Joy Behar Attacks Supreme Court: ‘I Don’t Trust It! … I Don’t Trust Them!’

On Thursday, ABC’s The View’s Joy Behar responded to the recent Supreme Court decision to not restrict access to the abortion drug Mifepristone by attacking the institution itself, proclaiming: “I don't trust it. But I don’t trust them!” Surprisingly, co-host Sunny Hostin initiated the segment as she expressed that the Supreme Court’s decision “does restore a little bit of my faith in the court.” Her support for this was the fact that not everyone can “bring a case in front of the Supreme Court.” Hostin alluded to Justice Clarence Thomas opinion on the decision and concluded that this was “black-letter law and they stuck to it.”     Co-host Ana Navarro did not hesitate as she exclaimed, “Well I just have to wonder what flag Mrs. Alito is going to fly today.” The audience cheered and laughed like usual. Later in the segment, Joy Behar noted that you can get this medication in the mail “just like women have been doing.” But she made it evident that even though decision was 9-0 in her favor, she did not approve of the Supreme Court’s decision as she interrupted Hostin and declared: “I don't trust it. But I don’t trust them – if Donald Trump gets in, don’t trust this.” Sarah Haines chimed in as she remarked “Some people don’t remember that justices have to prove their case. It's not like math where you put in an answer. You have to show us how you got there through the letter of the law so it's not as simple to have just corrupt judges running around in the Supreme Court.” She emphasized that this case decision was a reminder that judges “can’t just decide based on their beliefs.” But Behar interjected with the same comment: “I don’t trust the whole thing. I don’t trust them.” Hostin, who even seemed to be surprised by her continued reaction, asked Behar “you don’t trust the whole thing?” Behar simply responded “No.” Navarro agreed with Behar as she asserted “Well neither do most Americans right now, unfortunately. Which is don’t trust the Supreme Court.” Hostin, still a little confused by Behar’s comments, asked her if she found any comfort in this case decision. This is when Behar decided to lay it all out on the table as she concluded: “I don't trust the extreme religious right because they're very adamant about this and they're gonna do their best to change everything around and women need to be very vigilant. They want us in the kitchen with ten kids that we can't feed. Just remember that.” Navarro quickly contributed to Behar’s statement as she declared that “Women need to vote.” Click "Expand" to view the transcripts:   ABC The View 6/13/2024 11:03:03-11:04:05 SUNNY HOSTIN: It does restore a little of my faith in the court because the legal standard is: do you have standing to bring a case. Like can anybody bring a case in front of the Supreme Court? No. You have to have to prove that you have injuries resulting from it and so you've got a group of doctors and group of citizens and all of these people bring this challenge to the FDA and say, we don't want this – this – pill. And what Kavanaugh, he was the one that wrote it, said they do not -- what's called standing, in legalese and Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion and it's only 25 pages, it was pretty -- it's really easy to go through. He says, “I join the court's opinion in fault because it currently applies our precedents” -- we didn't know he stuck to those -- “to conclude that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and other plaintiffs lacks standing.” That is black-letter law and they stuck to it. ANA NAVARRO: Well I just have to wonder what flag Mrs. Alito is going to fly today. [Laughing and applause]   11:07:54-11:09:41 (…) JOY BEHAR: So you can get this medication in the mail now? Right? SUNNY HOSTIN: You can get it in the mail -- BEHAR: -- Just like women have been doing. HOSTIN: And one thing I want to mention that I thought was very important - Kavanaugh says opponents of the pill have other avenues - as Alyssa just mentioned - to object. They can always take their concerns to the executive and legislative branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions on certain activities. BEHAR: Translation? SARAH HAINES: Please. HOSTIN: So the translation is states' rights. Translation, it is a little bit of a dog whistle to Congress. It is a little bit of a dog whistle to different governors, say, listen, if you in your 14 states want to keep abortion even from this pill being used then you need to legislate for it, and, quite frankly, that's why we have three branches of government -- BEHAR: -- I don't trust it. But I don’t trust them – ANA NAVARRO: And you shouldn’t because if -- BEHAR: -- if Donald Trump gets in, don't trust this. NAVARRO: I mean what are -- we’re kinda like celebrating that it was 9-0 but it was on standing which is