way to protect the president.” He predicted such criticism could cause another January 6 and further “undermine” our “system” of governance. Miller then offered her mini-tirade, complaining Trump “has such a strong base, such a supportive community behind him” and that Trump voters — tens of millions of them in size — have an “absolute inability to see him in the ‘do no wrong’ category” and refuse “to say that he has committed any crimes, that he has done anything wrong, he’s a really nice guy.” The wife of former New Orleans Mayor and current National Urban League President Marc Morial (D), Miller showed her partisan colors: “I’m curious, where — where does that — that almost cultish behavior come from?” Dickerson did nothing to push back. He first explained Trump voters back him because “they see him fighting for them” so “intensely and personally” that they see “an attack on the candidate” as “an attack on [them].” With that set, Dickerson added Republicans have a deep-seated problem that dwarfs any problem in the Democratic Party with seeing their political adversaries as “not just wrong, but evil.” The segment closed with Dickerson somewhat gingerly arguing Trump’s lack of character was disqualifying (click “expand”): DICKERSON: This is the most important question coming out of this entire trial is to remember what we’re talking about here in a presidential election. It’s a job interview for a very serious job and even if you believe he was wronged in court, that doesn’t mean he’s right for the presidency. And one of the things that this trial does, like all these legal proceedings, is they are a window into the character of Donald Trump, because people are under oath talking about his character, does he tell the truth? Does he honor his commitments? Is he fair in his dealings? They have to talk about this under oath and facts matter. And so, what does this window into his character show you from this case and from all of these other legal proceedings? And why does character matter in the presidency? Because it’s a job of enormous power, enormous responsibilities, and temptations and if you don’t have character, you succumb to all of that. And why does that matter? Because when you succumb, the stakes are high — in a pandemic, in a national security crisis, and the rest of the country pays the price. So, character is key to the job and this is a window into Donald Trump’s character and the jury decided that he lied, that he did not honor his commitments. Now that may, you may decide as a legal matter is not reason to convict him, but it’s not a reason to elect him to be president of the United States. MILLER: John Dickerson, facts matter. DOKOUPIL: Yeah. That’s good. DUTHIERS: Wow. Brilliant analysis, as always, John. Curiously, Dickerson closed out the show (instead of the usual week-in-review video mashup) and it almost served as a mea culpa by conceding Americans, in fact, think about more than this trial.     Dickerson first had to do some throat-clearing and a more muted denunciation of the people he finds so odious before pivoting to a glance into reality and wondering, “If we spent the energy we’re going to spend talking about this case on economic opportunity in America?” Thankfully, Duthiers had the right response (click “expand”): DICKERSON: The second thing I would say is imagine if we spent the energy we’re going to spend talking about this case on economic opportunity in America. That’s what campaigns are supposed to be about, which is a full, national fight over whether people have a chance in this country, what they need from their government to help them — help lift them. What happened to the American Dream? What is America’s role in the world? Now, this sounds — like like stupid sort of goody-two-shoes stuff, but this is vital because people’s lives are at stake here and the country needs this conversation to take place so that it can put its future in the hands of the right person and the right administration and so, don’t let the election be stolen by these moments as serious as they are and as vital to the character of the people who want the job, don’t let them get hijacked for its entirety for this campaign. DUTHIERS: Because at the end of the day, people will still need to put food on the table, people still need to pay for groceries, put gas in their car — MILLER: Yeah. DUTHIERS: — and pay for education and healthcare, and those are difficult questions to answer. Having, less than an hour earlier, called Americans she personally disagrees with “cultish” in the brain, Miller insisted “people still need to look at their neighbor and still like them or at least deal with them.” Consider taking your own advice. Since he actually talked to Americans of all stripes during his man-on-the-street reports, Dokoupil closed with the right frame of mind: “And live with one another. We have to live with one another. We can’t expel anyone at this point and the — the bottom line is, it is a test for our country. If we pass, we hope we end up stronger.” To see the relevant CBS transcript from May 31, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Here Are the Most Eyerolling, Partisan Verdict Reactions on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’

Having spent a gargantuan 168 minutes alone on the Trump trial from start to finish (April 15-May 31), ABC’s Good Morning America reacted as you’d expect on Friday to Thursday’s verdict with incessant reactions ranging from faux solemnity to openly partisan to pathetically disconnected from reality. Co-host and former Clinton tool George Stephanopoulos opened as he’s down throughout the trial, which is a mini-monologue of sorts with a pensive look and hushed tone. This time, he gushed over the jurors as though they’re deities:  And we begin, Michael, with another first in American history. Donald Trump, now the first and only man who’s held the presidency to face a felony conviction. There you see the verdict sheet filled out by a New York jury. Guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of an illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election that made him president. This is the third time this year that citizen jurors have held Trump accountable. In January, an $83.3 million judgment for defaming E. Jean Carroll. In February, a $450 million judgment for civil fraud in his business dealings. Juries. Ordinary people doing their duty under enormous stress, demonstrating civic courage. Remarkably, convicted felons can run for president. So, this year, in this extraordinary time, American voters will be the ultimate jurors. We’re going to cover the fallout of this unprecedented event. Correspondent Aaron Katersky sounded moved like he was during ABC’s special report as he called what occurred “extraordinary.”     During his taped segment, Katersky added that “Trump and his allies cast doubt on his conviction, harnessing Trump’s political power and his grip on the Republican Party to rally supporters around calls for retaliation ahead of the election this fall.” ABC’s coverage took an even more embarrassing turn when it brought in Michael Cohen and Stephanopoulos treated him like a therapist speaking to a shaken patient (click “expand”): STEPHANOPOULOS: We are joined now by the star witness, Michael Cohen. Michael, thanks for coming back — COHEN: Good to see you, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: — on GMA. You were here with us, sitting in that chair in March 2023. You predicted this outcome, so you’re not surprised. COHEN: No, I’m not. In fact, next month, George, is when you and I sat down for that historic change in my life. That was July 1 of 2018 —  STEPHANOPOULOS: 2018! COHEN: — six years ago, when I told you that my wife, my daughter, my son and my country have my first loyalty and this has been one heck of a journey in order to see this. STEPHANOPOULOS: It has been one heckuva journey. How about that time in the courtroom? What was the toughest moment for you? COHEN: I really didn’t have a single moment that was tougher than the 21 hours that they had me on the stand, whether it was on direct or on cross-examination. The whole thing was very tough. It’s emotionally draining because you have to be perfect. I knew that any mistake that I made would be just — it would — it would become the topic of conversation that would just explode. And so, I really just needed to stay focused. And it wasn’t easy with Todd Blanche. He’s a meanderer as it goes to questioning. STEPHANOPOULOS: He called you the greatest liar of all time. You’ve been convicted for lying. Are you done lying? (....) STEPHANOPOULOS: Did you have any moments in the courtroom where you actually had some kind of contact, communication with Donald Trump? At another point, Stephanopoulos fretted Cohen “spent years fighting for Donald Trump, bullying people for Donald Trump, even lying, as you just said, for Donald Trump, in coordination with his people” before asking if he “wish[ed] you’d never met him.” Cohen replied it’s been “enormously difficult on my family more than anything” because they’ve “suffer[ed] as a direct result of my actions and the misloyalty that I gave to Donald”. As we’d also see on CBS, Stephanopoulos and Cohen expressed exasperation that anyone would vote for Trump and the Republican Party (since they presumably view issues such as the economy, education, immigration, and inflation as wholly secondary to Trump being a danger) (click “expand”): STEPHANOPOULOS: As you know, there are a lot of Republican officeholders out here, including the Speaker of the House who are saying this is a grace. They are still backing Donald Trump. What’s your message to voters who are still considering voting for Donald Trump for president? COHEN: I’m not sure how this makes any sense. This is not just a felon, convict, but it’s also a man who has openly stated he wants to rewrite the Constitution on day one. He wants to be a dictator. Not my words. His words. He wants to — he wants to destroy our tripartite system of government. He wants to get rid of the judiciary and the legislative branch and confer all power to the executive branch, meaning himself — turning himself into a king, a monarch. This country, for 259 years has followed one simple principle, democracy based on the Constitution. He wants to rewrite it as if he could. It’s — it’s just terrible, so how it is that he’s still even in the running, why anybody would want to vote for somebody who is anti-democratic makes no sense to me. With World News Tonight anchor David Muir not around to beat the drum suggesting how polling spells doom for Trump’s electoral prospects, that task fell to political director Rick Klein and tout the May 5 ABC News/Ipsos poll about 20 percent of Trump voters who “would either reconsider or withdraw their support based on a conviction”. “That’s one in five Trump voters which is an enormous number in an election expected to be as close as this one,” he boasted. Speaking moments later to congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, Stephanopoulos returned to expressing disgust and shock Americans would vote Republican (and, therefore, not for Biden): “And, Rachel, remarkably and yet, predictably, Republican politicians falling in line to — to support a convicted felon.” A far-left hack herself, Scott whined about Trump’s “very tight grip on the Republican party and the indictments didn’t really matter for most of the Republican Party”, but refused to consider why that would be the case and that, perhaps, other issues take precedent. She remained in denial, though: “In a lot of ways, George, the Republican Party is now closer to the former President even after this guilty verdict.” To see the relevant transcript from May 31, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Ebullient ABC Celebrates ‘Incredible’ Guilty Verdict of Trump, ‘Cheers Inside’ Biden HQ

Not surprisingly, Disney-owned ABC went gaga Thursday over former President Trump being found guilty on all 34 counts brought by far-left Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg relating to the 2016 election, basking in the “incredible verdict” from New Yorkers that they claim had not only “broken” Trump in spirit, but will cause “a significant percentage” of voters to not vote for Trump. In tern, they argued, this could help President Biden — whose campaign broke out in literal “cheers” — secure a second term.     Correspondent Aaron Katersky covered the trial from the beginning and was given the first reaction after World News Tonight anchor David Muir finished relaying the verdict:  An incredible verdict on this day in May — late May, the former president of the United States convicted as charged — 34 counts of falsifying business records. And David, as the crowd outside of this courthouse found out, a big cheer went up from opponents of the former President who had been massing in the park across the street from the courthouse. Just a — a whooping cheer, and they continue to make a lot of noise. Three-time bestselling anti-Trump author and longtime correspondent Jonathan Karl opened the doors to what would be a common theme on the ABC News Special Report, which was polling indicates this will be fatal for Trump’s chances. “Donald Trump is now a convicted felon. Will that affect how voters will view him? And we have seen, David, a lot of polling, including one of our ABC News polls just in the past month, that suggests that upwards of 20 percent of people who have said that they plan to vote for Donald Trump...would reconsider...if he were...convicted of a felony,” he boasted. Muir concurred and acknowledged “some political pundits will say this was sort of baked in,” but spent the next few moments implicitly arguing this will matter given “how tight the race is” which “will be decided at the margins.” ABC’s coverage wouldn’t have been complete without chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce, who delivered with the revelation that “there were cheers inside the Biden headquarters in Wilmington as the verdict was read” and “these guilty verdicts are a political gift to Democrats, a political gift to the President” to be “running against a convicted felon.” Hilariously, Bruce tried to cover for her friends by also claiming no one should “expect the President to completely upend his campaign messaging because of this,” and they don’t “want to be overly celebratory and feed into that narrative that this was somehow a witch hunt concocted by President Biden” when he’s “been adamant that he had nothing to do with this.” A few minutes after Muir reiterated Team Trump has to be at least “wondering” if they’ve now lost “independent voters and those who are on the fence,” he tag-teamed with executive editorial producer John Santucci to toast to how “a born and bred New Yorker...who enjoyed significant success here” has been “broken by New York” (click “expand”): MUIR: And we also know that Donald Trump, was a born and bred New Yorker. His father had a very successful real estate business here, a branding empire between father and son. Donald Trump enjoyed many, many years sort of being at the top in New York City and to be in this SUV now, guided by the Secret Service, back up to Trump Tower after being found guilty on 34 felony counts, even though he says it’s political, expresses disgust for what played out here in New York City today, this is a man who called himself a New Yorker for decades and who enjoyed significant success here. SANTUCCI: It’s a unbelievable story. A guy that was made by New York was just in some ways, you could argue, broken by New York and think about it, right? You talk about Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump. Fred Trump succeeded in business. For those that know the New York area outside of Manhattan, he succeeded in Queens and Brooklyn. Donald Trump wanted to outdo his father. It was breaking into Manhattan, crossing over the bridge to the island of Manhattan. That was Donald Trump’s goal. Donald Trump told voters in 2015 and ‘16 that I live in the most famous address ever, the most prized possession on fifth avenue. He loved living in New York, being a part of New York, you know, even in the last couple of days, David, I had heard from many senior aides and longtime friends to Donald Trump that he actually liked being in Trump Tower the last couple of weeks. Keep in mind, David, that was his residence for decades. He took such great pride and joy in it. I mean, many people have told this story. I experienced it myself the first time I went into Trump Tower, that Donald Trump loved to show off the view. You look at the Plaza Hotel. Look at Central Park. This was Donald Trump’s pride and joy as a New Yorker. And to think that this is a city that he really spent his life trying to be a part of breaking into — you know, as we’re watching this helicopter follow his motorcade, I’m reminded of a video in our ABC archives of Barbara Walters with Donald Trump talking about how he wanted to make the New York skyline different, put his impact on it. He’s driving along right now, David, you got to imagine looking in part out the window, looking at the city that he had a big part of in some ways for many, many years. And this is a city now, David, that has left a very different impression on Donald Trump and I mentioned earlier, but just think about it, right. You know, we all grow up, we all move away from home. Life brings us in different places. But Donald Trump left New York because at first because of a new job that he became president. But then left in protest because of these cases, because of these prosecutors that he said were out to get him, his children followed. His entire being in New York is no longer there. It’s such a different life. As one person said to me when this case got started, think of everything Donald Trump had in 2015 before his foot stepped on the escalator. It’s a lot of a different life now. MUIR: It certainly is a new chapter for Donald Trump in New York City, a city that made him and as John said moments ago, today, a city that has profoundly impacted — where things go from here, though, whether or not this affects the outcome in November, certainly is an open ended question. Muir made sure to beat this dead horse with far-left congressional correspondent Rachel Scott, who was more than happy to oblige Muir’s focus on the May 5 ABC/Ipsos poll in which “20 percent of Donald Trump’s supporters said they would reconsider or withdraw their support for him if he were convicted in the New York case.” In turn, he argued, the Trump team has “got to be concerned about the potential if these numbers hold, because 20 percent of supporters who might reconsider changing their who they would vote for could be just enough to make the difference”. Scott agreed this will be a “big concern” and cited “advisers in the Trump campaign, allies of the former President, who have simply just been concerned about the image of having the former President, a presumptive Republican nominee, inside of the courtroom.” Muir worked in one last boast about how this would sway the election before resetting for World News Tonight in the East and Central time zones, hyping there will be “a question moving forward in the polling...whether or not certain voters in this country can stomach, if you will, voting for a convicted felon.” Amidst all the revelry, chief legal analyst and NewsNation host Dan Abrams provided a reality check, such as this instance when Muir voiced the left’s ultimate dream of jailing Trump (click “expand”): MUIR: [V]iewers at home are going to ask immediately, what does this mean? Could the former President be sentenced to potential time behind bars? We — we know there is the potential for that, though extremely unlikely for a first time offender, correct? ABRAMS: I think it is unlikely. This is the lowest level felony in the state of New York. We talk about misdemeanors versus felonies, but there’s also different levels of felony. This is a class E felony, the lowest kind. Donald Trump has never been convicted of a crime before. I think as a result, it is unlikely, not impossible, that he would be sentenced to prison time in connection with this case. There are other options, right? There is probation. I — I think the other potential option could be home confinement. Can you imagine that? And in an effort, if it were to happen before the election, someone who wants to be out on the campaign trail again, I think any serving of a sentence, though, very unlikely to happen before the election, a number of things will happen first. First, he’ll do an interview with the probation department. That is typical in any case. You have a meeting where you talk to a — because he’s going to have to have this meeting with the probation officer because the probation department then recommends what sentence they think the person ought to get. And then number two is a sentencing happened weeks, months ahead. There’s going to be appeals in this case, etc., so I think that the actual serving of the sentence, whatever it is, is probably some time away. MUIR: Some time away, Judge Juan Merchan will take into account whatever the probation officer suggests after this meeting that you say will take place, regardless of whether you’re sitting across from somebody, you know, who does what you and I do, or somebody who works in sort of any sector here in New York City and beyond. But this is the former president of the United States who will also have to sit across from this probation officer. How soon would we then hear from Judge Juan Merchan what the sentence will be? ABRAMS: So I think that we’re going to see when the sentencing date is set, right. To see the relevant ABC transcript from May 30, click here.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Touts ‘Extraordinary’ Trump Conviction, ‘Enormous Gravity’ for November

Thursday’s CBS News Special Report on the guilty verdict for former President Trump reveled in the sham trial brought by far-left Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg as “an extraordinary moment” of “enormous gravity” in which “everything about politics and law and our orientation to both are convulsed as never before”, but bemoaned the incoming “grievance war” from the Trump team and took exception to longtime correspondent Jan Crawford’s reality check. After it became known Trump was guilty on all 34 counts in the so-called “hush money” trial that’s interfered in the 2024 election, CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell paused to collect herself before saying in hushed tones, “this is an extraordinary moment.” Chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett concurred, saying “to hear you read what you just read is a moment of enormous gravity for this country” and something “we cannot overlook” as America has entered “completely uncharted territory”.     “This is not just a legal moment for this country. It is not just a political moment for this country. It is a moment where everything about politics and law and our orientation to both are convulsed as never before,” he added. Chief elections and campaign correspondent Robert Costa also sounded concerned and bemoaned Team Trump won’t simply accept the verdict and instead “fight”, lamenting “they plan to mount a grievance war across the country” in what should be “a moment of seriousness for the country in a legal, political, and democratic front”. After pointing out “there were cheers that went up in the park around us as the conviction was made clear”, Costa gloated the term convicted felon is “a tag that Donald Trump can no longer escape” and could haunt him with “swing voters in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the suburbs across the country”.     Not surprisingly, there was eager talk of whether Trump could face jailtime. Here was one such moment (click “expand”): O’DONNELL: Can he vote? GARRETT: Yes, cause he’s not — I mean, so he is not adjudicated fully, because the appellate process goes on, so it is not over until it's over, over and as Cy Vance indicated, that may take a considerable period of time, because the former President will try to find every venue possible, legal, to reevaluate and possibly overturn this verdict.  O’DONNELL: And in reading all the —  GARRETT: Until all that is done, he is a voter in good standing, to my understanding. O’DONNELL: There are former prosecutors who have said that it is unlikely that a         77-year-old former President, since this is his first offence, would be sentenced to jail. But it could happen. but could he be elected president while serving prison time? CRAWFORD: Well obviously that’s never happened, right? [GARRETT LAUGHS] But there is nothing that we know of that would stop that from happening. Even if he doesn't go to jail, I mean, there are a number of other options available to this judge including house arrest. What does that mean for the campaign? It is almost inconceivable —  O’DONNELL: Right. CRAWFORD: — to kind of think about all, you know, the road ahead for us now as this political campaign starts with a convicted felon thus potentially the Republican nominee. GARRETT: And our polling division and election analysts, Anthony Salvanto, others, know how difficult it has been, impossible Norah, to actually gauge what people's reaction is going to be if there was a conviction.  Garrett then proclaimed that, since America’s “now in the first hours of the country absorbing this”, there are no doubt those who are “enraged” and others finding “solace” in “accountability institutionally in our country” who are scared about what this means if he’s elected. Before she irked the rest of the CBS panel, Crawford noted Trump “set the groundwork” for doubt about our system on Wednesday “saying that Mother Teresa would not have even beaten these charges and that the system was rigged” and that “people will believe that”. Despite saying that and arguing “many people say that Donald Trump caused” Americans to lose “faith in our institutions”, she nonetheless faced serious pushback from O’Donnell and January 6 correspondent Scott MacFarlane when she simply stated the fact that Manhattan is an extremely liberal part of the country (click “expand” below the video):     MACFARLANE: There is going to be this process to try to discredit jurors. We have seen that in the previous prosecutions that are aligned to January 6 and the 2020 Election where they say it is a liberal jury in Washington, D.C., a liberal jury in Manhattan. Almost like there’s — CRAWFORD: Well, there is a liberal jury in Manhattan. MACFARLANE: And CRAWFORD: I think that is hard to argue with. MACFARLANE: — but from the moment the jurors met behind closed doors, you function as a jury. And the foreman had to get up and hold the microphone today and announce a verdict against a former U.S. President. And there is always is concern anybody related to the nexus of a Trump case has the threat of being threatened, doxed, or hassled. O’DONNELL: But Jan, those jurors also swore that they could be impartial. CRAWFORD: Oh, absolutely. O’DONNELL: So, just to say that they’re from a liberal area —  CRAWFORD: But we can’t also, like, deny — O’DONNELL: — that votes liberally and votes Democratic does not mean that they did not promise under oath that they could be impartial. CRAWFORD: And I certainly am not implying that. I'm saying that we have to acknowledge what the facts are, because those are facts that the American people are going to hear. GARRETT: To — to Jan's point, inferences will be drawn. O’DONNELL: Yeah. GARRETT: Inferences in the political dialogue across this country will be drawn about the composition of this jury and the location of this case.  Thankfully, Crawford wasn’t pounced on when she offered a second reality check, which was that there’s questions to be answered for “why the case wasn't brought initially under the previous district attorney and why the federal government didn't pursue these federal election charges against Trump.” “I mean, there’s a number of questions people are going to have, there’s number of questions that Trump is going to raise on appeal starting from the very beginning with the indictment itself, and how some of — you know, what was some of those underlying object offenses? There are constitutional issues that he can raise,” she correctly stated. To read the relevant CBS transcript from May 30, click here.