like a -- it's a very -- it's an easy one. [Crosstalk] HOSTIN: It’s black and white law. NAVARRO: If this had been -- if these had been plaintiffs that had standing and the issue had been in front of the Supreme Court, God only knows. HAINES: Yeah but it's a reminder they can't just decide based on their beliefs. Some people don’t remember that justices have to prove their case. It's not like math where you put in an answer. You have to show us how you got there through the letter of the law so it's not as simple to have just corrupt judges running around in the Supreme Court. BEHAR: I don't trust the whole thing. I don't. I don’t trust them. HOSTIN: You don't trust the whole thing? BEHAR: No. HOSTIN: This doesn't give you any -- BEHAR: I mean -- NAVARRO: Well neither do most Americans right now, unfortunately. Which is don’t trust the Supreme Court. Which I think is a terrible thing. BEHAR: I don't trust the courts. HOSTIN: This decision though, doesn’t give you comfort? BEHAR: I don't trust the extreme religious right because they're very adamant about this and they're gonna do their best to change everything around and women need to be very vigilant. They want us in the kitchen with ten kids that we can't feed. Just remember that. NAVARRO: Women need to vote. BEHAR: We'll be right back.

MSNBC Lets Pelosi Dodge Vid Taking ‘Responsibility’ for January 6 Security

On Monday, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, host of Deadline: White House, interviewed Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (CA) after bombshell never-before-seen footage from her daughter Alexandra’s January 6 documentary was released. But while the video showed Pelosi in the back a vehicle taking “responsibility” for the Capitol’s security, the intent of the interview was to let her dodge that accountability. MSNBC played a clip recently released by congressional Republicans of Pelosi from January 6th, but decided to cut some very important parts out of the video. In the clip they shared, Pelosi asked why the National Guard was not at the Capitol. In the whole, unedited version of the clip she openly admitted “I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more.”   🚨 Since January 6, 2021, Nancy Pelosi spent 3+ years and nearly $20 million creating a narrative to blame Donald Trump. NEW FOOTAGE shows on January 6, Pelosi ADMITTED: "I take responsibility." WATCH: pic.twitter.com/95a0totTWB — Oversight Subcommittee (@OversightAdmn) June 10, 2024   Wallace began as she asked Pelosi why she thought this video had “stirred up and a brouhaha on the right and in some corners of the media today?” Pelosi claimed it was because Trump and his “toadies” were attempting to “do revisionist history on January 6th.” She declared that “we cannot let us be dragged into their, again, false impression of what happened that day.” Pelosi very briefly mentioned the National Guard's absence from the Capitol as she exclaimed, “And yet this president who incited -- this former president who incited this insurrection would not send the National Guard for hours.” Unsurprisingly, Pelosi did not mention how she took responsibility for the National Guard's absence in the video, but instead she compared herself to President Abraham Lincoln:     PELOSI: Last night I received the Lincoln award. I was so proud of receiving that. And I said in my remarks, Lincoln built the dome on the Capitol. He insisted that it be built during the Civil War so that it could show the resilience of America. Wallace decided to praise Pelosi calling her a “tip of the spear figure in our politics.” But did not stop there as she professed that some Republicans she used to work for “have immense respect for your love of country and your patriotism.” Still not mentioning anything about the guilty confession clip. Instead, Wallace asked Pelosi how she thinks the upcoming campaigns will be perceived by the American people and allowed her guest to nearly four, uninterrupted minutes to bash Republicans and praised President Biden. “Well, let me just say that Republicans have always tried to wrap themselves in the flag while they denigrate it,” Pelosi chided. At no point did Wallace ask Pelosi for context or clarity regarding the video throughout this entire interview. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts:  MSNBC Deadline: White House 6/10/2024 5:27:18-5:31:54 PM [VIDEO CLIP] NANCY PELOSI: You gonna ask me in the middle of the thing when they've already breached the inaugural stuff that should we call the Capitol Police -- I mean the National Guard? Why weren't the National Guard there to begin with? [END CLIP] NICOLE WALLACE: Joining our coverage, California Democratic congresswoman, the Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Madam Speaker, nice to see you. Thank you for being here. PELOSI: A pleasure to be here. Thank you, Nicolle. WALLACE: Why do you think this has stirred up and a brouhaha on the right and in some corners of the media today? PELOSI: Well, because the fact is that the president of the United States, the former president, and his toadies do not want to face the facts. They're trying to do revisionist history on January 6th. But we cannot let us be dragged into their, again, false impression of what happened that day. They know what happened that day. They know how serious it is and was and continues to have an impact on our country. And yet they want to call the people who were in there hostages. Last night I received the Lincoln award. I was so proud of receiving that. And I said in my remarks, Lincoln built the dome on the Capitol. He insisted that it be built during the Civil War so that it could show the resilience of America. And to see these people coming through the Capitol with their foul deeds and foul actions, waving Confederate flags and Nazi flags under Lincoln's dome was so shameful. And yet this president who incited -- this former president who incited this insurrection would not send the National Guard for hours. People were harmed. People were killed. That died one way or another. And what did he do but try to deny that any of it happened. This is a terrible thing. But let us not take away the attention of what we need to do to go forward. We have to unify our country. We have to bring people together in a way, in a way that honors the vision of our founders. The sacrifice of our men and women in uniform as well as the aspirations of our children. I just came back from D-Day in Normandy to see our veterans there who -- the 80th anniversary of it – WALLACE: -- Yeah -- PELOSI: -- some of the youngest of them were 97, some over 100. They fought for our freedom. And yet you see how it is being denigrated by the former president and his Republican toadies. WALLACE: Madam speaker, you've always been sort of a tip of the spear figure in our politics. And you’ve always and I don't know that people know this, I don't know how much you like this said on TV. Republicans, my old boss included, have not even grudging respect, have immense respect for your love of country and your patriotism. Stuart Stevens made the point in the last hour that if this campaign is waged around big things like the flag, which Trump supporters denigrated on the day of the insurrection when they held it upside down, an upside down flag also on the property, the Virginia property of Supreme Court Justice Alito, also according to journalist Vaughn Hillyard showing up all around the country, leading to this movement of denigrating the flag, showing it in a sign of distress as a political statement, describing veterans as losers and suckers, something General Kelly had to come out and confirm on the record and say it was definitely true. I mean, if the campaign is waged around the flag, around whether men and women who die serving the country are losers or suckers or not, what do you think that campaign looks and feels like for the American people? PELOSI: Well, let me just say that Republicans have always tried to wrap themselves in the flag while they denigrate it. I come from Baltimore, Maryland originally, where the national anthem was written, and in the national anthem my favorite line is "Proof through the night that our flag was still there." We have to prove through the night of this activity that they're putting on that our flag is still there, with liberty and justice for all. But we have to run a campaign around the kitchen table issues, about jobs and access to health care and education and what it means for America's working families. That is how they make their decisions. The kitchen table is more important than the corporate boardroom table, around the cabinet table, anything. It is the most important place where decisions are made about the future. (…)

‘Lucky or Unlucky’? Networks Tout Trump’s Hearing With Parole Officer

The “Big Three” morning newscasts (ABC, CBS, NBC) on Monday, weighed in on former President Donald Trump’s upcoming pre-sentencing probation hearing. The former president was scheduled to meet virtually with his probation officer from his Mar-a-Lago estate and liberal media couldn’t hide their excitement; speculating prison time. On NBC’s Today, Laura Jarrett, NBC’s senior legal correspondent and daughter of former Obama advisor Valerie Jarett, hinted that the virtual hearing could be seen as special treatment for Trump since it was “highly unusual.”     