NB Blog Feed

WRAP-UP: TV’s Negative, Nasty, Lurid & Obsessive Coverage of Trump’s Trial

Jury deliberations have begun in Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Regardless of the verdict, Trump’s Democratic opponents have already received a massive media bonus from the flimsy legal case. Unlike the jury in the courtroom, millions of citizens have seen the evidence only as depicted by the liberal news networks — an often skewed version that seemed more designed to embarrass and antagonize the Republican presidential candidate than to scrutinize the merits of the case against him. Key findings of a study by the Media Research Center: ♦ ABC, CBS, and NBC have doled out more than ten hours (640 minutes) on the case. ♦ Out of 110 evening news stories, only three hinted that D.A. Alvin Bragg was a partisan Democrat. ♦ Guilty until proven innocent? Viewers heard the word “criminal” used 111 times in relation to the presumptive GOP nominee, slightly more than once per story. ♦ Burying Michael Cohen’s perjury conviction: 96 percent of TV’s Cohen coverage during the past six weeks omitted Cohen’s perjury conviction. ♦ Hiding Judge Merchan’s conflicts: None of the network evening newscasts informed viewers of any of the several conflicts raised against Judge Juan Merchan, including one donation to Joe Biden and another to the group “Stop Republicans.” ■ In just six weeks, ABC, CBS, and NBC have doled out more than ten hours (640 minutes) on the case across their flagship morning, evening, and Sunday political talk shows to interfere in the 2024 election. ABC has delivered the most coverage, an exhaustive 257 minutes that accounts for 40 percent of the overall tally. NBC’s news shows have supplied 222 minutes of trial coverage, while CBS churned out 161 minutes. While the networks have pushed the Trump trial to the top of the news, that’s not the case with an ongoing case of Democratic corruption. Since our report last week, there’s been zero additional broadcast coverage of liberal Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)’s bribery trial; the tally remains stuck at a piddling seven minutes and 56 seconds. A detailed analysis of the three evening newscasts: A deep dive into the networks’ nightly coverage — which accounts for 244 minutes of the broadcast total — can be used to extrapolate how biased journalists leveraged the left-wing Democratic D.A.’s pursuit of a weak legal case to tarnish the former President and 2024 frontrunner with weeks of negative, tabloid headlines. Our analysts reviewed all 110 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories that discussed Trump’s New York trial from April 14 (the day before it began) through the start of deliberations on May 29. ■ A Nonpartisan Prosecution? Out of 110 evening news stories, only three hinted that D.A. Alvin Bragg was a partisan Democrat. The CBS Evening News never permitted this point to be made during the trial, while ABC let it slip just once, in the form of a soundbite from Trump on the May 12 World News Tonight, when the former President was heard calling Bragg a “radical Democrat District Attorney.” On the NBC Nightly News, there were exactly two references to Bragg as a Democrat. “Mr. Trump lambastes the case as a Democratic conspiracy to hurt his re-election chances,” reporter Laura Jarrett summarized on April 15. A week later (April 22), anchor Lester Holt teed up reporter Hallie Jackson: “Hallie, this is a partisan prosecution in the opinion of Mr. Trump?” Jackson replied, “Yeah, that’s what his campaign has been saying.” There were three stories (one on NBC, two on ABC) that directly referenced lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, but none explained he had left a high-ranking job at Joe Biden’s Justice Department to join Bragg’s prosecution of Trump. Similarly, there were six stories which identified prosecutor Joshua Steinglass and two others that named Susan Hoffinger, but no explanation that the duo were veteran Trump antagonists, having helped Bragg previously prosecute the former President’s businesses in another case. Instead, the networks presented the case as a strictly law enforcement exercise, referring almost always to “the prosecutors/the prosecution” (216 times) or “the state” (7 times). On May 6, CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell introduced the case as “the People of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump,” thoroughly disguising the reality that this was not “the people” at work, but rather partisan Democrats. ■ Guilty until proven innocent? On April 15, ABC’s Aaron Katersky branded Trump “the first President in U.S. history to stand trial as a criminal defendant.” The same night, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell touted “the first criminal prosecution of a former President of the United States.” Of course that’s true, but only because of the partisan Bragg’s decision to indict Trump last year. Nevertheless, the networks enthusiastically hammered the point night after night. From April 14 through May 29, viewers heard the word “criminal” used 111 times in relation to the presumptive GOP nominee, slightly more than once per story; the term “felony” was heard an additional 18 times. Separately, NBC Nightly News used the more accurate phrase “low-level felony” nine times to describe the “Class E” (lowest level) charges against Trump, a distinction that the other broadcast networks never made. And, our analysts found, the phrase “hush money” — a tabloid term to describe a legal non-disclosure agreement — was used 113 times in these six weeks. In any other legal context, such repeated use of loaded language — “criminal,” “felony,” “hush money” — would be seen as creating a presumption of guilt around a defendant whom the legal system would consider innocent until proven guilty. NBC was the only network to provide any airtime to key points that would have given viewers important context, including how the previous Democratic District Attorney in Manhattan (Cy Vance), as well as federal prosecutors had looked at the same material and declined to press charges. NBC’s Laura Jarrett stated this fact twice on Nightly News, once on April 15 and again on April 22. Jarrett also undermined the prosecution's claim during opening statements that Trump’s conduct was “election fraud, pure and simple.” But, the NBC reporter countered: “Mr. Trump is not facing conspiracy or campaign finance violations, something the defense sought to highlight today.” While all of the networks quoted the arguments of Trump and his lawyers, Jarrett was the only correspondent who herself challenged elements of the prosecution’s case in advance of deliberations — and then for only 44 seconds (out of 244 total minutes of trial coverage). ■ Burying Michael Cohen’s perjury conviction: As would be expected, the networks’ coverage spent a significant portion of their airtime discussing former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s role in the case. From April 14 through May 29, the networks spent 75 minutes on Cohen, out of 244 total minutes, or roughly 30% of the evening news coverage. Yet despite Cohen’s central role in both the case and the coverage, network reporters barely mentioned his previous conviction for perjury. This inconvenient fact received just 94 seconds on the CBS Evening News, 80 seconds on the NBC Nightly News, and a pathetic 10 seconds on ABC’s World News Tonight. “One major challenge for prosecutors is getting the jury to believe Michael Cohen,” CBS’s Robert Costa admitted on May 13. “He’s a convicted felon who spent time in prison and admitted lying to Congress.” It was a “major challenge,” yet 96 percent of TV’s Cohen coverage during the past six weeks omitted this crucial fact. If the chief accuser of a Democratic politician had been a previously convicted liar, it’s not far-fetched to assume that such information would rate much more coverage than was the case with Cohen’s accusations against Trump. ■ Hiding Judge Merchan’s conflicts: None of the network evening newscasts informed viewers of any of the several conflicts raised against Judge Juan Merchan, including one donation to Joe Biden and another to the group “Stop Republicans,” both in 2020. “While the amounts here are minimal, it’s surprising that a sitting judge would make political donations of any size to a partisan candidate or cause,” CNN legal analyst Elie Honig commented last year. The closest any viewers came to learning about the questions surrounding Merchan’s bias came when Trump was shown speaking outside the courtroom, as on the April 18 CBS Evening News: “You’ve got a D.A. that’s out of control. You have a judge that’s highly conflicted.” Yet throughout the trial, reporters never explained the conflicts that Trump referred to. The last time any network newscasts did was weeks earlier on April 2, when NBC Nightly News reporter Gabe Gutierrez provided one sentence of context explaining why Merchan’s gag order had been expanded to include “relatives of court staff.” Why? Because, Gutierrez noted, “Mr. Trump on social media attacked the judge’s adult daughter, who is a political consultant for Democrats.” That’s the last time any evening news viewer actually heard about the younger Merchan’s work as President of Authentic Campaigns, with clients such as California Democratic Senate candidate Adam Schiff, a longtime Trump nemesis, and even current Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign. Instead of focusing on these conflicts, the networks presented Merchan as an unbiased voice of authority. Most of the time (57% of stories), Merchan wasn’t even referred to by name, merely as “the judge,” cloaking him in the institutional respect that the role presumes ■ Heavy on the sleaze: Instead of scrutinizing the case against Trump, the networks (especially ABC and CBS) reveled in the tawdry, tabloid testimony against him — even though they had been previously reported years earlier, and had little to do with the question of business records at the heart of the case. On 91 occasions (sometimes more than once per story), evening news viewers heard allegations that Trump engaged in extramarital sex. Most, but not all, of these references were accompanied by a perfunctory, one-sentence reminder that Trump had denied all such charges. The word “porn” was used 47 times, compared with 35 instances when the slightly-less vulgar “adult film” modifier was used to describe Stormy Daniels’ profession. Fourteen times, viewers heard that another accuser, Karen McDougal, was a “Playboy” model. The networks regurgitated old and negative claims against Trump, even if they were not permitted in court. In advance of the trial, Judge Merchan forbade playing clips of the infamous Access Hollywood tape — first shown eight years ago — in order, the judge wrote, “to avoid undue prejudice.” Yet ABC’s World News Tonight ran such prejudicial clips six times during the trial, while the CBS Evening News aired such material twice. “I just start kissing them,” those tuning in to CBS on April 25 heard Trump allegedly telling Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush. “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” ABC viewers heard Trump boast all six times the Access Hollywood tape was mentioned on World News Tonight. “They let you do anything.” NBC Nightly News was once again the most restrained, running the video just once with sound (April 21), and then only an innocuous clip of Trump saying “nice to see you” to a woman outside the trailer. Four times, the CBS Evening News dug up clips from their network’s six-year-old 60 Minutes interview with Stormy Daniels, including a segment in which Daniels alleged she had “unprotected sex” with Trump and how she supposedly directed the future President to “turn around and take off his pants,” and “gave him a couple of swats.” In that same May 7 newscast, CBS News legal expert Rikki Klieman explained it was all irrelevant: “There is no legal significance to the salacious details” in Daniels’ testimony — and none, presumably, in the inflammatory quotes resurrected by CBS for the trial. ■ A six-week long negative ad: This wave of tawdry allegations, plus a prosecution presented as nonpartisan, added up to heavily negative coverage of the former President. Between April 14 and May 29, our analysts tallied 230 negative statements about Trump related to the trial, vs. just seven positive statements (mostly soundbites from pro-Trump rallygoers who rejected the idea that the case might shake their support). This translates to 97% negative coverage (methodological details below), which would be  historic negativity if it wasn’t nearly identical to these networks previous coverage of Trump in other contexts. Don’t think this steady drumbeat of negative anti-Trump news doesn’t matter: An April poll by NBC News found that while Trump had a narrow (46% to 44%) national lead, voters who say they primarily get their information from “national network news like NBC, ABC or CBS” said they preferred Biden in a landslide (55% to 35%). And, according to NBC’s poll, nearly one-third of voters (32%) say they depend on the “national network news” for their information. For the last six weeks, those voters have been treated to a festival of Trump-bashing, as the networks amplify the worst allegations against the former President. So even if the trial doesn’t give liberals the Trump conviction they’ve yearned for, it’s still been an election-year bonanza for Democrats, who’ve enjoyed watching their nemesis getting pilloried by the press. +++++ METHODOLOGY:  We calculated the spin of Trump’s trial coverage by tallying all clearly positive and negative statements from non-partisan or unaffiliated sources — in other words, reporters, anchors, voters. We excluded evaluative comments from Trump himself, his staff and identified surrogates, as well as all identified Democrats. It also excludes “horse race assessments” about the candidates’ prospects for winning or losing.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Bighorn Sheep, Murder Fantasies, and a Whole Lot of Waiting

Pivoting back to the news of the week after our big interview with Mary Margaret Olohan on release day for her book on trangenderism, I was joined by Associate Editor Nick Fondacaro as poked fun at the ratings of CNN’s pitiful primetime lineup with some help from a new piece by our own Bill D’Agostino. Isn’t it amazing that there are more wild Bighorn Sheep and female forklift operators than CNN primetime viewers between the ages of 25 and 54? We also dug into the only White House press briefing of the week as the Hidin’ Biden campaign continues. Thankfully, Doocy Time left the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre in need of a new fainting couch. Later, we dug into the worst of ABC’s The View from the week thus far, including one guest’s bizarre murder fantasy. And, of course, we discussed the hubbub surrounding jury deliberations in the Trump trial. Listen to the full show below or wherever you find your podcasts.

NB Blog Feed

FNC’s Doocy, CBS’s O’Keefe Only Reporters to Grill KJP on Hunter Biden Trial

Tuesday marked the only scheduled White House press briefing of the week ahead of President Biden’s European trip to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day, so plenty of anti-Israel questions flew in the wake of a deadly strike inside Rafa (including this from CBS’s Ed O’Keefe). Unfortunately, O’Keefe and Fox’s Peter Doocy were the only reporters in the nearly 25 minutes (24:43) of Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre taking questions to invoke the upcoming Hunter Biden trial. O’Keefe went first after he had Jean-Pierre confirm Tuesday was the only formal briefing: “[G]iven something that’s scheduled to begin on Monday, I’m curious, how does the President plan to monitor the federal trial of his son, which is set to begin on Monday?”     Jean-Pierre stumbled her way through in refusing to say whether the President will be monitoring the proceedings: Look, I — I don’t have any — obviously — anything specific to share about that. I’m always very mindful — uh — on speaking to that, I will say what I have said many times before the President and the First Lady — they love their son. They are proud of how their son has been able to get back on his feet and continue — um — uh — his progress and they will — uh — continue to support him outside of that. I don’t have anything to share. O’Keefe followed up with the next obvious question, which was whether Joe will “try to attend” any of it “in person.” Jean-Pierre reiterated she had nothing “to share” other than Biden would soon be busy on this “incredibly important foreign policy travel where we are going to, obviously, be in France for the anniversary of D-Day, so the President looks forward to doing that, to being in France” and attend a state dinner. A few minutes later Doocy drilled down on the trial with a curious visit the President made over the weekend: “[W]hy did President Biden have a private meeting with a witness who plans to testify in court against his son?” Asked to “say more”, Doocy replied he brought this up because “Hallie Biden is a key government witness who allegedly disposed of a gun that Hunter is accused of buying illegally” and “President Biden was at her house this week.” Jean-Pierre feigned outrage at Doocy’s supposed insensitivity because this visit was only to mark the ninth anniversary of the President’s son Beau’s passing and Hallie is Beau’s widow (who also, for a time, was in a weird romantic fling with Hunter) (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: I think the American people should also be told the full breadth of this — not just a part of this question here — uh — as you all know — uh — the President actually spoke to this yesterday during his Memorial — I think impactful, powerful Memorial Day address where he talked about — he talked about the passing the anniversary — the ninth anniversary of the passing of his son, and he visited her — as that anniversary is approaching. He visited her a days before the anniversary of the passing of his son and — uh — she is family. She was married, obviously, to his late son. Ah — and I think that is something also to mention as you’re asking your question to me. DOOCY: So — so, they did not talk about her testimony. JEAN-PIERRE: This was not about that. This was about literally — the ninth anniversary of the passing of his son — DOOCY: One more. JEAN-PIERRE: — that is upcoming — in days, Peter. Doocy stuck to the issue of Hunter Biden by mentioning the fact that former stripper and Hunter Biden ex-girlfriend Lunden Roberts will be releasing a book about her time with the now-First Family and her daughter Navy Joan Roberts, whom the President spent years denying she existed. In turn, Doocy wondered whether the President has even Navy Joan, but Jean-Pierre ducked: “I don’t have anything to share.” Prior to the Hunter questions, Doocy first had a blunt query: “Are you guys here at the White House in full-blown freak out mode?” “What are you talking about? What are you talking about,” a flustered Jean-Pierre replied, to which Doocy explained was merely him quoting a Politico story about Biden’s bad polling causing a Democrat Party “freak out” At the other end of the question spectrum, theGrio’s Gerren Keith Gaynor and Bloomberg Government’s Courtney Rozen had questions from the left on Vice President Kamala Harris and undermining the Supreme Court’s legitimacy (as the Court remains out of the far-left’s control) (click “expand”): GAYNOR: A recent Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll found an increased number of Americans in battleground states trust the vice president to fulfill the duties of the presidency. I know you can’t comment on election related topics, but this — this poll does suggest that the VP’s travels to battleground states have been resonating with Americans. Given that increased trust in her leadership, what is the White House’s view of the vice president’s travels to battleground states, particularly her economic opportunity tour where she’s been selling — the administration’s policies to black and brown communities in particular? Does the White House believe that they have been effective on the ground? (....) GAYNOR: Legal experts say that the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that blocked a second black majority District in South Carolina can make it harder for it to prove claims of racial gerrymandering — I mean — will have long lasting implications for black voters. While the President, in his statement last week, reacting to this ruling, called for the passing of the John Lewis Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, given the makeup of this Court and other controversial rulings that this President has condemned, does the President have faith in this court? Does he have faith in the court? And would he consider publicly supporting what some Democrats are calling for, which is reform of the Supreme Court, whether that be expansion of membership or term limits? (....) ROZEN: The New York Times reported over the last few weeks that a flat — that two different flags associated with the January  attack on the Capitol flew outside Justice Alito’s home — two different homes. The President — does the President believe that Justice Alito should recuse himself from any cases related to January 6 or otherwise take any ethical actions related to this reporting? Separately, Fox News Radio’s Jared Halpern had an interesting exchange earlier with national security spokesman and frequent Jean-Pierre crutch John Kirby about the expensive but failing pier in Gaza constructed by the U.S. military: .@FoxNewsRadio's @JaredHalpern: “Can you say whether or not — uh — in the — uh — the setbacks of the — the temporary pier, is the US gonna increase airdrops for aid? Is there a way — a mechanism to kind of make up for — for what's not getting in the Gaza because of the pier being… pic.twitter.com/96W1tQEURb — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 28, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the May 28 briefing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Deconstructing ‘Detrans’ With Mary Margaret Olohan

Detrans: True Stories of Escaping the Gender Ideology Cult is out Tuesday and we spoke with its author — 2023 MRC Bulldog Award winner and Daily Signal senior writer Mary Margaret Olohan — about what she’s discovered in speaking with several young men and women who had fallen victim to transgender ideology. We also discussed the Orwellian doublespeak in media style guides from groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign and received an update on the many lawsuits filed against allegedly unethical medical providers. One of the country’s most connected and esteemed pro-life reporters, Olohan has spent years accruing sources and cultivating relationships with Americans the liberal media ignore on topics such as abortion, the Catholic Church, culture, education, freedom, life, protecting children, and, as we discussed, defending the simple fact that men are men and women are women. After the interview, we discussed our takeaways from the book. Nick pointed out the unethical nature of the apparent psychiatrist-to-hormone/surgery pipeline, which industry professionals bragged about as very lucrative. He also highlighted their insistence that transitioning was a silver bullet to treat gender dysphoria. As for Curtis, he observed how the book points to the high correlation between autism spectrum disorder (or ASD, which sometimes goes undiagnosed), the deceitful pull of transgenderism, and the lack of mental health resources for treating children with ASD or other developmental challenges.

NB Blog Feed

NewsBusters Podcast: Alito Flag Hubbub Shows Journos Need Real Hobbies

Alongside Associate Editor Nick Fondacaro for this Friday edition of the show, we dove into the wholly manufactured liberal media storyline (courtesy of The New York Times) of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and flags outside his homes as a sign he’s ethically and morally compromised as a jurist and – gasp – a far-right extremist! Simply put, the obsession over this story and the double standard created illustrates how far too many liberals need to grow up and touch some grass. It’s a genuinely disturbing to see in real time neighbor turning against neighbor, putting one’s petty political grudges over basic social cohesion. We also discussed Ted Cruz entering the lion’s den at CNN in a duel with former conservative reporter Kaitlan Collins, who pretended to be offended when Cruz pointed out the left’s history of denying election results they dislike. Not to be left out, The View got its due, as did an amazingly tone-deaf MSNBC bit on food prices from multimillionaire Stephanie Ruhle. Listen to the show below or wherever you get your podcasts.