She did admit that it would be better for Trump to meet his probation officer virtually rather than in person because his presence has been “disruptive” in New York. Co-host Savanah Guthrie asked about the possible sentence recommendation Trump may receive on Monday from the probation officer. Jarrett responded: “We've talked about given his age and no other criminal history, no other convictions he's likely to get probation in this case but there's a lot of debate among a lot of legal voices about whether jail times on the table of course.” But Guthrie wanted to speak for the many individuals who believe Judge Merchan will sentence Trump to prison time because “he violated gag order, you know, ten times during the trial.” Jarrett argued that in comparison to those who have previously been convicted of this exact crime “only one in like the past five years has gone to prison when this is the highest level crime they’ve committed.” On ABC’s Good Morning America, Rachel Scott said Trump was now facing the “stark reality of now having to campaign as a convicted felon.” Since his conviction, the former president held his first campaign rally in Las Vegas on Sunday. A clip was played from the rally of Trump as he declared that he got “indicted again and again and again.” Scotts summary of the rally was a different take. “Once again bashing the four criminal cases against him and escalating his verbal attacks on prosecutors” she stated. On CBS Mornings, Tony Dokoupil quipped that it was arguable that Trump's New York probation officer “a lucky or unlucky” individual. In regards to the probation officer, chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa observed “they will just be doing their job.”      Click "Expand" to view the transcripts:  ABC Good Morning America 6/10/2024 7:07:20 - 7:08:21 PM GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re getting the latest now on Donald Trump. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: TRUMP TO UNDERGO PROBATION INTERVIEW] The former president set to meet virtually with a probation officer for sentencing interview after holding his first major campaign rally over the weekend since his criminal conviction. Rachel Scott has the story. Good morning, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Hey George, good morning to you. And Donald Trump did not talk much about that guilty verdict at all, but he is faced with the stark reality of now having to campaign as a convicted felon. The former president wrapping up a rally here in Las Vegas this morning preparing for his probation interview. This morning Donald Trump fresh off holding his first campaign rally since his conviction now preparing to meet virtually with probation officers from his Mar-a-Lago estate. DONALD TRUMP: I got indicted again and again and again. I was never indicted. It appeared as little tiny period of time I was like a -- I was like a ping pong ball. [END CLIP] SCOTT: Over the weekend the former president rallying supporters in Las Vegas. Once again bashing the four criminal cases against him and escalating his verbal attacks on prosecutors -- using profanity to lash out at Special Counsel Jack Smith. (…) 7:10:18 - 7:10:36 PM [Cuts back to live] SCOTT: Back to that probation interview, we are told that the former president will sit for that virtually from his Mar-a-Lago estate. All of that will be included in a report that will be submitted to Judge Juan Merchan as he considers what the former president should be sentenced with on July 11. Michael? MICHAEL STRAHAN: Yeah, we’ll all be looking for that Rachel. Thank you so much.             CBS Mornings 6/10/2-24 7:08:12 - 7:08:43 [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: PRESIDENTIAL RACE TOO CLOSE TO CALL] TONY DOKOUPIL: Also notable, Bob, CBS news has confirmed that Donald Trump is scheduled for a presentencing interview with a lucky or unlucky New York probation officer today after his hush-money trial conviction last month. What do you know about that? ROBERT COSTA (CBS CHIEF ELECTION AND CAMPAIGN CORRESPONDENT): They will just be doing their job. It's a routine measure coming after a conviction. It will take place today virtually. Trump will be in Florida with his lawyer, Todd Blanche. And after this meeting, Judge Juan Merchan will start to think through the sentencing for Trump which will take place on July 11th. DOKOUPIL: All right, Bob. Thank you very much.                                     NBC Today 6/10/2024 7:10:46 - 7:12:30 SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Now to the former president’s legal troubles as he awaits sentencing for his conviction in his hush money case in New York. He’s scheduled to meet virtually today with his probation officer. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: TRUMP PROBATION INTERVIEW TODAY] Let's bring in NBC’s Senior Legal Correspondent Laura Jarrett. Laura, good morning -- LAURA JARRETT (NBC SENIOR LEGAL CORRESPONDENT): Hi. GUTHRIE -- this is typical in any criminal case and yet this case is so atypical. Tell us what we expect today. JARRETT: Yes, anything but typical to have the former president obviously facing this. He's going to be asked a series of questions by a probation officer, a female probation officer that we've learned, he's going to have his attorney by his side, it's being done virtually. That's highly unusual but it would also be highly unusual to haul him up to the probation office and obviously it's been so disruptive to have his presence down there for court so they're trying to avoid that so he's gonna to do it from Mar-a-Lago virtually asked a series of questions. Things like tell me what led up to the crime, tell me about your finances -- all of these types of questions just, again, sort of unprecedented in the situation like this. The judge does not have to take the probations department's recommendation, but he can use it as one of any number of factors. GUTHRIE: Does the probation department recommend a particular sentence? JARRETT: Yes, they're going to actually recommend anywhere from probation up to four years in prison. That's what he's facing although, again, we've talked about given his age and no other criminal history, no other convictions he's likely to get probation in this case but there's a lot of debate among a lot of legal voices about whether jail times on the table of course. GUTHRIE: Because some people think that Judge Merchan may well do so because this the underlying issues in this case in terms of election interference, the fact that he violated gag order, you know, ten times during the trial. JARRETT: Well and if you look at past practices and that’s what the judge is going to look at- past cases of people who have been convicted of this crime, only one in like the past five years has gone to prison when this is the highest level crime they’ve committed.

Leave it to Behar to Make Remembering D-Day All About Trump, Election

On Thursday, the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the ladies on ABC’s The View took attention away from the memory of the brave men and boys who stormed the beaches of Normandy, France and made it about former President Trump and their fears of him winning in November. There was also the ironic rant by moderator Whoopi Goldberg about young people needing to learn their World War II history. Co-host Joy Behar contributed to the discussion as she relayed a story regarding a trip she took to Normandy. “I had a guide who was French, and I said to him, ‘we saved France,’ and he said, ‘you saved the world.’” Goldberg, with her vast understanding of history, quickly added “That’s what America used to do!”   Behar explained that what the guide said to her was “the most touching thing anybody has ever said to me about this country.” But her almost patriotic sentence took a turn when she made the moment about Trump: “and for us to be throwing it down the toilet to a convicted felon, to somebody who is liable for rape, who lies and cheats.” But she wasn’t done: John Kelly, his former chief of staff, said Trump said U.S. service members were suckers and losers for risking their lives. There's nothing in it for them. He refused to visit the graves in France. He didn't want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because, quote, it doesn't look good for me. He criticized Gold Star families. Trump has denied making any disparaging remarks about U.S. service members. Behar concluded with: “Today is the day to reflect on what we have in this country and what we could lose very easily if we don't watch it.” Goldberg kicked off the segment by mentioning that Biden was in Normandy for the 80th anniversary of D-Day visiting the grounds where “allied forces stormed the beaches to fight back against fascism and to turn the tide of World War II.” She noted “the craziest thing is that we've had to tell an entire new generation that it actually happened.” Goldberg placed great emphasis on the idea that everyone should know and understand history as a whole. Interestingly, in 2022 Goldberg boldly proclaimed, “Well also, if we're going to do this, then let's be truthful about it because the Holocaust isn't about race.” She attempted to validate her point by adding that the Holocaust only concerned “two groups of white people.” Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: ABC The View 6/6/2024 11:14:51-11:15:32 WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Well President Biden is in Normandy right now to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day, when allied forces stormed the beaches to fight back against fascism and to turn the tide of World War II. The craziest thing is that we've had to tell an entire new generation that it actually happened. JOY BEHAR: Yeah. SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: You know, we are losing so much ground because people don't realize what the blood and sweat that people put in, you know, and to save other people. And how everybody is involved in this. (…) 11:16:19-11:17:38 BEHAR: So, when I was there, I had a guide who was French and I said to him, “we saved France,” and he said “you saved the world.” “You saved the world.” GOLDBERG: That’s what America used to do. BEHAR: And that is the most touching thing anybody has ever said to me about this country and for us to be throwing it down the toilet to a convicted felon to somebody who is liable for rape, who lies and cheats, who calls- HOSTIN: -Liable for sexual abuse- BEHAR: Sexual harassment whatever it is. John Kelly, John Kelly his former chief of staff said Trump said U.S. service members were suckers and losers for risking their lives. There's nothing in it for them. He refused to visit the graves in France. He didn't want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because, quote, it doesn't look good for me. He criticized gold star families. He went against John McCain who was a hero. [Applause]  And this guy is neck and neck with Biden? Today is the day to reflect on what we have in this country and what we could lose very easily if we don't watch it. ALYSSA GRIFFIN: If I could just add – BEHAR: End of speech and by the way, if you want to learn about this and you don't feel like reading about it watch Saving Private Ryan and The Longest Day. Two movies about this. (…)  

CNN Argues Hunter Biden’s Addiction Is the Best Defense in Gun Case

On Wednesday, The Lead with Jake Tapper tried to argue that Hunter Biden held no liability for lying on his federal Firearm Transaction Record form because of how far “gone” on drugs he allegedly was when he bought his gun in 2018. Victoria Nourse, former Chief Counsel for the then-Vice President Joe Biden, leaned on two statutes which would lead to the same outcome where Hunter Biden is found not guilty. Nourse alluded to the Fifth Circuit which concluded that disarming a sober citizen based primarily on past drug usage violated the Second Amendment.     In Biden’s memoir, he wrote about his addiction to crack cocaine and alcohol which indicates that he may have lied about his eligibility to own a firearm. Prosecutor Derek Hines told the jury on Tuesday that all of the evidence for this case was primarily in Biden’s book as he observed, “The book will show he was addicted to crack before, during and after his possession of the gun.” Biden’s own family members feared the gun being in his possession. Tapper noted how members of the jury have stated that they or somebody they know has been affected by addiction. He asked Tim Parlatore, CNN Legal Commentator, if these jurors could be effective when it comes to Biden’s defense. He answered, “I think it is going to be very effective. They may have personal experience with understanding this.” In regards to the prosecution, Tapper noted that they were trying to so how cognitively incapable he was to possess a firearm. “He didn't even get his private dance that obviously the prosecution is trying to make that point, like, look at how messed up he was or whatever,” he said. Parlatore warned that “if they lean too hard into all of his drug use and everything else, they undermine whether he was able to form the requisite criminal intent at the time.” But criminal intent is not always needed. Drunk drivers often don’t have the ability to think clearly before they get behind the wheel, and they’re still held liable for driving under the influence. And as CNN has previously reported, the prosecution was accusing Biden of illegally purchasing and possessing a gun while abusing or being addicted to drugs. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: CNN's The Lead With Jake Tapper 6/5/2024 4:13:01 p.m. Eastern JAKE TAPPER: Let's turn to the Hunter Biden case. [HUNTER BIDEN’S EXES DETAIL HIS PAST DRUG USE] The defense from Hunter Biden's lawyer today appear to be, yes, he is an addict and, yes, he did drugs that year in 2018. But they say the prosecution has not proved that Hunter was on drugs when he bought the gun and filled out that paperwork saying that he was not using drugs. Is that an effective defense, you think? VICTORIA NOURSE (FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THEN-VP JOE BIDEN): Well, yeah. I mean, there are two different statutes here, and one of them says that you know this is the one that was struck down in the Fifth Circuit, says, you know, it doesn't matter what he what he thinks. But the other statute says you have to know that you're deceiving the gun dealer, and on that, it will matter as to what whether he said at the time “oh, yes, did I know that I was using drugs,” et cetera. I think they say he was misusing alcohol at the time. And just in the Fifth Circuit case, that individual confessed, I've used marijuana 14 times, then that court struck down the law is unconstitutional because you can't prevent someone from possessing a gun under the Second Amendment, just because they have used alcohol or drugs in the past. TAPPER: And the -- apparently, I'm not in the courtroom, but apparently, there are members of