NB Blog Feed

‘I Am Not on the Left!’ CBS’s Dokoupil Shrieks When Called Out by Charlamagne

The tail end of Charlamagne tha God’s appearance on Thursday’s CBS Mornings ended on a deliciously uncomfortable note as the longtime radio host called out socialist co-host Tony Dokoupil as being part of “the left” and refusing to admit he’d be voting for Joe Biden. This led to a nervous Dokoupil twice shouting as the show went to break that he’s “not on the left”. The CBS co-host found himself in this position in part due to his persistence in lecturing Charlamagne to not just vote for Joe Biden, but endorse him and encourage listeners to participate in the democratic process.     Dokoupil began by acknowledging the unease around the election and unpopularity of both President Biden and former President Trump and, after pointing out Charlamagne has said he’ll vote for but not wave pom-poms for Biden, he lectured the Breakfast Club host to do more to encourage voting: You are saying that you are not endorsing Joe Biden, but you will vote for Joe Biden. And you point out in the book that a lot of people are on the couch. They don’t like either candidate. You’ve called them trash choices. Don’t you think you have a responsibility as somebody in the public eye to excite young people to get off the couch and make a choice because sitting out is a kind of a vote in its own way, it supports one or the other? Thinking like any sane person would where politics isn’t central to their being, Charlamagne replied he “can’t lie to my audience” and thus, “if I’m not excited, why would I you know, lie to my audience and try to get them excited and I don’t think it’s my job, you know, to get people excited” but rather “the candidates”. “[I]f they want people to be excited about voting, they probably should run better candidates,” he added, to which Dokoupil and Burleson wondered if this meant not voting at all, down to the state and local level. Unsurprisingly Charlamagne said that’s not what he meant. Only then did the radio host give them what they were looking for with regards to bashing Trump as “a threat to democracy” and, in turn, a vote for him would mean supporting the end to your system of government (click “expand”): CHARLAMAGNE: But it’s not even just about, you know, participating in democracy. This election is about protecting democracy — GAYLE KING: Ahhh. CHARLAMAGNE: — and you know, it’s funny to me, because, you know, I come on these programs and a lot of the left leaning programs, y’all just don’t know how to push narratives, because I’ll come on these program and say, I think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy. I’ll say that he, you know, suspended — he wanted to suspend the Constitution to overthrow the results of an election, you know, he led an attempted coup in his country, but you never lead with that. But if I say Joe Biden and the uninspiring candidate, that will be the headline. DOKOUPIL: How about — CHARLAMAGNE: — the right does a great job of pushing their narrative regardless. DOKOUPIL: — yeah, but democracy dies if people don’t participate in it at all. CHARLAMAGNE: I’m not telling people not to participate, I am voting. I’ve consistently said I’m voting and I’ve told you who I think the threat to democracy is, which is Donald Trump. (....) CHARLAMAGNE: [I]t’s three choices you have this year. You have the Republicans who are the crooks, the Democrats who are cowards because they don’t fight enough, and the couch, which is voter apathy. It is the candidate’s job to energize people to get off the couch. Only thing I can do is constantly tell you what I think and I think that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.  He added this kicker: “Now, Tony with me saying that, who do you think — who would you vote for with me saying that?” Dokoupil insisted he’s “thinking about...democracy dying because people do not engage with it,” but Charlamagne kept pressing Dokoupil and rebutted the claim he’s not “engaged” in the democratic process. Dokoupil then became nervous: “We’re — we’re going to get — we’re in trouble now on this commercial break. I’ll sell your book and then pay some bills.” When Charlamagne said “I want Tony to answer the question” and Dokoupil kept ducking, he frustratingly declared this was emblematic of how “the left sucks at pushing” narratives. This led to furious shouts from Dokoupil before reading a tease about a CBS Mornings Deals segment: “I am not on the left! I am not on the left.” To see the relevant transcript from May 23, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Cruz Schools CNN’s Collins on Leftist Narratives on Abortion, Alito, Election Fraud

In a chaotic interview on Wednesday’s The Source between Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) of Texas and CNN host Kaitlan Collins, what started out as a relatively tame discussion (by CNN’s standards) on in vitro fertilization (IVF), soon turned into a pointed clash on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and potential voter fraud. The former Daily Caller reporter, who found herself repeatedly flustered as Cruz schooled her, chose to inhibit Cruz from answering about accepting the 2024 results as it was not a simple yes or no.  Regardless of the unprofessional interruptions made by Collins, Cruz answered confidently, pointing out the clear bias of his interviewer. All throughout, it was evident that there was an ulterior motive to her questions. When the answer was not to her liking, she either shifted the dialogue in hopes of forcing Cruz to answer a pointed question or spoke over his response entirely.     Between the clear prejudice in each question and her defense of every leftist view, Collins proved herself to be a perfect depiction of the Leftist Media. As such, she proceeded to corner Cruz into a strictly “yes or no answer” question regarding election fraud: “In 2024, will you certify the election results? Do you plan to object? Or will you accept the results regardless of who wins the election?” Cruz blasted this as “actually a ridiculous question” and, from there, the races began. Collins would, truthfully, not let Cruz answer the question, even when Cruz repeatedly asked her whether she’s talked to Democrats about their own troubles with accepting elections.  Collins countered by invoking January 6 in order to support allowing leftists to question elections with Cruz reciting the history and lambasting the liberal media’s false choice demanding the public believe voter fraud never exists (as opposed to a nuanced view). Collins didn’t want to discuss any of this, including direct precedent to 1876 (click “expand”): COLLINS: It’s a yes-or-no question, though. CRUZ: No, it’s not. Let me explain why it’s a ridiculous question. It’s not a question. You’ve ever asked a Democrat that? COLLINS: Of course. CRUZ: What Democrat? COLLINS: But what Democrats — CRUZ: — whoa, no, but hold on a second. What Democrats challenge it? COLLINS: What Democrats — CRUZ: Hill — COLLINS: I know. I know. I’ve been down this road many times. CRUZ: — but — but — but— COLLINS: No Democrat — you cannot compare the two situations. We have talked about that. We’ve seen the audio of that when they protested on the Senate floor. CRUZ: Okay, but — but hold on a second. COLLINS: But have they ever — have you ever had a sitting president, who refused to facilitate the peaceful transition of power — CRUZ: And by the way — COLLINS: — refused to acknowledge that his successor won the presidency? CRUZ: — uhhh — sooo, A, we did have a peaceful transfer of power. I was there on January 20. I was there on the swearing-in. COLLINS: Barely. CRUZ: B, if you look at in — in 2000, Democrats went to the Senate — or 2001, Democrats went to the Senate floor and objected to George W. Bush. In 2004 — COLLINS: And what did the Vice President do? CRUZ: — they went and objected. In — COLLINS: And what did the President do? CRUZ: — in 2016, Democrats went and objected to Donald Trump. (....) CRUZ: [Y]ou’re asking, will you promise, no matter what, to agree an election as illegitimate, regardless of what happens? And that would be an absurd thing to claim. Like, we have an entire election law system that people challenge elections, elections get overturned, voter fraud gets proven. That happens all the time and the media engages in this weird game, post-Donald Trump that you insist no voter fraud has ever existed. Why does every state have laws in place to challenge voter fraud, if it occurs — COLLINS: The media doesn’t — CRUZ: — why do you have election challenges? COLLINS: — this isn’t a game. There was no widespread voter fraud. CRUZ: It is a game. It is — you only ask Republicans that. COLLINS: There was this — CRUZ: You ask what — COLLINS: — because it was Republicans, who tried to block the transition of power. You have to acknowledge that. CRUZ: So — COLLINS: We’ve never seen it on a scale of what happened in 2020 and we’ve never seen the President refuse. He wouldn’t even let Joe Biden get classified briefings at the beginning. I recall that. CRUZ: — so — so, let me be— COLLINS: So, my question for you, again, free and fair election, will you accept the results regardless of who wins? CRUZ: Look, if the Democrats win, I will accept the result, but I’m not going to ignore fraud, regardless of what happens? COLLINS: But was there fraud in 2020? CRUZ: Of course, there was fraud in 2020. COLLINS: No, there wasn’t. (....) CRUZ: I tried to look through history and precedent and the best precedent I could find was the election of 1876. Elect — 1876 was between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden and what happened there, there were serious allegations of voter fraud. And — and Congress didn’t throw its hands up and say, you know what? CNN demanded that I accept the results no matter what. So, ignore the fraud. I got to go. COLLINS: It’s not on — it’s not— CRUZ: So, but hold on. What did Congress do in 18 — COLLINS: It’s the President of the United States. How did the President— CRUZ: — what did Congress do in 1876? COLLINS: How did the President handle it? CRUZ: What did Congress do in 1876? COLLINS: Senator, I have to go. CRUZ: What — I’m asking a question. COLLINS: You can’t answer yes or no, to this question. CRUZ: I’m asking a question. What did Congress do in 1876? COLLINS: You can’t answer yes or no, to this question. CRUZ: Can you answer my question? COLLINS: And Republicans — CRUZ: Why are you refusing to answer my question? COLLINS: — well I’m conducting the interview with all due respect, Senator. (....) COLLINS: And what’s your answer? Is it yes, or is it no? CRUZ: So, in 1876, what Congress did is it appointed an election commission that consisted of 15 people, five House members, five senators, five Supreme Court justices. The election commission was charged with studying the evidence, and making a determination of what voter fraud occurred, and that determined the winter and what I called for in 2020 was to do the same thing, appoint an election commission. At one point, Cruz leveled a brutal takedown of CNN’s double standard: “It was CNN that relentlessly pushed....propaganda....that voter fraud doesn’t exist and anyone who says it does is wearing a tinfoil hat. That is propaganda and by the way, you never ask Hillary Clinton this. You never ask Stacey Abrams this. You never ask Al Gore this. And every one of them said the Republicans who won were illegitimate.” Collins again scoffed: “I haven’t had any of them on my show. We’ll talk to them. But I don’t remember there being a president, who was refusing to turn over the transition of power, and facilitating it.” When Cruz tried to say “let me say a final point”, an infuriated Collins endinged the interview: “Senator Ted Cruz, no answer to that question. Thank you very much.” CNN’s snarky chyron had a different take: “Straight to the Source; Cruz refuses to commit to accept 2024 results.” The interview began with Cruz’s IVF bill and Collins being concerned about a wholesale ban and prosecution. Cruz ripped this “fear-mongering” attitude she shared with other Democratic politicians, so she shifted to the story of Kate Cox, asking if he agreed with the Court's ruling. Cruz calmly stated the Court was “right in saying that the Texas Medical Board should set the rules,” which makes perfect sense, and makes us wonder why the journalist then defended the idea that lawmakers should clarify such medical standards. Before a break, Collins invoked the flags kerfuffle over Justice Alito’s homes. Cruz dismissed this as “entire hoopla” as “greatly overstated” and part of “a concerted effort…driven by Democrats in the Senate, to try to delegitimize the court, and to try to demonize” conservative justices. Collins stubbornly stuck to her left talking points: “Do you not worry that it undercuts his credibility, as a justice, when he does something like this?”

NB Blog Feed

Surprise: NBC’s Peter Alexander Grills KJP Over Biden’s Student Loan Handouts

With President Biden on the road Monday and Tuesday then a joint press conference Thursday with the Kenyan president, reporters jammed a lot of questions into Wednesday’s press briefing to the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre. Thankfully, NBC’s Peter Alexander woke up ready to do his job with probing questions to the press secretary, even if they’re on the same side of the aisle. The topic was even more surprising: student loan debt cancelations. Alexander went about it like the man who usually sits next to him (but not on this day) in Fox’s Peter Doocy. Alexander first pointed out she “opened today’s briefing by talking about the latest student loan cancelations” and asked her to respond to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) calling it “a massive wealth transfer for Americans who did not attend college to those who did” and “a shameful play to buy more votes”.     Jean-Pierre gave a classic, rambling answer worth reading in full (click “expand”): I will say to the congressional member Mike Johnson — obviously, the speaker — is that what is shameful is that Republicans continue to get in the way of helping us deliver a little bit of breathing room for Americans who deserve that opportunity — who deserve you — heard me talk about — uh — uh — about Tiffany, the young woman who — who — um — one of the things that people should know and if — if you don’t is that when folks are — are receiving these — these — um — debt relief — uh — uh — announcements from President, they have an opportunity to tell their story.  They have an opportunity to — to say why this matters to them and we’re talking about millions of Americans who now have an opportunity to start a life, have an opportunity to move forward in a way that where they can reach that American Dream or reach whatever it is that they wanted to do not just for themselves for — for — for them for their families, so we believe — and the President is not going to walk away from doing that. He believes it’s an important commitment that he made to — to Americans. It is a broken system. It is a broken system. Alexander then unleashed his hardball: [W]hat then is the White House’s message to those Americans who did not attend college for a variety of reasons, perhaps — including perhaps that they didn’t want to take on all the debt that went with it right now that they feel like, in some form, they are responsible for allowing those who did not to pay their fair share? Jean-Pierre insisted this was proof Biden is “building an economy that leaves no one behind”, which Alexander immediately interjected with a reality check: “Are those people being left behind? The ones who didn’t get support because they didn’t go to college?” The press secretary wanted nothing to do with this and plowed ahead with her world divorced from reality except for those whom the Biden camp needs to secure reelection. To his credit, Alexander didn’t back down (click “expand”): JEAN-PIERRE: I hear your question, but this is — if you look at what the President has done more holistically over the past 3.5 years, he has tried to build an economy for everyone. This is one part of his economic policy. When you think about creating — creating 15 million jobs, many of those jobs if you think about the different — uh — uh — uh — different — uh — legislation that he’s obviously passed into law, whether it’s the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, Chips and Science Act, it’s creating jobs that are good, union-paying jobs that — where you don’t need a college education —  right — where you can make six figures and actually have that opportunity to start your family. He is creating an economy from the bottom up, middle out, making sure that the millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying their fair share — fair share — right — not like Republicans in Congress who want to give them a tax giveaway. So, he’s trying to make sure — this is one part of his economic policy, but as he’s thinking forward, as he’s looking at all Americans, all communities, he wants to make sure that there is an economy that doesn’t leave — again — doesn’t leave anybody behind and as — historically, that trickle down economics does not work, and he does not want to see that, so we have given opportunities and we want to continue to give opportunities for folks who feel like they need a little bit more help. ALEXANDER: And I guess to put just a fine point on it right — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. ALEXANDER: — now for the 4.7 million Americans who have received this debt relief, the averages, you said, at the start of this —  JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. About 35,000. ALEXANDER: — this was $35,000 their relief has been for, so I guess why don’t those individuals who didn’t receive $35,000 in debt cancellation deserve a $35,000 check from other Americans for what other means they would want to use it? JEAN-PIERRE: You’re talking about the —  ALEXANDER: The people who didn’t go to college, so they’re not getting debt relief — the $35,000 that they don’t get because they didn’t go. JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, we’re talking about folks who are in debt who are literally being crushed — literally being crushed....financially. Um — and — uh — so, they’re trying to get their lives back on track — right — they’re trying to get into a place because they took — they took a bet on themselves in a different way — right — and betting of — of themselves and going to college and some of them, it is difficult to do that, right? And they did that financially. It’s hurt them, and we want to give them that breathing room. But it’s not just folks who have debt because of colleges. We’re trying to help people in different — in different communities as well. Uh — folks who don’t have to get that college degree and can get — make six figure salary. That is one of the things that the president was very proud of when he passed the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, when he signed the Chips and Science Act. Those are really important components of what he’s trying to do as well. Let’s — if you think about making sure healthcare — healthcare is more affordable, getting that prescription drugs — many for diabetes, for cancer, making sure those costs are lower — insulin, so there are many ways that the President has made sure that Americans have what they need to move forward with their lives, create and build a family where they feel like they’re going after their dreams as well. And so, look, you know, we want to make sure that, again, the student loan piece is one part — one part of the President’s economic policy, and the President’s not going to step away from it. He’s not going to back down because he believes it’s the right thing to do. A few minutes later, the Fox Business Network’s Grady Trimble returned to student loans, wondering why those who took out loans are, in the words of the undersecretary of education, “due forgiveness”. “Everybody has a different story as to why they need student loans. Everybody has different reasoning as to why they want to go to college. I cannot speak for everyone,” Jean-Pierre mumbled, leading Trimble to ask it again. Jean-Pierre doubled down about this “crushing financial burden” and insisted a “majority of Americans agree” with the regime on mass forgiveness. When Trimble pointed out a Fox “poll show[s] more than half disagree with using tax dollars” and then asked if inflation is made worse by these moves, Jean-Pierre stood pat. Trimble’s Fox colleague Jacqui Heinrich had the Fox News seat and closed the briefing by stating the obvious that one could see Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) reintroducing of the failed Senate border bill as “a cynical attempt to try to show Americans that Democrats care about the border”. Some following the five D’s of dodgeball by Jean-Pierre later, Heinrich fact-checked her on who ultimately has responsibility to control America’s borders: “[Y]ou opened briefing by saying it’s up to Republicans to do something to solve the problem or continue to use it as a political issue. The President has the authority to do something about this unilaterally.” Later in the briefing, she really dropped the hammer on the border crisis to the point that Jean-Pierre could only say she’d defer to Senate Democrats: Well, just because, in the framework through which is coming up again, again, not allowing for any changes, no indication this votes’s going to be different and it looks like, if anything, bringing up this vote again and setting it up to fail again, is really just an indication that Democrats know that they’re vulnerable on this issue? To see the relevant transcript from the May 22 briefing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

ELECTION INTERFERENCE: Nets Spend Heaping 573 Minutes on Trump-Bragg Trial

Despite the legal justifications viewed as anywhere from flimsy to non-existent, ABC, CBS, and NBC rose to the occasion for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) by spending an interminable 573 minutes on the trial of former President Donald Trump, an un-American leftist charade to influence the 2024 election. NewsBusters examined every allusion to and mention of the Trump trial on the major broadcast networks during their flagship morning shows, evening newscasts, and Sunday political talk shows, starting with the morning of jury selection on April 15. In the 38 days since the trial began, the networks have dedicated 573 minutes and 25 seconds.  Put another way, the networks have force-fed viewers more than nine hours of coverage. ABC obliterated the competition with a combined 237 minutes (236:36) between Good Morning America (GMA), This Week, and World News Tonight, accounting for roughly 41 percent of the overall total. GMA also claimed the distinction of being the newscast with the most time spent on the trial with 136 minutes (136:29). The chief reason for this dishonor was thanks to co-host and former Clinton flack, George Stephanopoulos. As he’d introduce the show’s Trump trial coverage, his openings were nauseating. “We’re going to start with the trial of Donald Trump. What a moment in American history. 45 men have served as president. Donald Trump is the only one ever indicted for the crime. That’s happened four times. He will enter the courtroom this morning as the only former President to ever stand trial on criminal charges,” he somberly said on April 15. Reacting the next day, Stephanopoulos excitedly told chief Washington correspondent and three-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl that “we’ve been talking about the political and legal calendars clashing for about a year,” and “[y]esterday, it became real and it felt the dynamic may be changing from....earlier when Donald Trump was so convinced this was helping him every day.” “I could see it in his behavior, in his demeanor. This was a wake-up call for Donald Trump. This is his new reality. He is now criminal defendant Trump....[H]e 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,” Karl proclaimed. Stephanopoulos struck a similar tone on April 22, hours before opening statements: We begin with something unprecedented in American history. Opening statements in the criminal trial of a former President. Presidents have been impeached. They’ve resigned. They’ve been voted out of office. Never before has a former President faced a jury of his peers in a criminal court. Fast-forward to May 15 and senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott was shaken by Republicans showing up to support Trump in court: A striking moment in politics, George. This is not just any Republican lawmaker. This is the Speaker of the House, second in line to the presidency showing up in this Manhattan courtroom outside to blast the American judicial system and to do what Donald Trump cannot do, which is go after the witnesses...[I]f you had a any doubt this is a Republican party that has lined up around the former president, all you have to do is look at that image of Trump and all those Republicans lining up behind him[.] NBC was firmly in second place with 199 minutes (198:47). That said, the peacock network shouldn’t be confused with Trump supporters. Along with time allotted, a story’s placement within a newscast illustrates what the network believes is most important (and hopes you agree). NBC Nightly News earned that distinction as they opened 17 times with the trial. “In a moment he had desperately tried to delay or derail, Donald Trump took the defendant’s seat in a Manhattan courtroom today for the start of his first criminal trial, a historic moment for a former American president that brought him practically face-to-face with a stream of prospective jurors. New Yorkers, who could potentially determine his fate,” NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt boomed on April 15. Holt was also moved on May 7 by the Stormy Daniels testimony: “A star prosecution witness in the criminal trial of Donald Trump appeared on the witness stand...[Trump] coming face-to-face with adult film actress Stormy Daniels as she testified, at times graphically, about a sexual liaison she says she had with Mr. Trump in 2006.” Longtime NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell ironically complained on the April 21 Meet the Press that “the trial is crowding out everything else,” including President Biden’s ability to fully use the bully pulpit. And, from an ethical standpoint, who has NBC used for analysis and reporting on the trial? Saturday Today co-host and senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett, who’s the daughter of longtime Obama family confidante Valerie Jarrett. Like their perpetually lackluster ratings, CBS was in third place with just over 138 minutes (138:02). CBS carried the perhaps laudatory distinction of having its hour-long Sunday talk show Face the Nation devote the least amount of time for any of the nine newscasts at just 13 seconds over five shows. CBS Mornings co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King kvetched on April 16 that she was “worr[ied] that the audience just hears white noise when they hear all of these cases running together.” King would be proven right as a PBS NewsHour/NPR Marist poll on May 1 found 55 percent of Americans were “not very closely” or “not closely at all” following the proceedings. CBS still tried to make fetch happen with dramatic proclamations, like this one from CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell on May 20: [T]onight, a dramatic day in court...The first-ever criminal trial of a former American president is nearing an end. Late today, the prosecution has rested...Witnesses on the stand today made for what some experts are describing as a wild day. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, admitted under oath to stealing money from the Trump Organization during an intense cross-examination. And then, fireworks during testimony of a defense witness that led to the judge clearing the court room and reprimanding the witness for rolling his eyes and making comments under his breath. In somewhat of a tell to how the liberal media actually feel about the trial, their Sunday political talk shows have been surprisingly tempered with a combined 36 minutes and six seconds. Over three quarters (28:13) came from an unsurprising source: ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. While not a former president, another significant story of political corruption has gone next to unnoticed with the trial of liberal Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ). The details are salacious, even with the absence of sex. Gold bars? Check. Wads of cash stuffed in random places? Check. Cars? Check. Influence-peddling with Arab countries? Check. The trial began with jury selection on May 13, but there’s only been seven minutes and 56 seconds on ABC, CBS, and NBC with zero seconds on the Sunday, May 19 political talk shows. That meant the Trump trial had received 72 times more than what the “big three” had spent on the Menendez trial. While ABC had spent nearly four hours on the Trump trial, they’ve only mustered a scant 23 seconds on Menendez since his trial commenced (via a single brief on the April 15 World News Tonight). NBC was well ahead with three mentions totaling three minutes and 24 seconds and CBS also had three segments, but were slightly ahead at four minutes and nine seconds. A major U.S. senator is on trial in an election year, facing hundreds of years behind bars. But given his party, the networks have allowed the left to skate by. If this were a Republican on trial for identical charges, there’s no doubt other major Republicans would be tied directly and indirectly to the case. Look no further than the wholly political Trump trial.

NB Blog Feed

Who Would Do That? Nets Ignore Reuters Report on Vanishing Aid in Gaza

In a story penned Monday and updated Tuesday morning, Reuters’s Michelle Nicholas explained things haven’t exactly gone swimmingly (pun intended) for aid coming from a U.S.-constructed pier into Hamas-controlled Gaza as 11 out of 16 trucks on Saturday never made it to their intended destinations (and thus, being able to reach storage) as they were raided along the way. As such, by Monday afternoon, no delivers came through since Saturday. Not surprisingly, the pro-Hamas liberal networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC omitted this from coverage of the war in their flagship Monday night and Tuesday morning newscasts. “Food and medicine for Palestinians in Gaza are piling up in Egypt because the Rafah crossing remains closed and there has been no aid delivered to a U.N. warehouse from a U.S.-built pier for two days, U.N. officials warned on Monday,” Nicholas said in her lede. Of course, the story had to have an anti-Israel tilt as the next graph cited a United Nations official to kvetch there’s been “insufficient supplies and fuel to...Gaza as they endure Israel's military onslaught against Hamas militants.” But why is that? Nicholas provided one of the answers a few lines later: “Egypt said on Monday that the crossing is closed due to the threat posed to aid work by Israel's military operation.” After again blaming Israel, she arrived at the heart of the matter with the pier: The U.N. agreed to assist in coordinating aid distribution from the floating pier, but has remained adamant that deliveries by land are the best way to combat the crisis. The U.N. said that 10 truckloads of food aid - transported from the pier site by U.N. contractors - were received on Friday at a World Food Programme warehouse in Deir El Balah in Gaza. But on Saturday, only five truckloads made it to the warehouse after 11 others were cleaned out by Palestinians during the journey through an area that a U.N. official said has been hard to access with humanitarian aid. (....) The U.N. did not receive any aid from the pier on Sunday or Monday. The reactions on Twitter didn’t disappoint. Foundation for the Defense of Democracies senior fellow Bill Roggio tweeted that “[t]he Gaza aid pier may be the most expensive piece of performance art ever created. This was destined to fail. Our tax dollars hard at work.  For Hamas.” Free Beacon contributor Noah Pollak brought more of the facts to bear: “The US taxpayer-provided $320m Gaza pier is an ongoing terror finance violation by the Biden administration and administered by CENTCOM. We ship aid to Hamas that it ‘steals’ and sells in Gaza to finance its terror war. There should be hearings.” Longtime Florida political reporter Marc Caputo (now with the Bulwark) had perhaps the best take: “Well, we can’t say for sure Hamas stole this aid[.] I mean, should we suspect a terrorist group that staged a murder, rape & kidnapping raid —only to then hide among civilians in one of earth’s densest urban areas— of stealing from the very population it rules through fear?”

NB Blog Feed

CBS Joins in, NBC Ups Anti-Family Hate for ‘Controversial’, ‘Firebrand’ Butker Speech

On Friday, CBS finally joined the virulently anti-family liberal media’s rhetorical lynch mob fighting to convict Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker in the court of public opinion with a discussion during CBS Mornings and, while ABC moved on, NBC’s Today upped the intensity of its disgusting and hypocritical venom toward a speech about the importance of the family. In other words, Butker stood up for something the three co-hosts on Today have personally and repeatedly discussed is paramount to their lives. Instead of scorning him, they could have mentioned the numerous charities Butker has supported, include Foster’s Outriders charity (which our Craig Bannister explained here).     CBS roped Butker into their “Talk of the Table” segment with fill-in featured co-host Nancy Chen claiming Butker “seemed to dismiss women with career goals.” Oof. We’re already off to a bad start. Butker said, in fact, nothing of the sort of instead argued many of the female graduates would come to see motherhood and marriage as their greatest accomplishment. Co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King and co-host Nate Burleson went first, opining Butker shouldn’t lose his job. “I think everybody has the right to be wrong or hold opinions that others feel are wrong, but he has a right to say what he believes. But it is — it is — was very antiquated thinking, I think, in 2024. But a lot of people — a lot of people feel the way he does. The fact that he got a standing ovation, I think, says a lot,” King added. Co-host Tony Dokoupil made the necessary and obvious point: A Catholic guy at a Catholic college expressing deeply Catholic views...free speech...free religion, free assembly. I mean, when — inclusion in America includes that kind of American as well. And no one speaks up for the traditional family in public life that often...It’s a voice we had not heard in that way. Burleson weighed in again: “[F]ree speech also applies to the criticism that he’s facing because you’re speaking on that platform...[O]ver the 11 years I spent in the NFL, we h and inclusive organizations. And I would hope that the views of athletes represent what I felt in the ave had diverse locker room which we were accepting of everybody.” Burleson and company closed by proving they hadn’t read, watched, or understood the speech (click “expand”): BURLESON: Now, as far as women graduating and getting promotions and leading companies, I fully do support that. I think it was somewhat dismissive, saying that every woman is thinking about marriage and kids — KING: Yeah. BURLESON: — cause they might not. KING: They’re not. BURLESON: Cause women, yes, they can do — CHEN: Yes. BURLESON: — they can be at home. CHEN: Absolutely. BURLESON: They can also be bad asses in the corporate world. CHEN: Yes, yes, yes. Well said. DOKOUPIL: Absolutely and I’m defending his right to say what he said. I’m not —  KING: Yes. DOKOUPIL: — agreeing with him, to be clear. KING: Exactly. BURLESON: Yeah, no. For sure. DOKOUPIL: Yeah. BURLESON: For sure. I think we’re all on the same page here. Over on NBC, Today co-host Savannah Guthrie reveled in tease over the “new outrage” and “uproar grow[ing] over that controversial graduation speech” with “[w]omen inside the NFL now weighing in.”  Guthrie had a second tease and doubled down by calling Butker’s speech about God and parenthood — something Guthrie has written and spoken about extensively — a “firestorm”. Co-host Craig Melvin, a Christ follower who recently released a children’s book in part about parenthood, began the segment by touting the “new fallout surrounding that controversial commencement speech by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker.” Correspondent Liz Kreutz had the report and immediately (and falsely) labeled Butker’s pro-family, pro-God remarks a “firebrand speech” triggering “growing backlash” for“encouraging women to become what he says is one of the most important roles, homemaker.” Kreutz conceded the wife of the current Chiefs owner voiced support for Butker by saying his remarks weren’t “bigoted”, but pushed her aside in favor of TikTok videos and referred to the Chargers by their former city, San Diego (click “expand”): KREUTZ: But others associated with the game have expressed outrage at Butker’s comments, including the wife of a fellow NFL player. ALLISON KUCH: My life didn’t start when I married my husband. KREUTZ: And a former Chiefs cheerleader. TIKTOKER USER “STEFHILLS”: When you say stay in your lane ten plus times, brah take your own advice. KREUTZ: The San Diego [sic] Chargers taking the opportunity to mock Butker in its schedule release video, showing the player in a kitchen in a simulated video. While for the catholic community, the debate is real. Some support — TIKTOK USER: A Catholic men encouraging Catholic beliefs to Catholic students is a         breath of fresh area. KREUTZ: — but his words rubbed some Catholic students the wrong way. Mary Oger (sp?) graduated from benedictine college in 2019. [TO OGER (sp?] What offended you about his remarks? MARY OGER (sp?): It’s disheartening — [JUMP CUT] — and all of that would boil down to I bet you’re most excited to go out and start a family. Kreutz even found — no joke — a so-called trans Catholic to pile on: KREUTZ: Some in the LGBTQ community saying his comments don’t reflect everyone in the Catholic Church. TRANSFORMATIONS BOARD MEMBER DONATO FATUSEI: I know from my personal experience growing up in the Catholic Church that I was loved on and affirmed as a trans person. To see the relevant transcripts from May 17, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

Genocide, Butker, Alito, & Scheffler: The Best and Worst of This Week’s WH Briefing

This week marked a rare occasion in which President Biden remained at the White House all five weekdays and thus allowed for five press briefings from the ever-inept press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre (and John Kirby only serving as a crutch on Friday). The questions were, not surprisingly, all over the place given the lunacy of the week, ranging from accusing Jews of genocide to harassment at the FDIC to Biden’s unpopularity to fact-checking Biden to smearing Harrison Butker (one exchange we wrote about separately here), and Justice Samuel Alito. Below are some of the smartest and dumbest questions of the briefing, presented in chronological order.   Of Course the Al-Jazeera Reporter Asks About Genocide in Israel “I looked up Francesca Albanese, the Special U.N. Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine presented one in March. Her — she presented it in Geneva. The three criterion she used, citing international law, three acts: Israel’s intent to destroy national ethnic, racial, or religious groups; serious bodily or mental harm to a group; inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring physical destruction, in whole or in part, with imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group; process of erasure of the native Palestinians. So, those three things are happening.  How can you say genocide is not being committed?” — Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, May 13, 3:10 p.m. Eastern. A Question No Liberal Wants to Answer: Will You Stop Spending Money? Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence: “So, Warren Buffett this month said that taxes will have to be raised to pay for the national debt. He said the government may want to decrease spending. So, with — we've had announcement after announcement of — of taxpayer money being doled out — we’ve seen almost weekly now. Is the federal government spending too much money?” Jean-Pierre: “So, let me just say a couple things that Warren Buffett did say that we certainly agree with and I'll quote him: “The wealthy are definitely under taxed, relative to the general population,” which is why the President has a plan to make sure that wealthiest among us, the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share and we've been very clear about that. They pair — the pay their fair share in order to pay for — for his investments in America and cut the deficit by $3 trillion and it — and Buffett also said it “doesn't matter bother him to pay taxes” and so it has been very clear — the President has said that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. That is what the President has said. Warren Buffett pretty much agrees with us. We agree, obviously, with him, and this is very different than what Republicans want to do. They put out their plan. They put out what they want to do. They want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid give tax breaks to billionaires and corporations. We do not agree with this and what we want to do is continue to make sure that we're lowering cost for Americans for families, whether it is Big Pharma — fighting Big Pharma, lowering health care costs, making sure that we go after corporation as we — as we — you hear us talk about junk fees. Those are the ways that we want to move forward. That's what our focus is.” — Q&A on May 13, 3:18 p.m. Eastern. Ducking Biden’s ‘Fire on Spot’ When It Comes to FDIC Harassment     Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann: “There's new reporting in The Wall Street Journal found that the FD — FDIC director Martin Gruenberg, disrespected, disparaged and treated unfairly officials there and he was known to be someone who can control his temper. Obviously, President Biden said early on in his administration that he would fire on the spot anyone who bullied or unfairly belittled coworker. So, has the President seen those reports and — if those reports proved to be accurate. Will he take action?” Jean-Pierre: “So I don't have any personal announcements to make at this time. The FDIC administrator — chairman to be exact — made, apologized, and spoke to this. And so, certainly I would — I would send you there. The FDIC is independent agency, so would refer you to them as to anything else coming out from the FDIC on this particular matter, but I just don't have any policy — personnel announcement to make at this time.” — Q&A on May 13, 3:22 p.m. Eastern. Sorry, Folks, We Know This Is a Reelection Ploy for the Rust Belt Lawrence: “So, this is an election year. Why did it take three years to impose these tariffs?” U.S. Trade Ambassador Katherine Tai: “So, this is where I put my lawyer hat back on. Under the 301 statue, in the fourth year of the tariffs, if there is a stakeholder that has benefiting from the tariffs, who asked us to keep them, we keep them. That is what happened in 2022 because the tariffs first went on in 2018. As a result of that, in the fall of 2022, we started a process. We opened up a portal that was open, I think, in the end of 22 to the very beginning of 23, notice and comment. We wanted to hear from all of our stakeholders, their views on the tariffs, the pros and the cons — please inform us. That — that elicited, I think, about 1,600 comments. So, that's at the beginning of 2023. And then, we started a whole of government, interagency review within the Biden administration. That process has taken us to today and the unveiling of this finalized package which the President approved.” Lawrence: “So, it took three years to figure out the Chinese were flooding the market and stealing technology? I mean, it's pretty evident that they've been doing that all along.” Tai: “No, it took — it took a year and a half for the course of the review. You will see the amount of care that we put into our investigation and our findings. Yes, there continue to be problems, but then the question is: What do you do about the tariffs? For this administration, it is extremely important that we approach a relationship like the one between the U.S. and China and these issues around the industries and the jobs of the future with discipline. That's what takes so long — is the design and the architecture of the tariff defense system that you will see.” — Back and forth on May 14, 1:29 p.m. Eastern. Wow: NBC Reporter Calls Out Biden Flip-Flop on Tariffs “You said that the President has been consistent on this issue, but back in 2019, when he was a candidate, he said that “any freshman economics student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs”, referring to his opponent at the time. And he also said that he would reverse what he called ,senseless policies’. Why’d he change his mind?...Previously, he called them “senseless”. They're no longer senseless? — White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez’s questions to Tai, May 14, 1:33 p.m. Eastern. Doocy Time Asks KJP Why Americans Have the Sads With Ole Joe “Why do you think Americans are so down on President Biden right now?...I know you don't like to talk about polls, like, the five of six swing states that he is losing right now to somebody who is a criminal offender. But, more broadly, it doesn't seem like anything you guys are doing, is making him more popular. Why do you think that is?” (....) “So, more broadly then, have you considered in the White House that some of President Biden's recent policy positions could be a turn off to the people that used to like him?” — Doocy, May 14, 1:55 p.m. Eastern. FBN’s Lawrence SCHOOLS KJP on Biden’s Inflation Lies FBN’s @EdwardLawrence: “I wanna ask you about how the President talks about inflation. So, two times over the past two weeks, the President said inflation was nine percent when he came into office. Is the President misleading Americans on that? Or does it — just not realize that… pic.twitter.com/2XzQyUsBY3 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 15, 2024 — Back and forth on May 15, 2:43 p.m. Eastern. ABC, AP Throw Hardballs at KJP Over Biden Blocking Release of Hur Tapes “President Biden decided to block the release of the audio interview with the special counsel. And, obviously, the letter from the White House counsel laid out the reasons about the concerns of being used for political purposes. But that seems to imply that the White House is concerned that these could be politically damaging. So why not just release that, especially with this White House’s commitment to transparency?...But does the White House feel that the recording — the audio could be politically harmful since that point was also raised in the letter?” — AP’s Seung Min Kim, May 16, 2:20 p.m. Eastern. “Just to follow up on what Seung Min was asking for. Speaker Mike Johnson said that President Biden is ‘apparently afraid for citizens to hear’ his interview with special counsel Robert Hur. How is the White House responding to that criticism?...You talked about transcripts being released, but as you know, hearing something and reading it is very different and if the transcript is already out there, why is it different to have the audio there? — ABC senior White House correspondent Selina Wang, 2:22 p.m. Eastern. Leftist Coordination: ABC, AP, CBS Team Up to Invite to Smear Justice Alito “Does the President, who is a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed with the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Alito should recuse himself from 20 cases involving the 2020 election or January 6 because of the reporting of the upside down flag flown outside of this house?” — AP’s Darlene Superville, May 17, 3:12 p.m. Eastern. “So, given the flag incident, does President Biden believe that Justice Alito can rule in — with impartiality for all the cases involving January 6?” — CBS’s Weijia Jiang, May 17,  3:15 p.m. Eastern. “So the President concerned that having a Supreme Court justice who is it such a high position of power, displaying a flag in his house in such a way that that could fuel more extremism and division in this country?” (....) “[W]hat is the sense here about the wive’s role here? Whether it is a Supreme Court justice, whether the senator or president, should she be able and entitled have our own political opinions and views without having them tied to her husband or not?” — Wang, May 17, 3:22 p.m. Eastern. Doocy Steps Up to Ask KJP About Scheffler’s Shocking Arrest     Doocy: “President Biden think about the world's number one golfer, Scottie Scheffler, being cuffed and then hauled in for a mug shot for what appears to be a misunderstanding at a traffic stop?” Jean-Pierre: “So I — I've seen the reports of — uh — Mr. Shuff — Scheffler’s arrest. I just want to say that our hearts go out to the individual that was killed.” Doocy: “Unrelated.” Jean-Pierre: “No, let me finish in the auto — in the auto accident that preceded his arrest. Obviously, someone did die. Someone was killed, preceded his arrest that, obviously, he was not involved in. Uh — so, I want to make sure that we share our condolences to that family and their loved ones. Anything else as specifics to his arrest, that would be something for local authorities to speak to.” Doocy: “I think — just — I — you guys have spent a good chunk of this week —” Jean-Pierre: “Yep.” Doocy: “— talking about how you don't want anybody to ever go to jail again for possessing marijuana. Do you think that somebody who was involved in what appears to be a misunderstanding of a traffic stop should be facing 10 years in prison?” Jean-Pierre: “There — we've seen the reports. There — there's a process there. We have to let the legal authorities do — go to their — you know — process and how this all works. I can't comment from here, from the lectern about something that's being looked into by local authorities. I got to be mindful about that, but let's not forget. Someone lost their lives [sic]. Not obviously — that preceded this, but there was an individual that was killed and there's a family that’s mourning a death of a loved one. And so, we want to be sensitive to that as well.” — Back and forth on Scheffler’s arrest, May 17, 3:19 p.m. Eastern. CNN Reporter Tries to Get KJP to Have Butker Banned From WH “Can we still assume that the Kansas City Chiefs will be visiting the White House this year celebration of their Super Bowl victory?” (....) “So, can you confirm — you said everyone on the team is obviously invited. Is the Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker welcome at this White House?” (....) “Given his recent comments, is he specifically welcome at this White House?” — CNN’s MJ Lee, May 17, 3:31 p.m. Eastern. Taxpayer-Funded Journo: Does Biden Know African-Americans See Themselves in Gazans? “[I]s the President mindful of how black students were protesting in campus might see a parallel of their experience of injustice between themselves and the Palestinians? Has he [OTHER REPORTER COUGHS] input about this? Is he sympathetic to that?” — Voice of America’s Patsy Widakuswara, May 17, 3:35 p.m. Eastern.   To see the relevant transcripts from this week’s briefings (including even more questions), click here (for May 13), here (for May 14), here (for May 15), here (for May 16) and here (for May 17).

NB Blog Feed

ABC, NBC Giddily Tout ANOTHER Far-Left Smear of Conservative Supreme Court Justice

ABC’s Good Morning America (GMA) and NBC’s Today eagerly touted in faux serious tones early Friday a new front in the left’s war to delegitimize, shame, and even attempt to remove conservative judges as The New York Times published a screeching story about an upside down flag flying at the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2021. Liberal journalist Jodi Kantor typed this up on behalf of the liberal Borg and even appeared in the GMA segment, arguing Alito signed with the flag he’s a far-right conspiracy theorist.     “We turn now to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito under fire after The New York Times published a picture of an upside down flag flown outside his home in 2021 just days after the January 6 riot,” fill-in co-host Rebecca Jarvis began. Longtime Supreme Court correspondent Terry Moran was in need of a fainting couch as he huffed Alito’s been “no stranger to controversy” with this new story “stunning and unprecedented”. “Flying the flag upside down is meant to be a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger, according to the U.S. flag code. It’s also been used as a symbol of protest...and, after the 2020 election, some of Donald Trump supporters adopted the upside down flag to object to Biden’s victory,” he added. Moran also pointed to Kantor having obtained e-mails from fellow leftist quacks — aka Alito’s neighbors — whining “the flag was flying for multiple days” and were concerned about this “political statement”. On-screen, Kantor made this seem like a national scandal: “They were incredulous because one of the bedrock rules of being a federal judge is that you’re not supposed to take part in politics.” Moran only briefly focused on Alito’s denial to Kantor: “I had no involvement whatsoever. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” Earth to Terry and Jodi: What signs did Alito’s neighbors have? To what degree did they harass the Alitos? Heck, what’s the political stance of Alito’s neighborhood? And does Brett Kavanaugh and the man who wanted to assassinate him and his family Nicholas Roske jog your memories? Moran also falsely accused Alito of being somehow unprecedented in being political and also lied about Alito “heckl[ing]” Barack Obama in 2010 (when he only mouthed displeasure and thus no Joe Wilson) (click “expand”): MORAN: Justice Alito has a history of stirring political controversy, unusual for Supreme Court justices. The author of decisions that overturned Roe vs. Wade, he mocked criticism of the ruling that ended a federal right to abortion. ALITO: I had the honor this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. [CROWD LAUGHTER] MORAN: And Alito famously heckled President Obama at the 2010 State of the Union when Obama criticized the court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision. Alito calling out, “not true,” at Obama. And one possible concern about that upside down flag at Alito’s house, there are still cases before this Court stemming from January 6, including former President Trump’s claims of absolute immunity for his actions at that time. And one more thing: There has been no statement from Mrs. Alito, whom Justice Alito blames for the incident.  All told, that segment was a whopping three minutes and 30 seconds. Meanwhile, NBC’s Today had a 52-second news brief via co-host Hoda Kotb that she too tried to make into an affront to humanity: “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is responding this morning to a report in The New York Times that, in 2021, he had an American flag hanging upside down outside of his home.” Kotb continued by noting “this was the photo taken on January 17, 2021” and “[t]he upside down flag was a symbol associated with former President Trump’s false claims of election fraud.” Along with reading the statement Alito gave to The Times, Kotb proclaimed all this has “rais[ed] concerns” — by whom, she wouldn’t say — “about Alito’s impartiality”. Like with Justice Clarence Thomas, the liberal media will stop at nothing to either force out or remove Alito, Thomas, and any other jurist who doesn’t kowtow to a certain ideology. As we’ve seen when leftist freaks have plopped themselves outside the homes of right-leaning justice, the liberal media have little regard for the children, spouses, and loved ones of the justices. To see the relevant transcripts from May 17, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

ABC Reporter, KJP Team Up to Trash Butker for Pro-Life, Pro-Family Speech

ABC reporter Karen Travers used her round of Q&A during Thursday’s White House press briefing to invite a willing accomplice in Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to join the liberal media mob against Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker for his alleged crime of giving a pro-family, pro-life, pro-parenting commencement address at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. “I want to ask you about the topic that's getting a lot of attention,” Travers began, adding Butker’s “facing criticism for his recent commencement address where he told female graduates that the most important title a woman can hold is homemaker.”     Fact-check: Pants on fire. Butker did not, in fact, say that. Here’s a transcript of his full speech, but here’s a key line: “Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.” Travers’s softball wasn’t done: “He was critical about surrogacy, IVF, and Pride Month, and he also criticized the President for being a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Has the President seen those comments? Does he have a reaction to that?” Jean-Pierre had the gall to initially bat it down by saying Biden’s “been pretty busy today, so I haven't had a chance to — to focus on this particular issue” and she herself had only seen “some reports on it.” Nonetheless, Jean-Pierre pivoted to implicitly torching Butker and argued Biden won’t “back away from supporting women and reproductive rights, reproductive health care” because “it is important to fight for all of our freedoms”. She obviously had to throw in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and argued pro-lifers support putting women “in a position to not get the health care that they need” and “causing chaos”. Jean-Pierre’s rant dragged on, tying Butker to “extreme Republican” (click “expand”): And then you have extreme Republicans that continue to talk about — to talk about how they want to put national abortion ban. It's causing chaos. It's causing chaos for women. It’s causing chaos for families. When you're saying that a family can't make a decision on IVF, that's not what this President is about. He wants to make sure that women have the right to make these incredibly difficult decisions about their health care, so families could make a decision about how they want to build and — and move forward with building a family.  And so I can't — I can't speak to those direct comments, but what I can speak to is what the President has committed to, and he has shown that over and over again and you have a Vice President that has toured the country talking exactly about that, about how we have to protect our freedoms and freedoms of — of — obviously, reproductive health as — as we're speaking right now. Travers offered a follow-up to further attack Butker and implicitly accuse him of being a partisan tool: “As the President gets ready to give his own commencement address, does he think a message like that is appropriate at a commencement address?” Jean-Pierre stuck to the same pattern with this second answer, first insisting she hadn’t “heard this in context” other than seeing “some reporting” then tearing into Butker without saying his name by arguing Biden — unlike the Chiefs kicker — views “commencement day as such an important moment for not just the students, but for their families, obviously, their loved ones” The press secretary gave a whopper of a garbled mess as she said in part that Biden wants “to talk about the future, to talk about how — how they — how in the world that we are in — that — in the world that we're in now, how do we move forward? And you’re [sic] hear with themes from this President on that particular message, and he understands how critical and important that have those messages — especially a message from the President of the United States, how much it matters.” To see the relevant transcript of the May 16 briefing, click “expand.” White House press briefing [via ABC News Live subfeed] May 16, 2024 2:32 p.m. Eastern KAREN TRAVERS: I want to ask you about the topic that's getting a lot of attention. The Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker is facing criticism for his recent commencement address where he told female graduates that the most important title a woman can hold is homemaker. He was critical about surrogacy, IVF, and Pride Month, and he also criticized the President for being a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Has the President seen those comments? Does he have a reaction to that? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: You know — ah — the President's been pretty busy today, so I haven't had a chance to — to focus on this particular issue. I think I've heard some reports on it. Look, the President is not going to back away from supporting women and reproductive rights, reproductive health care. It is important to do that. It is important to fight for all of our freedoms, and that's what you're seeing the President do. He's not going to back away from that and look, I can't speak to this specific thing because I haven't heard it in — in — in its entirety. But, look, you know, you have a former administration that — uh — that had said — a former President that said, over and over again that they were going to do everything they can to get rid of Roe v. Wade, was successful in doing that, by putting forward judges that made that happen. We saw the Dobbs decision in 2022 and what that caused is chaos. It caused women to — to have to — do — you know — to have — you know, be in a position to not get the health care that they need. I mean, that's — should not be where we are as a country. It should not be. And then you have extreme Republicans that continue to talk about — to talk about how they want to put national abortion ban. It's causing chaos. It's causing chaos for women. It’s causing chaos for families. When you're saying that a family can't make a decision on IVF, that's not what this President is about. He wants to make sure that women have the right to make these incredibly difficult decisions about their health care, so families could make a decision about how they want to build and — and move forward with building a family. And so I can't — I can't speak to those direct comments, but what I can speak to is what the President has committed to, and he has shown that over and over again and you have a Vice President that has toured the country talking exactly about that, about how we have to protect our freedoms and freedoms of — of — obviously, reproductive health as — as we're speaking right now. TRAVERS: I know you said can't speak to the comments. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. TRAVERS: As the President gets ready to give his own commencement address, does he think a message like that is appropriate at a commencement address? JEAN-PIERRE: From — from this particular — TRAVERS: Yes. Mmhmm. JEAN-PIERRE: — look again, I haven't heard — I haven't heard this in context. I — I saw some reporting, so want to be super mindful. Look, the — the President sees commencement day as such an important moment for not just the students, but for their families, obviously, their loved ones to talk about the future, to talk about how — how they — how in the world that we are in — that — in the world that we're in now, how do we move forward? And you’re [sic] hear with themes from this President on that particular message, and he understands how critical and important that have those messages — especially a message from the President of the United States, how much it matters. I don't want to get ahead of the President. He's going to, obviously, layout and speak to his commencement address on his own, but he's done this many times before. He's done — he's done this when — he's — given commencement address as a senator, has done it, obviously as Vice President, and now President, and this is an incredible important, impactful — impactful moment.

NB Blog Feed

ABC, NBC RAGE at Butker’s ‘Controversial’ Speech, Cheer ‘Growing’ ‘Backlash’

On Thursday, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today seethed with disgust at Christians and anyone who values being a parent over their careers (or any other accomplishment or trait) in light of the Benedictine College commencement address by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, which they deemed “controversial” and worthy of “backlash” and “growing outrage” for going “too far” by stressing the inherent importance of parenting. “Commencement controversy. Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker under fire for his message to women during a graduation speech...Inside the growing uproar he sparked,” scoffed Today co-host Hoda Kotb in a tease in between a clip of Butker saying he’d “guess...the majority of” female graduates before him are “most excited about” marriage and parenting than “successful careers” they might lead.     Kotb — who’s had a long, public journey to parenthood and adoption — apparently was incensed by Butker’s remarks. In a second tease, co-host (and best-selling Christian author) Savannah Guthrie boasted of “growing outrage” against Butker for the “controversial graduation speech” and correspondent Kaylee Hartung whined the kicker’s “remarks have stunned many”. Early in her full report on the faux controversy, Hartung bragged that “many” saw his support for Catholicism and strong families as having gone “too far”. Check out how Hartung was enraged by the notion that someone would argue being a parent is a high calling (click “expand”): HARTUNG: In a controversial commencement speech at Benedictine College over the weekend, three-time Super Bowl champion Harrison Butker railing against everything from President Biden to Pride Month to IVF and speaking directly to the women in the audience. BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring. HARTUNG: Invoking his own family — BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: My beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as mother. [SCREEN WIPE] That all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school — [CRIES] would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all, homemaker. HARTUNG: — Butker also criticizing gay rights when telling the students to take pride in their school — BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Not the deadly sin sort of pride that has the entire month dedicated to it. HARTUNG: — and had a message for the men. BUTKER [on 05/14/24]: Be unapologetic in your masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men HARTUNG: The NFL responding saying “Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity” and “his views are not those of the league”. Hartung snidely added that “[w]hile outrage builds online...some pointing out the Georgia native’s own mother is a physicist in the Department of Oncology at Emory.” Of course, Butker said nothing of the sort about women being barred/discouraged from the workforce. Follow this link to read his full speech. After melting down about Butker throwing in a Taylor Swift reference, she attempted to claim “some students” were “left hurt by the experience” based on a single TikTok video and lamented “Butker hasn’t responded to the firestorm” he “ignited.” Hartung even seemed to voice support for this mob rule by gushing “the court of public opinion is in session.” Co-host Craig Melvin reacted to this by kissing up to longtime liberal NBC journalist Maria Shriver: “I would encourage folks to check out the Maria Shriver rebuttal posted online.” Kotb concurred: “[T]hat may be the — the best takedown if you’re looking for that.” Irony alert: Melvin released a children’s book two weeks ago that focused on — yes — the joy of having children. ABC’s Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts made her intentions clear in a tease: “Kansas City chiefs kicker facing backlash for his commencement speech remarks on gay rights, abortion and women’s role in society.” With the chyrons “Chiefs Kicker Under Fire for Commencement Speech” and “Faces Backlash for Comments on Abortion, Gay Rights & Women”, correspondent Stephanie Ramos kvetched that he made “headlines for remarks off the field” and “sound[ed] off about working women” and “referr[ed] to Pride Month, which celebrates the LGBTQ community, as a deadly sin.”     Ramos even brought in Kate Ellis, the CEO and president of GLAAD — the far-left organization that believes biological men can be women if they feel like it — to denounce Butker for voicing “such an outdated antiquated view on LGBTQ women and women and using religion in a way.” Ramos also pointed to the supposed outrage from Taylor Swift fans, but had the decency to concede Butker “did receive a standing ovation from the graduates — from many graduates and some attendees there.” The almost always self-centered Roberts then had the gall to complain “usually, the commencement address is about the graduates, not about your personal views”.  That’s interesting since Roberts talked about herself in 2015 when giving the Emerson College commencement address. Or that, later in the show, the team approved of Jennifer Coolidge talking about her career journey at the Washington State University commencement. Since the joy and significance of parenthood should be at least downgraded behind, say, one’s career, then why did they have subsequent segments about Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner co-parenting despite no longer being together, Olivia Munn discussing freezing her eggs before a hysterectomy in the face of a breast cancer diagnosis, and gushing over David Beckham talking about how much his wife and children mean to him? To see the relevant transcripts from May 16, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

BREAKING: Biden, Trump Agree to Presidential Debates in June on CNN, September on ABC

UPDATE, 11:58 a.m. Eastern: In addition to the CNN debate on June 27, former President Donald Trump and President Biden revealed on their respective social media accounts that they’ve both agreed to a second presidential debate for Tuesday, September 10 on ABC. The move was also confirmed by ABC News. In turn, this fulfills the two debates requested for June and September by the Biden campaign with moderators only to be selected from liberal media networks ABC, CBS, CNN, or Telemundo. As of this update, no word on whether Team Biden will agree to the Trump campaign’s request for two additional debates in July and August. The original post continues below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following a flurry of developments Wednesday morning that publicly began with the Biden campaign’s lengthy statement and cut-filled video of President Biden goating former President Donald Trump, the two sides agreed just before 11:00 a.m. Eastern to an audience-less presidential debate for Thursday, June 27 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern inside CNN’s newly-minted Atlanta, Georgia compound in Techwood. CNN’s invitation came curiously not long after the Biden regime’s essay-lengthy demands, most notably calls for debates in June and September with the vice presidential debate in July and that moderators could only come from ABC, CBS, CNN, or Telemundo. “CNN will host an election debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump on June 27, 2024 at 9pm ET from the crucial battleground state of Georgia. The debate will be held in CNN’s Atlanta studios. To ensure candidates may maximize the time allotted in the debate, no audience will be present,” the network said in a press release. It added that, in an important tidbit for this website and readership, “[m]oderators for the debate and additional details will be announced at a later date.” Time to start taking bets. Fake News Jim? Jake Tapper? Anderson Cooper, who co-moderated one of the Trump-Hillary Clinton 2016 debates? Erin Burnett, who just conducted a softball interview with Biden? Late-night liberal hack Abby Phillip? Or do they run it back with Chris Wallace? While it then alluded to requiring candidates fulfilling all constitutional qualifications, sufficient appearances on state ballots, and polling benchmarks, this arrangement as a result of informal talks between the two campaigns would appear to have been done to cut out the Presidential Commission on Debates and thus exclude third-party candidates, including the high-polling independent bid by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. An on-air announcement came during Acosta’s hour of CNN Newsroom to coincide with a CNN Public Relations tweet. “Alright, more on the breaking news right now, Former President Donald Trump has accepted CNN’s invitation for debate with President Biden. That is setting up a June showdown...[T]his is going to happen very quickly if — if all a plays out the way it’s happening right now,” Acosta proclaimed to CNN’s resident Biden apple polisher, Arlette Saenz. Saenz then relayed what her side of the aisle wanted out of this debate, noting the lengthy Biden regime’s list of “very specific” demands “about what they want to see” such as “the microphones can only be on when each candidate is expected to speak, potentially eliminating some of that very intense back-and-forth that we saw in the very first debate between Biden and Trump back in 2020.” #BREAKING: CNN announces that both President Biden and Donald Trump have accepted their invitation for a presidential debate on Thursday, June 27 at CNN's Atlanta studios at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, no studio audience. pic.twitter.com/YIaBwSDqSr — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 15, 2024 Acosta and chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny then discussed more of the details, including how this will be a throwback to the first-ever presidential debate on TV in 1960 between future Presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (click “expand”): ACOSTA: CNN will host and election debate between Biden and Trump on June 20, at. 9:00 p.m. in the Atlanta studios of CNN. Our new studios, not at the old building, but the new building. ZELENY: The historical Techwood studios. ACOSTA: The Techwoods campus and it says here, “to ensure candidates may maximize the time a lot in the debate, no audience will be present”. ZELENY: Right. ACOSTA: That’s interesting. ZELENY: And that is — it really takes us back, Jim, to those first televised debates in 1960, of course, in CBS news and Chicago. ACOSTA: Oh, yeah. ZELENY: On ___ street clerk shirt at WBBM as you well know. ACOSTA: My old stomping ground, yeah. ZELENY: And it’s certainly is designed, at least the Biden campaign is hoping, that it will focus on the issues, on the candidates, and the contrast port. And also that it’s an Atlanta. Obviously, Georgia is a central battleground in this election. It’s some — state that has really been the subject of so much conversation. Donald Trump claimed he won it. He did not win it, of course court cases, et cetera, but it is a key battleground as well. But this is a fast moving development and the point is, you can tell I didn’t k-mean has been working on this for awhile. ACOSTA: Oh yeah. ZELENY: And clearly, they’ve been preparing for the idea of a debate, but it could just happen weeks after the first criminal trial’s in. ACOSTA: That’s right. ZELENY: So, certainly the outcome of that will also be hanging over this debate. Minutes after this announcement, a Trump campaign memo was made public by campaign co-managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles arguing “there should be more than just two opportunities for the American people to hear more from the candidates themselves.” In turn, they announced they agree to not only the Biden campaign’s proposals for the September showdown and the vice presidential candidate sparring session, but two additional debates in July and August because “[w]e believe the American people deserve more than what the Biden administration has to offer.”

NB Blog Feed

Go Figure: Liberal Media Lie Their Pants Off on Katie Britt’s Pro-Life Proposal

Last Thursday, Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) teamed up with fellow Republican Senators Kevin Cramer (ND) and Marco Rubio (FL) to unveil the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act aimed at giving pregnant women a federally-backed “clearinghouse” of resources — called Pregnancy.gov — for “expecting and postpartum moms, as well as those with young children,” and create grants for caregiving organizations helping women enter the world of parenting. Along with expanding child support to include a woman’s pregnancy, a press release from the senators said the MOMS Act would “provide critical support to women during typically challenging phases of motherhood – prenatal, postpartum, and early childhood development – and bolster access to resources and assistance to help mothers and their children thrive.” Not surprisingly, the far-left, abortion-loving liberal media have decided to be as focused on defeating this pro-life bill with misinformation as they were about pushing women to murder their unborn children. In story after story, the liberal media have claimed the bill would create a database of women currently pregnant for the federal government - in some liberal dystopia/twisted fantasy - to surveil women to prevent abortions. The problem? It’s all voluntary and shy from divulging one’s location. The Guardian went full send with a headline beyond parody: “Katie Britt proposes federal database to collect data on pregnant people; Republican US senator from Alabama best known for delivering widely ridiculed State of the Union speech in March”. Writer Léonie Chao-Fong doubled down with a disregard for biology, claiming without evidence the bill “create[s] a federal database to collect data on pregnant people” by having them “enter their personal data and contact information.” Chao-Fong also whined: “[t]he bill specifically forbids any entity that ‘performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions’ from being listed in the database, which would in effect eliminate swaths of OB-GYN services and sexual health clinics across the country.” Yes, Léonie, the point is to give women facing sudden pregnancies options beyond abortion. NBCNews.com and longtime Rachel Maddow producer Steve Benen piled on in a story whining about the bill giving federal funds to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers and pedaled the lie about HHS becoming a surveillance agency (click “expand”): This is, to be sure, standard GOP fare. Republican officials tend to be uncomfortable with the idea that the party’s sole focus in this area is imposing abortion restrictions, and the MOMS Act appears designed to package familiar GOP measures on the issue. The fact that these senators intend to extend grants to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” is part of the conservative agenda, and a reminder of why the legislation doesn’t have — and won’t have — any Democratic support in the chamber. But a HuffPost report noted that the Pregnancy.gov provisions in the bill are drawing additional scrutiny because they allegedly raise the prospect of “a federal database storing information on pregnant people.” It was against this backdrop that Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington joined with 10 other Senate Democratic women to denounce Britt’s bill, saying it would, among other things, “create a new government-run website to collect data on pregnant women and direct them to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.” To be sure, Britt’s office has thoroughly rejected the idea that the legislation is designed to create some kind of “registry,” but the press release from the 11 Senate Democratic women added that under the Pregnancy.gov plan, the website would “encourage users to provide their contact information, ‘which the Secretary may use to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users’ — meaning that pregnant women would be encouraged to provide data to a potential Trump administration and potentially allow a government bureaucrat to follow up with them about the status of their pregnancy.” The tools at HuffPost did the same in a piece with the headline “Critics Rip Sen. Katie Britt For Celebrating Moms With ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Like Proposal” and hilariously then referred to women as “pregnant people”. Yahoo! News promptly cross-posted this under the same headline. Salon and Raw Story weren’t going to be left out either. Cue the laugh tracks for the latter’s headline: “Katie Britt shredded for ‘Handmaid’s Tale’-type proposal to ‘register’ pregnant women”. At Salon, they melted down at women even being told groups that support women and babies exit: “The bill also outlines the creation of a database of ‘pregnancy support centers,’ or crisis centers, which critics say provide women with misleading information in an effort to keep them from having abortions.” Someone call GLAAD on HuffPost, NBC, Raw Story, and the like for using the term “pregnant women!” Now, for the facts. Here was a piece from the (now digital-only) Alabama newspaper conglomerate AL.com: Britt spokesman Sean Ross said users are not required to register or log in to the site to search for resources. The website will not ask for the user’s pregnancy status or for personally identifiable information. “These social media posts are intentionally, flagrantly false,” Ross said. Website users could voluntarily enter their contact information if they wanted personal follow up from a staff member at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Those services would also be available to friends and family members who are not pregnant if an individual was worried about sharing her information with the website. The website would invite users to take an assessment and provide consent to be contacted. The website would not require people to take the assessment to receive more information about local resources, Ross said. “Through the website, anyone can view the relevant resources in a given locale without disclosing any personally identifiable information to the government,” Ross said. The headline, however, only met Britt halfway with a scoffing headline: “Claims that bill would create registry of pregnant women ‘flagrantly false,’ says staff for Alabama Sen. Katie Britt.”

NB Blog Feed

Editor’s Pick: WashTimes Showcases Report on How Few of Today’s Immigrants Work

In a front-page story for Tuesday’s print edition and published Monday online, The Washington Times’s intrepid reporter Stephen Dinan shared the findings of a new Center for Immigration Studies report that said only 46 percent of recent immigrant arrivals — both illegal and legal — are holding down jobs and contributing to the American economy. “The Center for Immigration Studies, using Census Bureau numbers, calculates that 46% of immigrants who arrived over the past two years are employed. That challenges a key selling point from immigration advocates that the stream of newcomers is critical to the U.S. economy,” he explained, pointing out this means even though “[s]ome immigrants say they are looking for work...most...are out of the labor force.” He cited this key quote from CIS officials Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler: “Immigration clearly adds workers to the country, but it just as clearly adds non-workers who need to be supported by the labor of others.” Dinan later went through the push and pull of whether mass, persistent immigration benefits an economy: One persistent issue has been whether immigrants are a net benefit or a drain. The Congressional Budget Office says that taken as a whole, the economy grows faster with more people. The reason is simple: More potential workers means a more productive total economy. The CBO says the average worker is slightly worse off. Again, the reason is simple: The pie may be bigger, but it is divided by even more people. The CBO says the population has a large range of outcomes. Those at the higher economic rungs come out better off with higher immigration levels, while those on the lower rungs, who are more likely to compete with less-educated newcomers, end up worse off. (....) The CIS said the unemployment rate among immigrants from Latin America, overlapping heavily with illegal immigrants, without a college education is 10%. That rate has held steady for several decades. The Biden administration is trying to get official work permits for newly arrived illegal immigrants who are caught and released into the interior. Immigrant rights advocates say that will allow the migrants to support themselves and stop using government assistance. To read Dinan’s story, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Turning into a Noem: Psaki to Alter Book After Lying About Biden, Afghanistan

Axios White House reporter Alex Thompson flagged on Monday former Biden White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s new memoir Say More will have an altered passage in future printings following the revelation that it falsely claimed President Biden never looked at his watch during the August 29, 2021, dignified transfer of remains for the 13 Americans murdered in Kabul during the U.S.’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan. Thompson highlighted the key passage in which she claimed Biden has been a victim of “misinformation” aimed to make “him appear insensitive” when, in her (alternate) reality, “the president looked at his watch only after the ceremony had ended. Moments later, he and the First Lady headed toward their car.” Of course, it flew in the face of live footage from the scene and professional photographers. Psaki quoted friendly media with a (fake) fact-check via USA Today, but she couldn’t even get that right as she attributed it to The Washington Post. Thompson also noted that Psaki’s claim “contradict[s] news photos and firsthand accounts of Gold Star families” At the time, our Nick Fondacaro torched these partisan tools for “drag[ging] those grieving families through the mud” by downplaying what they had seen with their own eyes. And, over on the broadcast networks, Fondacaro noted they ignored it completely in the news cycle after it happened.   It's true. Joe Biden checked his watch during the dignified transfer of the servicemembers killing in Afghanistan at the airport. You can see him jerk his left hand to pull the watch out from under his sleeve, then look down at it. pic.twitter.com/M3QVzJbTIm — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) August 29, 2021   Psaki cowardly “initially declined to comment”, but emerged only after Thompson’s story was posted to admit a “detail in a few lines of the book about the exact number of times he looked at his watch will be removed in future reprints and the ebook”. Further, Psaki channeled her former boss to both Axios and our friend Brian Flood at FoxNews.com by making it about — wait for it — Beau Biden: The story on Afghanistan is really about the importance of delivering feedback even when it is difficult told through my own experience of telling President Biden that his own story of loss was not well received by the families who were grieving their sons and daughters The rest of Thompson’s piece emphasized in broad strokes the reality as we barrel toward the November presidential election that Afghanistan remains one of if not the biggest stain on the President.

NB Blog Feed

CBS, NBC Blames ‘Defiant’ Netanyahu for No Ceasefire, Argue He Wants War to Avoid Jail

On Friday, CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today bellyached about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the wake of President Biden abandoning Israel and argued Netanyahu has not only “already cross[ed] President Biden’s red line” on Rafah with limited strikes by the Israel Defense Forces, but he’s holding up ceasefire talks and prolonging the war so as to avoid jail time. Foreign correspondent Ramy Inocencio returned to the well of former Israeli national security adviser Chuck Freilich for the second day in a row to suggest without evidence that Netanyahu’s kept Israel’s war against Hamas going for personal gain. Right on cue, Inocencio pointed out Freilich was referring to indictments against Netanyahu “for fraud, bribery, and breach of trust”: Netanyahu derangement syndrome on 'CBS Mornings' as they imply the Israeli Prime Minister is only keeping the war going so he can stay in power and out of prison pic.twitter.com/XJRsNQucjw — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 10, 2024 Over on NBC’s Today, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel also had some Netanyahu bashing, but first some classic sob story propaganda for Hamas: The U.N. announced that, as of this morning, more than 100,000 Palestinians have fled the city of Rafah in southern Gaza. Many civilians had originally been ordered by Israel to come here for their safety. Now, they say, they have nowhere to go. We are tired, says this man. Either they should kill us all at once and send us up to God or they stop the war.  Engel bemoaned that “Netanyahu is determined to press on with an offensive against Rafah” with tough talk about Israel being willing to go it “alone” and has “much more than our fingernails”. In an act of irony, Engel had the gall to complain about Netanyahu sitting for “a lengthy and nonconfrontational interview with talk show host Dr. Phil” that ripped “protests on college campuses in the U.S.” IRONY ALERT: NBC's 'Today' complains about a 'nonconfrontational' interview Netanyahu gave to Dr. Phil. Gee, what were all those Jimmy Carter and Kennedy family interviews over the years? Also, notice how Richard Engel argues Israel has "already cross[ed]" Biden's "red line" pic.twitter.com/SsGlzUwYpA — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 10, 2024 Engel doled out more sob stories on Gazans and openly wondered if Israel has “already cross[ed] President Biden’s red line” with limited strikes on Rafah, which he claimed NBC’s Gazan stringers have proven “already” “attack[ed] Rafah’s main population centers” He also concluded by suggesting Israel — not Hamas — is why there’s no ceasefire/hostage deal: “The Rafah operation has also derailed hostage negotiations and talks to achieve a cease-fire with one senior diplomat telling NBC News the talks have effectively collapsed.” To see the relevant transcripts from May 10, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

More of This, Please! More in the Media Need to Replicate NewsNation’s Border Special

In an hour-long primetime special Thursday night called Crisis on the Border, NewsNation did something the liberal media — and TV news in general — needed to emulate, which was a more accurate, consistent, and raw depiction of the Biden border crisis from the side of law enforcement and the dangers unfettered illegal immigration posed to the public.  Hosted by Dan Abrams, it featured three different reporters live in the field, new reporting, facts about the border, and interviews with four police chiefs on how open-border policies have harmed their communities. Abrams opened by declaring this won’t be “about politics.” Instead, NewsNation’s goal was to inform viewers “about what is actually happening at our southern border and maybe — maybe — even spur some change.”     From there, the special took on the feeling of an episode of his other show, Reelz’s On Patrol: Live (and its predecessor in spirit, A&E’s Live PD) as Abrams immediately tossed to indefatigable correspondents Ali Bradley and Brian Entin (click “expand”): ABRAMS: But we have some — some breaking news because just, as we’ve been preparing for the show, Ali Bradley NewsNation’s border correspondent on the front lines has been there when they just found three migrants trying to hide there and they’ve been arrested in Hidalgo County, Texas. Ali, what just happened? BRADLEY: Yeah, hey, Dan. So we’re out here, we’re actually embedded with an elite brush team with Texas DPS. They are working in conjunction with Border Patrol, so we’ve got state and federal partners working together and we have the chopper in the air. Let me show you what we just witnessed. So, we pulled three people out of this, look at how hard it is down here. This is what they’re up against, so they had to get down in there. That’s basically a canal, a drainage ditch of sorts, pulled these three individuals out, one young man from Honduras, telling us that he was on the hook with the cartel to pay $16,000 to get to Virginia. And guess what Dan? They’re actually working another two people that are in the canal further up. So, we’re gonna go up there, I’m going to send it back to you here. We’re going to keep our feet on the ground. And we’re gonna go after these other two people that are in the water up there.” ABRAMS: Alright, so remember. This is just happening live down there. And we’re going to be staying with Ali Bradley. We’re going go back to her in — in a moment. Ali, thank you for that reporting. You know what? Let’s go now to Pinal County in Arizona. Our senior national correspondent Brian Entin is live patrolling there, what they call smugglers highway Brian, what are you seeing? ENTIN: Yeah, it’s I-10 the nickname — Smugglers Highway. Just a minute ago, we pulled over a semi with Sheriff Lamb here — a semi that’s been reported stolen. I’m not sure exactly — he’s been talking to the driver. Figure out what’s going on. Sheriff Lamb, have you — is this immigrant involved? What have you been able to figure out? PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA SHERIFF MARK LAMB: We’re going check the back right now. It’s a stolen — it’s stolen trailer. So, we’re going to check the back. We’ve seen ‘em in — in trailers before. (....) ABRAMS: I mean, look, you can just tell based on what we just showing you, right? We have two correspondents at the border who, in the last 10 minutes, have seen major activity related to migrants and the border. That’s why it’s important to be there and to be there live. You don’t get that sense without actually watching the stuff as it happening? All right. So we were just with Ali Bradley. Alright? And she said — she is — she’s going to be going back out to that scene following that story that we were just watching, but she’s the one who got this exclusive interview with this current border agent. And again, that is the video — oh, actually that video is just coming in, ok?  So that is the video now of up to of the three migrants who were just arrested there hiding in that area and, literally in the last 10 minutes that came in. The reason we weren’t able to show that to you a moment ago is because we just got the video into us. It happened moments before we went on the air. And you heard that Ali Bradley had actually talked to — talked to one of them as they were as they were there. And again, you know, this is a quite common occurrence at the border. Bradley also taped a bombshell interview with an anonymous border agent, who told her what Americans don’t realize was “we do not control the border, the cartel controls the border” and “[e]verything that we do is a reaction to things that they have planned” with those apprehended merely “pawns while the kings and queens are doing whatever they want.” They added “[n]o one” from the government will be able “to protect you” since “[e]ven at the local law enforcement level, we’re seeing them be defunded and overwhelmed to where your life has to be threatened for them to make you a priority.” In part two, Bradley asked if they’re “scared to do your job.” The agent said while they are from “a more earthly” perspective with “policies changed” that endanger agents and place “illegals...before us,” they’re a Christian who knows God “has my back”. Bradley’s last question about whether they’re more scared of the government or the cartels drew a surprising answer:  Look at the way you have me presented to do an interview when I’m off-duty. I’m terrified to talk to the media because I’m sacred of what, you know, the government could do, which obviously, would be losing my job, right, which I don’t think is fair. At three different points, Abrams brought out charts about apprehensions, gotaways, and key border sectors to show “what our border patrol agents are up against” with the first showing “2.5 million encounters for the whole of last year,” “up from 1.7, just two years before” and 1.3 million already this year. Bradley came back near the bottom of the hour with a fascinating segment about a so-called “cartel kit” and how, in many places, the cartels controlled the desert:     It wasn’t just Bradley and Entin with Abrams as the NewsNation host also spoke with Border Report correspondent Salvador Rivera, who provided two liveshots from San Diego (where an allegedly Peruvian family gave themselves up to Border Patrol), the four police chiefs, and interviewed Texas DPS Lieutenant Chris Olivarez on the state role. The hour concluded with a tense chase as Bradley and Olivarez raced to catch up and assist Border Patrol with five people who’ve breached the border wall in hopes of apprehending them before they can reach a cartel/smuggler’s getaway car and thus prevent “a high-speed chase.” They arrived to find only two of the five captured, but then were dispatched to join in another pursuit seconds later (click “expand” to see a transcript from some of the key moments):     BRADLEY: [W]e just pulled over here. We’re tracking that group that we were telling you about. So there’s a couple individuals here. Some single adults here that were just picked up by border patrol. I — we just arrived on scene. Lieutenant Olivarez, let’s talk a little bit about kind of what’s unfolding here. We literally just arrived, so we have not talked to Border Patrol, so we don’t know much about these individuals. OLIVAREZ: Actually, we got to go. We’ve got some more. We’ve got to go. You’ve got to go get some more guys. All right. Let’s go! (....) BRADLEY: You actually see a Border Patrol motorcycle dirt bike over here to our left. So, we’ve got activity out here. We’re following a Border Patrol car. A lot activity here right now down, Dan. So again, out here, you have ATVs, you have horseback, you’ve got helicopters, we have different lights over here. We’ve got another law enforcement vehicle that’s searching in this area, so it looks like they kind of believe that somebody might be on foot in this area that we are — we are that we are traveling along. And we’ve got our windows down, we’re looking out we’re trying to find if there’s anybody out here, this is what we’re up against. So, like, Lieutenant Olivarez says, these individuals are reaching this wall so quickly, a matter of seconds, and it is basically off to the races for these individuals and they’re hiding in this very thick brush. And look at this, this industrial — there are buildings everywhere. There are so many places to hide before these individuals are really picked up by these load vehicles, so that’s what they’re contending with down here like Lieutenant Olivarez says, it’s a very dynamic situation. So, again, we have multiple agencies on the ground right no. We are embedded with this elite brush team that, as you can see, they have to pivot and go in the vehicles and go after individuals that are getting into these smuggling vehicles before it can become a pursuit and a bigger problem for law enforcement and also for the community. It’s very dangerous when these pursuits go through these communities. (....) BRADLEY: [This] is what they’re doing every single night down here. This is what we did last night as well. But right now, we are looking for people that are we are on foot that just breached the border wall and we’re trying to get them before they get into a loaded vehicle — a smuggling vehicle and then end up basically going north toward San Antonio and then north from there into whatever stash house or whatever other area they kind of disappear into in the interior of our country. With time having run out on the hour, Abrams summarized this as just “happen[ing] to be a Thursday”: “That’s about all that makes today special and we just decided it’s important to see what’s happening at the border on a typical day. And we’ve got a little taste of it. That’s all. That’s all we saw. Just a little bit.” By giving viewers a raw, live sense of what a day on the border looked like (as opposed to a sanitized, pro-illegal-alien perspective), it was an absolute home run by NewsNation. To see the relevant transcript from the May 9 special, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Nets Play Propagandists for Biden in Wisconsin, Bemoan ‘Stubborn’ Economy

On Wednesday night and Thursday morning, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC dutifully complied with suckling coverage of President Biden’s trip to Racine, Wisconsin as part of Microsoft announcing a new headquarters for its artificial intelligence (A.I.) division and bemoaning how the economy’s remained a “stubborn challenge” for Biden to break through to Americans who’ve stupidly been “nostalgic” for the Trump economy. ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News each served up a full report on Wednesday with the former, of course, turning to chief White House correspondent and chief Biden apple polisher, Mary Bruce.     “President Biden traveling to the critical battleground of Wisconsin today, where a new poll has him leading Donald Trump by the slimmest of margins. Biden there to announce Microsoft will build a $3.3 billion artificial intelligence center on the very same site of a failed Trump era project that was supposed to create tens of thousands of jobs, but never got off the ground,” Bruce began, sounding as though she were handed a script from Karine Jean-Pierre. Bruce cited all the key talking points about Microsoft’s alleged plans and how it will be positioned in the same spot that a largely failed Foxconn deal hawked by then-President Trump in 2018 fell through. “But the project fizzled. The field where Trump once broke ground with golden shovels now empty,” Bruce bragged, adding her President is “eager to sell his economic accomplishments to skeptical voters.” “Now, work on this new Microsoft project, we’re told, is already underway. President Biden certainly well aware of that new poll out today showing him leading Donald Trump in Wisconsin 50 percent to 44 percent in a two-way race,” she concluded. NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt also parroted the trip as Biden “work[ing] to sell voters on his economic achievements and the strength of the U.S. economy”, but fretted “he is still facing plenty of skepticism.” NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander started off much like Bruce with the fluff:  President Biden tonight in Wisconsin, his fourth visit to the crucial battleground this year, announcing the creation of a multibillion dollar A.I. datacenter. Microsoft promising to bring thousands of jobs. (....) The President also trying to cast a contrast here at the same site where then-President Trump announced a $10 billion electronics factory, but that massive project never materialized. After a softball soundbite from a union worker who attended the event, Alexander put up the idea of skepticism by admitting “Biden has a lot of convincing to do” with “[a] poll this week shows Americans trust Mr. Trump over the President on the economy and inflation by double digits while two-thirds of Americans say they’re living paycheck to paycheck.” He also spoke to an ice cream shop owner who expressed frustration that “everything costs more” and “four years ago,” she “could just go to work — right — come home, not really have to worry about so much.” Thursday’s CBS Mornings gave CBS its puff ball piece. Fill-in co-host Natalie Morales played the opening stenographer: “President Biden is highlighting his record on the economy as he tries to deflect criticism over high inflation, and he underlined that message to voters in a campaign trip to the battleground state of Wisconsin where he praised a multibillion dollar project by Microsoft.” Chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes whined the economy’s been “a stubborn challenge” and seemed perturbed voters would say they wanted a return to the Trump economy when, in 2020, they said it was poor. Gee, wonder what happened that year (click “expand”): CORDES: You know, 80 percent of voters tell us in polls that the economy is a major factor for them in this election. It is the biggest issue and, when it comes to the economy, many voters say they’re nostalgic for the past, so President Biden is getting more aggressive about contrasting his record with former President Donald Trump’s. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: On my watch, we make promises, and we keep promises. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] CORDES: President Biden paid a visit to this site in Racine, Wisconsin, Wednesday, not only because it’s the future home of a $3 billion Microsoft data center, but also because it’s where his predecessor wielded a golden shovel seven years ago to tout a project that ended up falling flat. DONALD TRUMP [in June 2018]: Really something, thank you, fellas. CORDES: Back then, the Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn was promising a plant with 13,000 jobs, but later, Foxconn scaled that number back by 90 percent. BIDEN: Foxconn turned out to be just that, a con. [LAUGHTER] Go figure. CORDES: Biden is trying to tackle a stubborn challenge. In the battleground state of Wisconsin, 62 percent of voters think the economy was better under Trump even though only 36 percent of Wisconsin voters actually rated the economy as good when Trump was President in 2020. BIDEN [on CNN]: We have the strongest economy in the world. CORDES: In his interview with CNN yesterday, Biden touted the nearly 15 million jobs created since he took office as the nation bounced back from the pandemic. BIDEN [on CNN]: He’s never succeeded in creating jobs, and I’ve never failed. NBC’s Today had a partial segment on Biden’s roadtrip with senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez conceding “[r]ecent polls show Americans trust Mr. Trump over Biden on the economy”, but noted the President jabbed the American people on CNN by saying “they have the money to spend.” To see the relevant transcripts from Mary 8, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). For transcripts from May 9, click here (for CBS) and here (for NBC).

NB Blog Feed

Election Interference: CNN Uses Audio of Private Briefing to Falsely Smear GOP’s Scott Perry

With Republicans holding a razor-thin House majority and President Biden struggling to build momentum against former President Trump, there’s no limit to how far the liberal media will go into interfere in the presidential election. Such an odious example came up on Wednesday as CNN.com eagerly published an account using audio from a private House Oversight Committee meeting to falsely paint Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA) as a racist. Typing unofficially on behalf of her liberal sources hellbent on ousting Perry, Annie Grayer bragged of “audio of Perry’s comments shared with CNN” that alleged Perry told colleagues “in a closed door briefing...on Tuesday that the Ku Klux Klan is the ‘the military wing of the Democratic party’ and that migrants coming to the US ‘have no interest in being Americans.’” Grayer further kvetched in the second graph that Perry’s “a right-wing Republican who has repeated elements of the anti-immigrant and antisemitic replacement theory before.” Nowhere in her smear job did Grayer allude to how Perry’s comments came about, what they were in response to, or that private briefings and hearings are meant to be secret with lawmakers and staff largely abiding by that in the name of this thing called trust. It took until a fourth paragraph for Grayer to even quote entire sentences from Perry, which she clearly tried to paint as inaccurate: “The KKK in modern times, a lot of young people think somehow it’s a right-wing organization when it is the military wing of the Democratic Party. Decidedly, unabashedly, racist and antisemitic,” Perry said according to the recording. The KKK is not affiliated in any way with the modern Democratic Party. Ah, splitting hairs, she is! Someone needs a history lesson like we had to provide to USA Today back in 2020. And we should also ask at this point: Will Grayer release the audio? And was what was said before Perry included? Funny how it works with the liberal media and anonymous sources. Grayer then deceptively argued Perry somehow brought up replacement theory out of the blue when one could almost certainly bet it was first invoked as a taunt by a House Democrat (click “expand”): Perry then defended replacement theory, which is the idea that white people are being slowly and intentionally replaced by minorities and immigrants. “Replacement theory is real” Perry said according to the recording shared with CNN. “They added white to it to stop everybody from talking about it.” While Perry said he is happy to accept people “that are here legally,” pointing to his ancestors who migrated to the US, he has an issue with migrants that are “un-American.” “What is happening now is we’re importing people into the country that want to be in America … but have no interest in being Americans, and that’s very different and to disparage the comments is to chill the conversation so that we can continue to bring in more people that we never met that are un-American,” Perry said, according to the recording. Earth to Annie: What part(s) of this are inaccurate? For example, since President Biden took office, there have been 7.5 million border encounters with illegal immigrants and an educated guess of another 1.7 million people who escaped detainment. That certainly doesn’t indicate attempts are made to stem the flow! Grayer also dishonestly refused to note the tail end of her quotation indicated Perry was addressing someone who had attacked him and/or those critical of illegal immigration. Who was that? Follow this link for a list of the Democrats on the committee. Take your best guess! Only at the bottom did she provide a statement from Perry excoriating “the radical Left” for “twist[ing] facts in order to silence conversation about its own crimes and Biden’s intentional failures to enforce laws and close or regulate our borders.” Grayer had no shame as she implied Perry supports mass murders and is even anti-Semitic: Replacement theory is the idea that white people are being slowly and intentionally replaced by minorities and immigrants. The xenophobic and racist rhetoric associated with the theory has found its way into the mainstream of American politics and elements of it appear to have motivated some of the most heinous recent mass murders in the US and around the world. There are specific antisemitic elements of the unfounded theory as well, that Jews specifically are organizing a flood of non-white immigrants.

NB Blog Feed

Here Are the Best & Worst Moments From the House NPR Hearing with MRC’s Graham

On Wednesday, the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations during a hearing on the decades-long liberal boondoggle that is National Public Radio (NPR). Not surprisingly, he came armed with examples of their virulent bias and hate for conservatives. Joined by Americans for Tax Reform’s James Erwin, the American Enterprise Institute’s Howard Husock, and Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, Graham took questions from lawmakers that fell into all-predictable camps of Republicans recognizing the problem and Democrats not only denying reality, but accusing critics of NPR of putting the lives of journalists in danger. Before we dive into the highlights and lowlights, here was Graham’s opening statement, which included examples dating back to the 1980s of NPR’s shameless partisan hackery (click “expand”):     I represent the Media Research Center, America’s preeminent conservative media watchdog organization. It was founded in 1987, and I joined up in 1989. We monitor national media outlets on a daily basis and provide daily coverage of the media’s tilt at NewsBusters.org.  Uri Berliner obviously tried to make the point that media bias became a bigger problem when Donald Trump ran for president. We are here to tell you this has been a problem for a very long time. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then she tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. They energetically channeled the accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and when a man arrived in an Uber on Kavanaugh’s street two years ago with weapons and plans to assassinate Kavanaugh, NPR failed to file a single feature story on it. Nina Totenberg could not be found. NPR, a supposed source of civility, didn’t demonstrate that cared one bit about this potential political violence. But in March, between Morning Edition and Fresh Air, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded air time to reproduce her unproven charges of teenaged sexual assault. Now, most of us, what we remember best has been mentioned. The Exhibit A here of NPR’s bias is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out. NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR’s Managing Editor for News. He said: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.” That’s interesting, since you could argue Nina Totenberg’s hostile reporting on Supreme Court nominees created “politically driven events.” Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden’s Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories. The pattern continues today. When a House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March that Hunter Biden where he was supposed to appear, NPR’s All Things Considered wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then it couldn’t do a two-minute story on the Biden impeachment inquiry. Instead, the next morning NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. NPR’s website did have a Biden mention. White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.” NPR, that network of civility, also has encouraged chaos and disorder in society: On August 27, 2020, NPR’s blog “Code Switch”, with the slogan “Race In Your Face,” posted an interview promoting a new book titled In Defense of Looting. On The NPR Politics Podcast on July 17, 2021,they promoted a book by Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton saying that protests against policy should not — they shouldn’t be called riots. They should be called “rebellions”. On NPR’s Fresh Air on April 15, 2023, their movie critic John Powers praised the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline, hailing it as “hugely timely”. You know, this is what NPR is doing. They can devote our taxpayer dollars to getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines . And yet, NPR represents the Republicans as uniquely extreme. We’ve seen this throughout this Congress where they come on and say, “oh, the hard right Republicans are ruining everything.” Um, they were doing this morning discussing Miss Taylor Greene, but they have had several sappy interviews with Hakeem Jeffries. Steve Inskeep at one said — said, “you say to Republicans drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel.” This is the way they treat Republicans, basically as nutballs who are gonna drive the car off the cliff. You might understand that’s why we might get a little upset. Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was on the flip side, accusing those investigating NPR’s political tilt of a “disturbing” return to “the dark days of McCarthyism” when, instead, the House should crack down on private “right-wing media organizations that have a long history of peddling misinformation, disinformation, promoting partisan agendas and sowing fear and division.” “Public cynicism about the media doesn’t come from NPR. It comes from the right-wing media,” he added as if to suggest NPR hasn’t done anything itself to harm its reputation. Congresswoman and full committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA) was the first member in the Q&A to speak with Graham, which afforded him the chance to call out Ranking Member Cathy Castor’s (D-FL) for claiming media critics are akin to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and those in the Chinese Communist Party: .@HouseCommerce Chair @CathyMcMorris on @NPR: “Mr. Graham, I’ll start with you. As you’re aware, Mr. [Uri] Berliner, in — wrote this op-ed, and in it, quote, he says, “By 2023, the picture was completely different. Only 11% describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative,… pic.twitter.com/QO7TTwvlMX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 As the Democratic witness, Aaron served as a stand-in for NPR and lamented to Pallone that the motives of journalists would be questioned. This led Pallone to argue adversarial critiques of the news media are acts of political intimidation. Aaron agreed and said sustained (and outside) criticism of journalists made them “more timid, more cautious, more unwilling to ask hard questions” and thus it’s not only “harder for them to do their job”, but their lives are on the line. Moments later, Congressman Jeff Duncan used his time to lambaste NPR as “a Democrat propaganda machine funded by U.S. tax dollars” and mock the idea they’re providing “objective reporting”: GOP @RepJeffDuncan on @NPR in @HouseCommerce hearing: “You know, I used to drive 65,000 miles a year in my truck and like Mr. [@TimJGraham], I used to listen to NPR a good bit. In fact, I enjoyed All Things Considered. But unfortunately all things aren't considered now. The… pic.twitter.com/11JKUZq1bR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) went to Graham after noting “there’s a hunger in our society for just plain, unbiased news” that also doesn’t send blood pressures soaring. She asked Graham about what’s needed “to ensure NPR provides impartial coverage and serves a broader audience”:     And, in response to a question from Lesko, Erwin brought up what precipitated the last congressional hearing about NPR (that Graham also testified at), which was “a scandal where local affiliates were sharing donor lists with Democratic Party operatives” and suggested a remedy of allowing taxpayers to opt out of funding NPR (and PBS) on their tax forms. Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) astutely focused on the connection public broadcast has to far-left foundations: .@USRepGaryPalmer at @HouseCommerce hearing on @NPR: “I'd like to respond to my Democratic colleagues concerns about local media and the role that NPR plays in that. There was an article that pointed out that traditional outlets like The New York Times have moved so far to the… pic.twitter.com/pZFCMJKtWf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Later, Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Aaron fretted it’s “very dangerous” to be “attacking the media” because that’s how “democracies” die:     Sanity was restored when Congressman John Joyce (R-PA) acknowledged that “my constituents in south Central and southwestern Pennsylvania would be a target audience for NPR” with large, rural swaths dependent “on radio for news for emergency alerts and more”, but aren’t as NPR’s squandered away their trust with their liberal biases. Graham explained how NPR has strayed from its mission of representing all voices by explaining how, oftentimes, stories will claim to feature a Republican voice, but said voice will be from, say, Liz Cheney. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) closed out the hearing by adding his voice to what were a parade of voices on the Republican side denouncing NPR CEO Katherine Maher from declining to appear before the committee. He then asked Graham about NPR’s future with Maher (click “expand”):     CRENSHAW: [Y]ou’ve collected a pretty impressive assortment of NPR’s failures on — and — and failures to have unbiased reporting. Give us your thoughts on that and is Ms. Maher a good — a good fit to change course? GRAHAM: Oh, I don’t think there’s any intention to change course. I think that’s why she was selected. It would be interesting to hear her try to explain, you know, what it is that they’re trying to do, because when we listen to this radio network on a regular basis, it’s quite clear. You can understand why the Democrats don’t want to have a hearing about this. It works very, very well for them, right? You can understand why the gentleman from Free Press has to say he’s not here to represent public broadcasting, but they’re very closely affiliated and fight for the funding together. You know, obviously, Democrats like the system exactly as it is right now. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: And so, the very least we can do is — yes, have the CEO in and try to explain who in there is doing anything to suggest maybe we should have a more balanced set of interviews. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: Let’s — let’s have a more balanced set of journalists. You won’t see anybody from Fox News on NPR. CRENSHAW: No, and you would think that’s what the whole point — if you’re gonna do unbiased media, then it has to be unbiased. Biased media is okay. You know, just — just admit it, though. MSNBC does not try to claim that it’s unbiased. I don’t even think Fox tries to claim it’s unbiased anymore. It’s just not right. It’s we’ve had. We’ve had biased media in this country since their founding, but if you’re going to be a taxpayer-funded media company, you actually have to adhere to the principles of — of unbiased news broadcasting or say the quiet part out loud and maybe that’s the benefit of the new CEO. She has said the quiet part out loud, pretty clearly. And so, there can be no — there can be no question about what direction NPR is headed and it — and it can be simply written off and maybe we should — we should look at ways to defund it. How — how would we in Congress, perhaps, some suggestions on how we would change course in NPR? To see the relevant transcript from the hearing on May 8, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Levin NUKES ‘Linguini’ Biden, Media ‘Censorship’ Downplaying Oct. 7, Touting Hamas

Back on Saturday during his Fox News Channel Show Life, Liberty, & Levin, our friend and conservative talk radio legend Mark Levin used his opening monologue to torch President Biden and his allies in the liberal media for downplaying the animalistic October 7, 2023 terror attacks by Hamas on innocents in Israel the further we get from the attacks to commiserate with Gazans (despite their reported widespread support for their government’s attacks). Levin began by tearing into Biden’s brief May 2 speech about the pro-Islamic terrorism college students, calling it “not so much a speech” and instead “a statement” by a “pathetic” man with “linguini for a spine” and who’s “ so thoroughly pathetic” with “no moral center”.     Biden continued, taking issue with the media’s refusal to show (or even return to) the graphic footage from the attacks: How many news organizations, how many news platforms have played for you the video of what took place on October 7? Well, a lot of it. It’s on the internet. We have a lot of it because the monsters who perpetrated those heinous crimes of inhumanity, they took the video. They are very proud of it. The video was captured by the IDF, the Israelis. As I say, it is online. There’s a 47-minute video that shows in excruciating detail how the Islamist Hamas Nazis murdered people, raped people, butchered people, burned them alive, decapitated them, cut off their breasts, shot them in the groin. Oh, there’s all kinds of stuff — mass rape. Have you ever seen it on TV? Cable or network. No, you haven’t. Why? You haven’t even seen video that doesn’t show the worst of it, video where the terrorists are just going through the Nova festival field showing — showing of the kids they murdered, shot in the back, shot in the chest, shot in the head. Have you seen any of that on TV? No, you haven’t seen any of it. “[W]e don’t get video in our media, our main media of October 7. Oh, it is too gruesome. Instead, we get these looped videos over and over again of buildings in Gaza that have been destroyed because Hamas either destroyed them or they had the terrorists there, or they had their munitions there, and of course, it’s Israel’s fault,” he lamented. Levin dropped the hammer: “[Y]ou won’t see the video that exists. Why is that? It’s called censorship. That’s why. The American media is censoring what took place on October 7. Again, you can see it online, but the mass media where most people go for their news, you won’t see it. It is being covered up.” Levin expanded on this contrast and the lengths General Dwight D. Eisenhower went to ensure the horrors left behind were broadcast (click “expand”): When soldiers of the Fourth Armored Division entered the camp, they discovered piles of bodies, some covered with lime, others partially incinerated on pyres. The ghastly nature of their discovery led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe to visit the camp on April 12th, with Generals George S. Patton and Omar Bradley.And after his visit, Eisenhower cabled General George C. Marshall, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington, describing his trip to the death camp. He said, “the things I saw beggar description...The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering so as to leave me a bit sick...I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’” Eisenhower’s cable to Marshall on April 19, 1945, and I quote: “We continue to discover German concentration camps for political prisoners, which conditions of indescribable horror prevail.” From Eisenhower to General Marshall for eyes only. “I visited one of these myself, and I show you that whatever has been printed on them today has been understated. If you would see any advantage and asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to take a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places, where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering, as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocities.” And then Eisenhower the same day received this response: “Your proposal has been cleared and approved by the Secretary of War and the President.” — Truman — “Plans are being formulated and you will be kept advised.” This is what Eisenhower wrote in “Crusade in Europe” in its pages in his book: “The same day, [April 12, 1945], I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I’ve never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face-to-face with the indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I’m certain however, that I’ve never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock. I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at firsthand about these things in case they ever grew up at home, the belief or assumption that the stories of Nazi brutality were just ‘propaganda’. Some members of the visiting party were unable through the ordeal to go through it. I only did so, but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening, I’d sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany, a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that will leave no room for cynical doubt.” He said: “Of all these displaced persons, the Jews were in the most deplorable condition. For years, they’d been beaten, starved, and tortured.” And in Ike, the Soldier: As They Knew Him, Merle Miller quotes Eisenhower speaking on April 25, 1945 to members of Congress and the journalists who had been shown Buchenwald the day before. He said: “You saw only one camp yesterday, there are many others. Your responsibilities, I believe, extend into a great field at informing the people at home of things like these atrocities is one of them...Nothing is covered up. We have nothing to conceal. The barbarous treatment of these people received in the German concentration camps is almost unbelievable. I want you to see for yourself and be spokesman for the United States.” Back in 2024, Levin noted the lack of (constant) focus on the horrors on October 7 by the liberal media is because “they are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists to Iran, to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to the PLO” as well as “their front organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Jewish Vote, CAIR” and “the Marxist and Islamist professors”. Later, Levin powerfully concluded that not only will history look poorly on Biden, but the President and his allies in academia who’ve “given aid and comfort to the modern Nazis, in Iran, Hamas, and in our own country, the Hitler Youth and the imams that spew their hate” will be remembered like those in the 1930s and 1940s who “gave aid and comfort to Nazi Germany”. To see the relevant Fox transcript from May 4, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Jacqui Time Drops Hammer on WH Supporting Israel, Whether Student Camps Need to Go

In case you missed it, Monday’s White House press briefing was dominated by questions about Hamas supposedly agreeing to a ceasefire deal that, as we would quickly find out, was one they more or less concocted on their own (as opposed to one backed by Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the U.S.), so Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich made a point to wonder whether the Biden regime still wants Israel to win the war. “John, noting everything that you’ve said about the concerns expressed by the U.S., about the risk to Palestinians in Gaza with a full-scale operation, is the U.S. still aligned with Israel in its intention to eliminate the terrorist threat posed by Hamas,” Heinrich wondered to national security spokesman John Kirby.     When Kirby replied with a simple “of course”, Heinrich followed up: And is there any feeling that Hamas may be trying to trick the public in some way? You heard Israeli officials commenting on this latest proposal as a trick, and there’s been a lot of pressure...on the administration to make sure that the needs of Palestinians are — are being served and that the U.S. support for Israel isn’t, you know, overhanded. And you had the — the report come out earlier today, or maybe yesterday that the U.S. was potentially weighing withholding an arms shipment to Israel. Is there any concern that Hamas was trying to capitalize on that public pressure and, you know, play a trick, as Israeli officials put it? Since he’s apparently the only adult in the room with ounces of moral clarity (but not here when he did his best Jean-Pierre impression), Kirby said he would only be able to “answer that question unless I got between the ears of Mr. Sinwar, and that’s a place I really don’t want to be” and these questions need to go to him. Kirby then lowered the boom on these radical Islamists: You know, it’s interesting. I stand up here and answer questions. Karine, Matt Miller at the State Department, Pentagon colleagues, the President does, Prime Minister Netanyahu does, and the IDF military spokesman does. You know who hasn’t answered a single question about his intentions and what games he might be playing or where he intends to take this? Mr. Sinwar, head of Hamas, and I think it’s a — I think it’s high time that he answers some of these questions, and he come clean about what his intentions are. After he said the administration’s examining it, Heinrich questioned whether it’s “still a good idea to try to negotiate with terrorists”. Kirby countered that, unfortunately, “you gotta negotiate with who you got to negotiate to get people back with their families.” Heinrich closed whether she began with concerns about the U.S. supporting “Israel’s intention to eliminate Hamas.” Kirby didn’t back down and said Israel has the “right and responsibility to go after the Hamas threat — to eliminate that threat” that inflicted such harm on their citizens. The Fox correspondent also got in a few questions to Jean-Pierre on the pro-Hamas encampments on college campuses. After a “no” on the possibility that Biden would “get out there and talk to students,” Heinrich asked about whether President Biden and the administration would support a dismantling of a the (terrorist sympathizing) camp at the George Washington University (click “expand”): HEINRICH: GW’s president has called for Metro police in D.C. to intervene to dismantle what they’ve deemed an illegal encampment and D.C. police have so far refused to respond to that call. It’s happening in the President’s backyard. Is there any reaction from the White House on what should happen?” JEAN-PIERRE: So, that is something that I’m going to leave to the local law enforcement and universities., That’s for them to figure out — for them to work it through. They know what is happening on the ground, and we’ve always been very clear about that and we’ll continue to be clear about that. We’re going to continue to call for peaceful protest and, you know, dissent cannot lead to disorder and so going to continue to be very, very clear, as the President has been — as I have been, and so many of us here in this administration has been. HEINRICH: Any idea why DC police would not respond to this call? JEAN-PIERRE: I would — I would refer you to the D.C. police. That’s something for them to speak to. Elsewhere in the briefing, an Al Jazeera correspondent and The Wall Street Journal’s Annie Linskey kvetched to an unfortunately sympathetic Kirby about Israel shutting down the pro-Hamas, Qatari-funded Al Jazeera (click “expand”): LINSKEY: And just really quickly. The Israelis stopped broadcast of Al Jazeera over the weekend. Can you comment on whether that’s appropriate action for a United States ally? KIRBY: We don’t support that action. As we said, very clearly on World Press Freedom Day on Friday, I know Karine talked about this, the work of independent journalism around the world is absolutely vital. Um — it’s important to an informed citizenry and public, but it’s also important to — to — uh — to help inform the policy making process, so we don’t support that at all. LINSKEY: And did the President bring it up at all in his call? KIRBY: The focus of the call was on hostage deal and on Rafah. KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: I’m gonna give you to — KIRBY: But you say my — sorry — I think I put a statement out this morning on that. So we have officially reacted to it. JEAN-PIERRE: Go ahead, Al Jazeera in the back. AL JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT: Thank you so much, Karine. Thank you, John. Uh, is that administration planning on discussing the banning of Al Jazeera in Israel with the Israeli government? We just celebrated the freedom of the press here in the United States and across the globe, and then this decision came and it was really a big shock. KIRBY: As I just said, we don’t — AL JAZEERA CORRESPONDENT: Will this administration raise this issue with the government of Israel? KIRBY: We have raised this issue and I made a — a public statement about it. On a different topic NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez and CBS’s Ed O’Keefe ended the briefing by questioning Jean-Pierre about the seemingly never-ending saga of Governor Kristi Noem’s (R-SD) memoir: NBC's @GabeGutierrez: “Just really quickly. What's your response to Kristi Noem’s comments, implying that Commanders should be put down?” KJP: “Look, you know, when we learned last week, obviously, like all of you in her book that she killed her puppy, you heard me say that was… pic.twitter.com/QmxlsIZlms — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2024 To see the relevant transcript from the May 6 briefing, click here.

NB Blog Feed

ABC Commiserates with Nathan Wade, Bemoan ‘Whirlwind of Distraction’ From Jailing Trump

On Sunday’s World News Tonight and Monday’s Good Morning America (GMA), ABC rolled out the first two segments on their flagship newscasts of their network exclusive interview with former Fulton County, Georgia special prosecutor Nathan Wade over losing his job nearly two months ago in the 2020 election case against former President Trump and 18 others because of his illicit romantic relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis. Correspondent, Sunday World News Tonight anchor, and ABC News Live host Linsey Davis didn’t lob one softball after another, but she largely let him off the hook by fretting Wade and Willis were caught and thus were a collective “whirlwind of distraction” from the fourth Trump indictment and letting Wade offer no serious apologies as he called their trysts “as American as apple pie.” On Sunday night, Davis opened with Wade’s soundbite that “[w]orkplace romances are as American as apple pie” and occur with “everyone” but bemoans the fact that they were caught. Asked if he regrets becoming involved with Willis, Wade replied he only “regret[s]” this “private matter became the focal point of this very important prosecution”. In the other Q&A, Davis only wondered if they had really grappled with the fact that “democracy is on the line, as has been described” and thought of putting the country above their relationship. Wade again displayed zero remorse, only saying he’d “concede that that could have been an approach, but...when you are in the middle of it, these feelings are developing, and you get to a point to where the feelings are — are — are so strong that, you know, you start to want to do things that really are none of the public’s concern.” While Wade won’t end up in prison, the guy belongs in some sort of dog house or horny jail for how shameless the man remains about his escapades. Monday’s GMA brought about just over six and a half additional minutes of this cringe. Davis boasted that “Wade had a lot to get off his chest” about losing the case he had “spen[t] 865 days” working on what would be yet another case of election interference.     Setting the tone this wouldn’t be grilling by starting with Wade telling her he “want[s] people to know the real me”, Davis reracked the first exchange that aired on Sunday night about office sex is “as American as apple pie” and he only regrets being caught. Davis then fretted “[t]he relationship created a whirlwind of distraction from the indictment of former President Trump and 18 others for alleged election interference” and put the brakes on their prosecutions. As a way to seem tough, she quoted far-left feminist Post columnist Monica Hesse and wondered why it took them 25 days to fight back (click “expand”): DAVIS [TO WADE]: A Washington Post columnist wrote, “what were they thinking? How would they start a romance, embroiled in the prosecution of a former President, start a romance and not see this trouble coming a mile away.” And so, what were you thinking in that moment? WADE: You know, again, you — you don’t plan to — to develop feelings. You don’t plan to — to fall in love. You don’t plan to — to — to have some relationship in the workplace that we — you don’t set out to do that and those things develop organically. They develop over — over time. And the — the minute we had that sobering moment, we discontinued it. DAVIS: For nearly one month after news of their relationship broke, neither prosecutor acknowledged it publicly. [TO WADE] So, for 25 days, we didn’t hear from — from you or District Attorney Willis. You’re a public servant — right — getting paid by the state of — of Georgia. Why not say, okay, we’ll — we’ll make a statement, get on top of this? WADE: Let me say this. My conversation here with you today is just that. It’s — it’s Nathan’s conversation. I — I do not speak for the district attorney’s office. I do not speak for their position. As a matter of fact, I am certain that they would rather me not be having this — this exchange with you. So, with that, I want to continue to protect the integrity of this prosecution. I don’t want to say or do anything that would jeopardize this case. After a comical aside with Wade claiming his relationship with Willis hasn’t had an effect on the case, Davis somewhat incredulously and somewhat sympathetically played along as he claimed he wasn’t ready for the public spotlight from having been named to the case and whined about Trump attacking him (click “expand”): DAVIS: One aspect Wade said he wasn’t prepared for was the intense public scrutiny and harassment he said he’s faced. [TO WADE] So, you didn’t realize when you took the case your life was going to be under a microscope? WADE: I did not realize that my life would be in danger. The microscope — I don’t have a problem with. The truth is I — you know, the worst that you could find was the fact that I had a relationship with someone or that I — I happened to be going through a divorce, that’s okay. That — that’s okay. I — I had nothing to — to hide. DAVIS: And some of the attacks have come from the former President himself. [TO WADE] Is there any part of you that regrets that you gave him any aspect to say, oh, you have to question the credibility of this case because of the relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade? WADE: So, while — while I will concede, Miss Davis, that the relationship did not happen in ideal timing, I don’t think that anything that occurred during the course of the relationship should cause question as it would relate to the efficiency of the indictment, as it would relate to evidence that was uncovered and — and — and may or may not be presented at — at trial. Following one final clip of Wade expressing confidence the trial will happen, Davis told the GMA crew back live that “one thing Wade says he does regret is the impact the scandal has had on his adult children” and “[h]e wants people to know he was separated at the time of the relationship with Fani Willis”. To see the relevant ABC transcripts, click here (for May 5) and here (for May 6).

NB Blog Feed

ICYMI: Hamill Derails WH Briefing, Doocy Battles Inept KJP Over Her Alma Mater

Friday’s White House press briefing began with a distinct 2016 vibe as the Biden administration demanded it be taken seriously on the reelection front with Star Wars actor Mark Hamill surprising reporters ahead of May 4 (aka May the Fourth Be With You!) and a few dutifully complied by asking him questions despite the fact that, as we’d later learn, one hasn’t seen any of the movies. Elsewhere, the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre faced her usual hardballs from the like of Fox colleagues Edward Lawrence on tax cuts and basic respect for laws on the books and then Peter Doocy on both-sides-ing anti-Semitism and Islamphobia, Jean-Pierre’s alma mater, and the now-famous UNC fraternity brothers.     Hamill led off with his surprise appearance and donning a pair of aviators to match the President before saying he “was honored to be asked to come to the White House to meet the President, the most legislatively successful president in my lifetime” and listing off standard party talking points. He then opened it up to questions after thanking The New York Times’s Peter Baker in the second row for his most recent book which was, naturally, an anti-Trump tome with wife Susan Glasser. ABC’s Selina Wang seized the opportunity: “Thank you, Mark Hamill, for being here. What did you ask? What did you talk about with the President?” After Hamill replied this was his first time visiting a White House on his own in the Oval and thus more special (as opposed to going in a group), CBS’s Weijia Jiang had the other question:  JIANG: Did President Biden bring up Star Wars to you, sir? HAMILL: Well, you know, I called him Mr President. He said, you can call me Joe and I said, “can I call you Joe-Bi-Wan Kenobi?” Jiang returned to this topic during her Q&A with a genuine question about why Hamill came to the White House, but Jean-Pierre didn’t like her tone and it quickly devolved into a mini-roast of the CBS correspondent for admitting she’s never watched the movies (click “expand”): JIANG: And then just to close the loop. What was Mark Hamill doing here today? JEAN-PIERRE: I think he said. He said he was meeting with — he was having a meeting. Did you not like having him in? JIANG: No, I mean, that’s not — we all loved meeting him, but —  JEAN-PIERRE: It sounded — it sounded — it sounded very kind of like, why? Why here? Um, he was no, He said it himself. I — we — we wanted to make sure that he provided — which is one of the reasons he spoke to — why he was here himself. He wanted to meet with the President. They had a meeting, and — JIANG: About what? JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, you guys asked him questions. Uh — uh — uh — uh, they had a meeting about — um — what the President has been able to do on behalf of the American people. Mark Hamill was in town. They met. I think it was — it was important as someone — you all — you all know Mark Hamill. He is someone who has who is very much invested in our country — very much invested in — um — in the direction of this country. And so — uh — they had a — you know, they had a meeting. It was — he — he went into that meeting, and I thought — we thought it would be fun for him to come out here and lighten up — and lighten up the room a little bit on a Friday. We also believe that you guys are — so — there are some Star Wars fans in here. Uh — but, you know, the President — I mean, the President meets with a lot of people. There’s a lot of people that come through the White House that the President has an opportunity to sit down and talk with. You just happen to — you just happen to see Mark Hamill today because we thought it would be a nice gesture to have him come out and say hello, but I wouldn’t put too much. I really wouldn’t put too much into it. He meets with a lot of people here.  JIANG: Thank you. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. All right. Jeez. Weijia is not happy about Mark Hamill being here. [REPORTERS LAUGH] That’s okay. I’m not gonna tell him. He’s not watching probably. I won’t tell him. REPORTER: Have you [inaudible] JIANG: I don’t — I haven’t seen the movies. JEAN-PIERRE: Do you — do you not like Star Wars? You have not seen Star Wars. What? JIANG: I will now. I will now. [REPORTERS BOO] JEAN-PIERRE: That’s why that happened, folks. That’s why I got the question. Yeah. JIANG: I’m gonna watch. I’m going to watch. REPORTER: She’s not alone. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, there’s more.  REPORTER: What? JEAN-PIERRE: Well, All right. I’m gonna let that go. Fast-forwarding to the back end of the briefing, Lawrence fact-checked the administration on tax cuts: “So, the President says that he wants to let the tax cuts — the Trump tax cuts expire. If that law expires, it does raise taxes on almost every American. So, does he still support that expiring without anything else in place?”     Jean-Pierre deflected by claiming while Biden will “let the Trump tax cut expire....he will not raise taxes on anyone less than $400,000” and he’s “been very clear about that.” Lawrence doubled down: “[T]he President can’t pick and choose which part of the law sunsets. The entire law will sunset and the Tax Foundation says that someone who’s married, two kids, making 85,000 would pay $1,700 more in taxes. That’s somebody under $400,000”. Jean-Pierre didn’t budge on any of her talking points, including the irrelevant claim about Republicans “want[ing] to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security” Doocy Time began with this both-sidesism that, if it were done by a Republican president, would trigger liberal media-wide excoriations: “So, in the President’s remarks yesterday, he’s talking about Islamophobia on campuses. Lately, we’ve been seeing a lot of vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric on campuses. Does he think Islamophobia is just as big of a problem on campus as anti-Semitism?” Jean-Pierre shamelessly wouldn’t fully rebut that and instead remained in neutral with a standard word salad about Bide being able “to call out all forms of hate, always” and opposing protests that aren’t “within the law”.     Doocy next used Jean-Pierre’s own words against her when noting no one had asked her about the fact that anti-Semitic protest hotbed Columbia University is Jean-Pierre’s alma mater. Pathetically, Jean-Pierre mocked Doocy for having done “some research” (click “expand”): DOOCY: Something else that it somehow slipped my mind. JEAN-PIERRE: How is that — DOOCY: — over the last couple of weeks. JEAN-PIERRE: Oh, goodness. DOOCY: You are an alumna of Columbia — OTHER REPORTERS: Ooooo! DOOCY: — University. JEAN-PIERRE: Wow, that’s a shocker. DOOCY: You, in all the talking about it — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. DOOCY: — you haven’t brought it up. Uh, you told Columbia students a few years back. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. DOOCY: “Don’t” — JEAN-PIERRE: Oh! DOOCY: — “lose the idealism that you have.” So what do you tell them now? JEAN-PIERRE: You did — you did some research. Oh, my God! DOOCY: All I do is research and just hope that you call me. JEAN-PIERRE: [LAUGHS] You did some —” DOOCY: But no! What do you tell, the — JEAN-PIERRE: I mean, look —“ DOOCY: — the students who are following in your footsteps? JEAN-PIERRE: — look — I mean, look, going to be — oh, and that’s actually gonna be a great segue to — uh — to the student — student journalist that we have in the room, Danny — um — after I answer this question. DOOCY: I do have one more, though. [REPORTERS LAUGH] JEAN-PIERRE: Ah! DOOCY: Sorry, Danny. JEAN-PIERRE: It’s okay. Uh — so, look — I’m not speaking on behalf of me. I’m not. I speak on behalf of this President. That’s my job, and I believe in this president. I believe in the work that we do. It is an honor and a privilege to stand at this lectern every day to speak to you and all your colleagues and to take your questions. It is not about me — uh — and really your question and what you’re asking me and — and what I have said to students is pretty much what the President has said. All Americans have the right to peacefully protest within the law. They have to — we have the right. That’s what makes this country so great, right? That’s what makes what — when we’re talking about our freedoms, our democracy. That’s what’s so important — to have the opportunity to agree and disagree and do it in a peaceful way in a peaceful way. That’s important, and the President also called out — if you’re — if you are breaking and entering and you are taking over buildings, that is not peacefully protesting, and the President was very clear about calling that out as well and also anti-Semitism and calling it what it is. It is hate speech. Doocy closed by being the first reporter to bring up in the briefing the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill fraternity brothers who “saved an American flag from an angry mob of protesters” and there was “a GoFundMe where people can donate to throw them a rager.” Amazingly, Doocy asked if Biden “would...donate” to which Jean-Pierre was incredulous: “You never disappoint, my friend.” She then gave a standard answer about how ripping down the American flag as anti-Israel students was not an example of peaceful protest”. When Doocy asked if Biden would even give them a call, Jean-Pierre only said “protecting the American flag is admirable.” To see the relevant transcript from the May 3 briefing (including a question from the left by the AP on anti-Semitic campus protests and a long back-and-forth with April Ryan directly lobbying for a pardon of former Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby), click here.

NB Blog Feed

ABC, CBS Play White House Pravda Fawning Over State Dinner for Teachers

Less than week after President Biden used his White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) speech to order the liberal media to get to work on behalf of democracy (aka his reelection campaign), ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS Mornings took this to heart with puff ball pieces Friday on a White House state dinner held to celebrate teachers. This was especially par for the course on ABC. Co-host Michael Strahan even had a tease at the top of the second hour: “From the classroom to the White House. The historic event for teachers who help others make their dreams come true. We got ready with the national teacher of the year.”     “Going to turn now to the White House, honoring America’s top teachers last night, including the national teacher of the year. Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang was there and ABC got an exclusive behind the scenes access,” he added moments later. Wang did her best impression of colleague and chief Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce: [T]he White House, for the first time, hosting a state dinner for teachers. Now, these are lavish events for heads of state, but this time, teachers got to experience the glitz and glam and we got that exclusive look behind the scenes. Overnight, the White House hosting the first ever teachers of the year state dinner. First Lady Dr. Jill Biden toasting honorees from nearly every state and territory. Following soundbites from Jill and Joe Biden, Wang touted ABC’s exclusive look at national teacher of the year Mindy Testerman — an ESOL teacher in Tennessee — getting ready and as she made her grand entrance where celebrities and politicians often pose for photos upon rival for state dinners. “Testerman hoping to use her platform to encourage other teachers to advocate for students,” Wang added, asking her inside the White House, “[w]hy is teaching so important?” “Teaching is so important because as this country moves forward, educators make every other single profession possible,” Testerman replied. Wang concluded with a line from Testerman’s speech, which sounded like it was crafted by the Democratic National Committee as she talked about preserving “democracy”: And guys, Missy Testerman said in her speech last night that teachers make democracy possible by educating the next generation. And, look, the learning goes both ways. She told me that her students have taught her courage, calling them her heroes[.] Having been the ones to reveal both Testerman as the award recipient and there would be a state dinner for all state and national teachers, CBS Mornings was ebullient and made sure viewers knew it. “For the first time ever, America’s top teachers were invited to a special dinner at the White House to honor their work. First Lady Jill Biden hosted last night’s event, upgrading the usual White House reception for state and national teachers of the year,” fill-in co-host Jericka Duncan began, tossing to chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes. Cordes made sure to twice name-check the show (click “expand”): [V]ery glitzy. You might recall that the First Lady revealed right here on CBS Mornings last month that she was going to host a state dinner for the nation’s top teachers. And so, last night, the educators traded in their school clothes for gowns and suits as they were each announced individually at the event. Now, this is a big deal since White House state dinners are typically reserved for visiting heads of state, prime ministers, the Hollywood elite. It’s the toughest ticket in town. But this space, take a look, may look familiar. Missy Testerman joined CBS Mornings last month when we revealed that she was named the 2024 national teacher of the year. The English as a Second Language program director at Rogersville City School in Tennessee has been teaching for more than three decades. She was celebrated last night.  Like a Biden press secretary, Cordes added “[t]he nation’s top educators received an inspirational message from the First Lady, who has also been teaching for more than 30 years” and “thanked them for everything they do to change the world.” It grew even more pathetic and partisan when she complimented the President’s message: “Her other half, President Biden, also stopped by to honor the teachers. He told them, ‘you are the kite strings that hold our national ambitions aloft.’ Very poetic, guys. Maybe he has a teacher in the house.” Or, a speechwriter, but whatever. To see the relevant transcripts from May 3, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

NB Blog Feed

Editor’s Pick: Washington Times Covers DISTURBING Move by BlackRock in China

Our friends at The Washington Times had a front-page story for Thursday’s print edition that showed, once again, The Times has in-depth reporting the rest of the print media wouldn’t dare to touch. This time, national security correspondent Bill Gertz highlighted a report that infamous Wall Street firm BlackRock “is investing millions of dollars in an estimated 30 Chinese military-linked companies sanctioned by the U.S. government”. The report, which came courtesy of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, also revealed BlackRock — a company known for backing woke “environmental, social and governance” (ESG) policies under boss Larry Fink — “has invested in companies working on China’s large-scale nuclear weapons buildup.” Despite its woke pedigree, Gertz said BlackRock specifically has given “nearly $50 million” to “Chinese companies sanctioned under the 2022 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act”. Here was more from Gertz’s disturbing story: “China’s political leadership wants to redirect capital to emerging technologies with military application in preparation for a potential war with the United States,” the report said. “Beijing also wants to continue its campaign of oppression against the Uyghurs and other minority groups in northwestern China.” Noting that BlackRock has said it does not do business with companies in China producing nuclear arms, the report concludes: “The reality is that BlackRock holds stock in Chinese companies pursuing an aggressive buildup of nuclear warheads meant to hold United States territory at risk.” (....) The report singled out MSCI Inc., a leading provider of support tools for global investors known as indexes, for its role in BlackRock’s investments in banned military-linked companies in China. Christopher Berger, a spokesman for BlackRock, which reports managing $10 trillion in assets, had no immediate comment on the report. MSCI officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. (....) BlackRock became the first global asset manager allowed to operate a wholly owned mutual fund business in China in 2021. Chief Executive Larry Fink was among the senior American business leaders who reportedly paid $40,000 for a seat at a dinner table with Chinese President Xi Jinping during his visit to California in November. The company said on its website that one of its principles is “we are committed to a better future.”      (....) The report identified MSCI as BlackRock’s main index provider, with more than $15 trillion in assets. “As MSCI’s most important customer and second largest shareholder, BlackRock could demand the exclusion of Chinese military companies and human rights violators from its indexes,” the report said. “Instead, BlackRock fails to acknowledge that its exposure to U.S.-sanctioned entities is a problem, claiming that it ‘complies with all applicable U.S. government laws.’” To read Gertz’s full story, click here.

NB Blog Feed

CBS Lionizes Climate Losers Blocking Traffic, Throwing Paint, Interrupting Conservative Gala

Like being able to visit museums without climate freaks throwing soup on world-renowned paintings? Looking to enjoy a night out at a gala? Need a peaceful commute without anyone blocking the road? If the answer to any of these questions is no, CBS Mornings all but said no way, Jose. On Thursday, they ran a lengthy puff piece fawning over Climate Defiance and even followed them as they interrupted the March 6 gala for our friends at American Moment.     Co-host Nate Burleson incredibly wove in the climate freaks with the live scenes from UCLA as “police are clashing with protesters against the war in Gaza”. “College campuses aren’t the only places where protesters are making their voices heard. This morning in our Climate Watch series, we’re focusing on climate activists who are taking direct action to make their point. Last week one group blockaded the entrance to the global headquarters of CitiGroup in Manhattan. They demanded the banking giant stop funding fossil fuel interests,” boasted fill-in co-host Jericka Duncan. She added “[s]enior national and environmental correspondent Ben Tracy [took] a closer look at one climate group that says it doesn’t need to be liked to be effective.” The chyron was unsurprisingly stupid: “Climate Watch; Protests for the Planet; A Look at What’s Driving Climate Activists to Get Aggressive”. With that stacked deck, Tracy gave unassuming and seemingly neutral (i.e. pro-thuggery) open: “Blocking traffic, throwing red powder on a case housing the U.S. Constitution, and dousing a global-covered Van Gogh with soup, climate protesters are not just marching in the streets. They’re finding new and more aggressive ways to demand climate action.” Tracy was then shown following around Climate Defiance in their preparation, execution, and aftermath of their storming of the American Moment gala. Tracy and CBS cameras even palled around with one of their leaders as they scouted out the hotel a day beforehand. Of course, Tracy denied our friends the full free advertising by refusing to name them (click “expand”): MAXWELL DOWNING: We can still cause a little bit of a scene. Cause some chaos. TRACY: On a recent Wednesday night in Washington, D.C. — DOWNING: I know exactly the route that we can go. TRACY: — 21-year-old Maxwell Downing shared his plan to cause a scene at this nearby hotel. [TO DOWNING] What exactly are you guys doing tonight? DOWNING: We’re going to a fancy, schamncy gala that J.D. Vance — Republican senator from Ohio — is going to be speaking at. J.D. Vance is one of the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money in Congress. TRACY: Downing cased the hotel the day before they found the best escape routes. DOWNING [TO FELLOW THUGS]: Who does not have $50 in cash? TRACY: So, after making sure that everyone had money in case they got arrested — DOWNING [at American Moment gala]: J.D. Vance is a climate supervillain! TRACY: — these climate protesters stormed the ballroom — DOWNING: Come out, J.D., face us. CLIMATE DEFIANCE PROTESTER: He’s a climate criminal. TRACY: — interrupting the event until security finally threw them out. DOWNING: Face us! Off fossil fuels! AMERICAN MOMENT SECURITY GUARDS: Get out. Get out. DOWNING: Immediately, security guards hands around the neck, which is not usual. Nearly a minute and a half into the five-minute-and-37-second block, Tracy finally identified the group as Climate Defiance, taking them at their word that they don’t “engage in vandalism or violence” and have “become notorious for surprise confrontations with oil executives...and politicians on both sides of the aisle.” Tracy even served at the group’s unofficial spokesman by having CBS ask Senator J.D. Vance “for his reaction to the disruption” at the gala he was speaking at. Of course, Vance’s team “did not respond”. One could presume this question to Climate Defense executive director Michael Greenberg was meant to be adversarial: “When you burst into a room and you call somebody like Senator Manchin a sick f-word, what is the outcome you’re hoping to achieve?” Greenberg was unapologetic in explaining they “don’t necessarily expect to move Manchin or whatnot” but instead “make climate change a top issue in American politics”....via intimidation. “He says their protests are designed to go viral on social media, attracting new members to their cause, and raising awareness of climate change as an existential issue,” Tracy added. Tracy’s other question came with a drive-by-ish tone: “Do you worry about turning people off, that they see you as more annoying or more of a threat than actually helping the cause you say you’re trying to help?” The only mild, official pushback from Dana Fisher, an American University professor who penned “a new book about climate activism” (Click “expand”): GREENBERG: We’re trying to shake the public awake. TRACY [TO GREENBERG]: Do you worry about turning people off, that they see you as more annoying or more of a threat than actually helping the cause you say you’re trying to help? GREENBERG: Yeah, we’re definitely an acquired taste. Not everybody loves us. You don’t need to be popular to be effective. FISHER: And their goal is media attention, plain and simple. [TO STUDENTS] When you guys look at the general population — TRACY: Dana Fisher is a professor at American University and author of a new book about climate activism. DOWNING: He is a criminal! TRACY: She calls these kinds of activists “shockers,” not unlike some of the AIDS activists of the 1980s who desperately tried to get people’s attention. [TO FISHER] How do we know if this is actually effective? FISHER: I think it’s going to be a hindsight thing. I mean, I do not think that the whole movement should shift toward these kinds of actions because I think it will be a detriment to the movement itself, but it is playing a role in helping to keep the conversation going. The CBS correspondent closed by bragging that “they have had some success” in securing “a meeting with John Podesta, the White House’s chief climate adviser” and were “part of the pressure campaign that recently led President Biden to pause the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports.” Duthiers gushed about how “this is such a great piece” with “a lot to digest,” adding “you can understand that they want cameras there...because it does cause people to pay attention” since “politicians...have enacted or have at least put plans into place to address climate issues.” Duncan also voiced her support: “But only time really will tell in terms of what action is actually taken, what policies are actually passed as a result of bringing attention to something that I think everyone, at this point recognizes, is a problem.” “We love shock value. But we’ll see if this is counterproductive or not in the future,” Burleson said. Exit question: How would liberal journalists feel if protesters stormed and occupied their studios, or say, blocked roads that made them late for family emergencies? To see the relevant CBS transcript from May 2, click here.

NB Blog Feed

Doocy, Wegmann, Gutierrez Grill Inept KJP Over Biden’s Inaction on Pro-Hamas Students

Before being shamed into speaking on-camera Thursday to the American people about the dangerous anti-Semitic hooligans who’ve thrown college campus into chaos, Wednesday’s White House press briefing was dominated by numerous reporters — including Fox’s Peter Doocy, Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann, and even NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez — pressing the ever-inept Karine Jean-Pierre on why Biden hasn’t been more public in denouncing these scenes. The initial questions were rather pedestrian. After AP’s Zeke Miller asked “[w]hy haven’t we heard directly from the President”, he was followed by ABC’s Karen Travers wondering whether “anyone from the administration been in touch with...any of these universities that are seeing these protests”, CBS’s Weijia Jiang asking the same except with the NYPD, and NPR’s Mara Liasson inquiring as to how read in Biden is on the chaos. Gutierrez finally called out what had been denials from Jean-Pierre about how much Biden knows and why he’s been out of sight aside from paper statements: I wanted to follow up on a previous question that was asked. And, respectfully, you didn’t quite answer it. The question was, why hasn’t the President been more forceful in talking about the protests. You talk about how he’s talked about anti-Semitism. But specifically on the protest, why hasn’t the President been more forceful on that? Jean-Pierre grew defensive, claiming she “hear[s] the question....but...the President has been the — one — the — no other president has spoken about anti-Semitism than this President.”     Gutierrez countered that was “not the question” and Jean-Pierre hit back that she was “answering it in the way that, I believe, is the best way to” do so with binder notes about Biden’s “strategic plan to deal — to counter anti-Semitism more than 100 new actions...across the administration.” Some blah, blah, blah later, Gutierrez followed up with a fact-check (click “expand”): GUTIERREZ: You mentioned that the President has taken questions on this. Again, respectfully he — he hasn’t. He did take a question where he said he “condemns those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” I know you’ve been asked about that. But since you brought up Charlottesville, what do you say to those critics who say that he is trying to have it both ways that he’s essentially, you know, trying to talk about both anti-Semitism and what’s going on with the Palestinians? JEAN-PIERRE: I would say to those critics is no. He’s not doing a both sides scenario here. When you think about Charlottesville, you think about the — the — the vile anti-Semitism that we heard on the streets of Charlottesville, right here, uh, in Virginia — right — not far from here. The President and many of us wanted to make sure that was called out. Somebody died. A young woman lost her life and, when the President saw that, it put him in a situation where he believed it was the right thing to speak against that. He wrote an op ed that was in The Atlantic because — about that — about that. He decided to run because of what he saw in Charlottesville and that was just vile, nasty rhetoric. And you had — um — you know, a former President talk about both sides. There was no both sides here. None. Absolutely none. As it relates to the Palestinians, he was talking about the humanitarian — a dire humanitarian situation — that we’re currently seeing. I just mentioned the Secretary — Secretary Blinken is going to be talking about the humanitarian aid that we are trying to get into Gaza for the people of Gaza. We’re trying to get this hostage deal done so that we can get hostages home and create an environment to get humanitarian aid that would lead — also, the hostages would lead to a ceasefire. Those things are not the same. They are just not the same. Fundamentally, not the same. And it is in bad faith. It is in bad faith to say that. Incredibly, one reporter moments later wondered if President Biden’s concerned the rise of campus protests are “turning“ ”the court of public opinion...against what the President is standing for” in supporting Israel: Reporter: “These protests that have been going on college campuses, we're hearing that some of them are starting to wane a little bit, but they're not just a one day protest. This has been going on for quite some time. Is there some concern within the Biden administration that… pic.twitter.com/97C14wXBvF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 1, 2024 USA Today’s Joey Garrison had a few questions from the left, including twice bringing to the forefront concerns about how university leaders and law enforcement have acted “harshly” in ““forcibly shut[ting] down” encampments: USA Today's @JoeyGarrison: “With that said, I mean, does the President believe New York Mayor Adams and leaders of Columbia University and — and City College of New York acted appropriately by having the protesters at those colleges — colleges arrested and their encampments… pic.twitter.com/7sJ80I5s1e — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 1, 2024 After having been ignored on Monday, she called on Doocy and, like always, he asked something no one else in the room had brought up: Some of these encampments, they had a matching tents. We’re being told that there are professional outside agitators involved. We don’t know if they’re being paid to sow chaos by domestic folks or foreign entities. Does President Biden want his administration to find out who is funding some of these protests? Our friend Nicole Silverio of the Daily Caller had it right when she tweeted the Jean-Pierre promptly “short-circuited”.     Click “expand” to read her psychobabble and Doocy’s hardball follow-up wondering if Biden’s silence served as further indication that he’s “worried about losing the youth vote” if he were to firmly denounce them: JEAN-PIERRE: What I can say — you know — um — I cannot — uh — I cannot speak to — uh — the organizations that are being reported out on the ground. That is not something for me to speak to. That is obviously something that local governments — uh — local officials — I keep saying local government — local officials are going to speak to. They’ll have better information on that. What we have said — and I don’t think I’ve iterated that yet from here is that the DOJ and FBI is going to continue to offer support to universities and colleges — uh — with — in respect to federal laws, so that is something that the DOJ and FBI is doing. As far as local organizations and what is all being reported on the ground, that is something that — I’m — that local law enforcement, I’m certainly, is looking into. DOOCY: And I understand that President Biden historically has spoken — JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah. DOOCY: — very forcefully about anti-Semitism, but this week, he’s not. He’s MIA. Is he that worried about losing the youth vote with these protesters? JEAN-PIERRE: I’m going to be mindful. You’re talking about youth vote. You’re talking about 2024. DOOCY: Support of young people. JEAN-PIERRE: No, no, no, no. I — I — I — I have to say what I have to say and just give me a second.  (....) JEAN-PIERRE: I’ll speak more broadly. I can’t speak to youth people, youth and support and voters. That’s not something I can do from here. Uh, the President has taken a lot of policy actions here that he knows that young people care about and a lot of those actions are popular with those young folks, whether it’s giving a little bit of breathing room with student debt relief — so we made announcement today, matter of fact, and we are going to continue to do that, because we think it’s important as families or as an American and you coming out of college and you wanna build a family by home — uh — you have the opportunity to do that and not be crushed by student debt. The President understands how important it is to deal with that issue. Climate change — something that young people really truly care about. One of the crises that the President said he came into having to deal with was the climate change crisis. This is a President that has taken more — has taken aggressive, aggressive action to deal with climate crisis. You know, look, I can’t speak to — um — I can’t speak to youth voters or their support, but we’re going to do continue to take actions that we believe helps all Americans and all communities. Doocy had one more question: “[Y]ou mentioned what he said in 2017 after Charlottesville. He said, about Trump’s response then, ‘Charlottesville, for me, was a moment where I thought silence would be complicity.’ So how does he explain — how do you explain his silence this week?” Like with Gutierrez, Jean-Pierre stood pat and reiterated Biden “has not been silent on this issue when it comes to hate speech, anti-Semitism” but Doocy noted “he hasn’t” and his written words obviously mean nothing since “a school building at an Ivy League campus got taken over.” Jean-Pierre dithered away and ran out the clock until Wegmann came up to close the briefing.  Like Doocy, Wegmann stuck to his reputation of going against the grain. This time, he wondered what the administration made of “some of these college campuses where we’ve seen the U.S. flag torn down and the Palestinian flag replace it.” Jean-Pierre declined to comment and instead spoke more generally about how none should be able to “disturb campuses in the way of taking over buildings in the way that we have seen” and “it is a dangerous time for [the Jewish] community and we have been very clear about what we need to do to fight that hate.” The Press Secretary also refused to weigh in on Wegmann’s other question about whether Biden believes “higher education has gone off the rails that, you know, something more fundamental has gone wrong on these college campuses” given the rampant anti-Semitism among younger Americans. To see the relevant transcript from the May 1 briefing (including even more protests-related questions), click here.