the jury who have been touched by addiction. I guess most of us probably know somebody, either a friend or family member who's been -- who's been affected by addiction, could that be effective when it comes to his defense, Hunter Biden's defense? TIM PARLATORE (CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR): I think it is going to be very effective. And you're right, you know, today there are very few people to find 12 jurors who haven't been touched by addiction. It, it -- that would not be a jury of your peers. Yeah, that'd be a highly selected. TAPPER: Right. PARLATORE: And so, you know, these jurors will understand the type of struggles that Hunter Biden went through. They may have personal experience with understanding this. And the problem the prosecution has is if they lean too hard into all of his drug use and everything else, they undermine whether he was able to form the requisite criminal intent at the time. So, you know, the prosecution I think needs to in some ways, throttle back because they're kind of playing into the idea of, you know, they can't prove it that he was doing it at this time. So they're piling it on before the piling-- TAPPER: So, there's an intent? PARLATORE: There is. NOURSE: Yes. TAPPER: So there is an intent. So that's interesting. So when the stripper -- I forget her name, I apologize -- but went the stripper testifies that he was so addicted to crack, he didn't even get his lap dance. I'm sorry. This is salacious, but this was the testimony today. He didn't even get his private dance that obviously the prosecution is trying to make that point, like, look at how messed up he was or whatever but -- NOURSE: That's not a criminal offense and you can't criminalize just mere -- being an addict. Supreme Court decided that case a long time. TAPPER: Right, but the point you guys are both making, which is like if he is that gone, although I don't know the defenses arguing that he doesn't even know he's deceiving the government when he lies on that form. NOURSE: That's one -- that's one argument. The other argument is that maybe it wasn't crack. It with some other outcome, alcoholism. TAPPER: Or it was alcohol. NOURSE: Which was not covered by the statute. PARLATORE: It makes it very difficult and then a lot of -- a lot of dealers, gun dealers, that is, when they give you the form, they say, hey, fill out your information at the top and check note all these things. TAPPER: Right. PARLATORE: Because I've seen plenty of people that they just go and check and they don't even read it. If you're an addict or somebody who's using drugs, that increase the likelihood that you did that. So, only goes to further undermine that he intentionally violated the law here. TAPPER: I've heard Republicans say that this is not a good case, even Republicans, that the tax case might be a better case in California. But this one -- NOURSE: Well, even Congressman Gowdy said that if you're an ordinary person, you would never be charged in a federal court with this. There are 37 million, you know, gun owners. PARLATORE: Yes. NOURSE: And they've all filed these forums, and are we going to go back and try to investigate all 37 billion of them? No. So I do think that this is not the kind of strong case that you would ever expect to be brought. But, of course, he is the president's son. TAPPER: Indeed. (...)

CNN Tries To Hype Biden as a Moderate On The Border

On Tuesday, CNN’s host of OutFront, Erin Burnett, lamented President Joe Biden is being slammed by his own party for  his immigration executive order and took the opportunity to hype him as a moderate on the issue. Burnett noted that immigration is an important issue to the American people and reminded viewers that “Biden consistently polls far below Trump on the issue and asked Ron Brownstein, CNN’s senior political analyst, if he thought this attention would help Biden as he campaigned. Brownstein answered that the public opinion on immigration and immigration policy always move in different directions, “from my experience writing about this since the early 1990s when Republicans are in, when Trump was in, there was pretty broad resistance to a lot of the hardline measures that he pursued…”     then compared Biden to Trump's administration. He observed that “there is now much more support from any of the harsher things that Trump wanted to do. I don't think Biden can close that gap given all that’s happened in the last few years, but I do think that adopting this, which was kind of the sharpest tool in the armory of that bipartisan Senate bill gives him more ground to stand on to say, look, I'm taking reasonable steps to secure the border, and this allows him I think also a stronger position to criticize some of the things that Trump wants to do in a second term.” Burnett turned to commentator and former Obama official Van Jones and asked him if the public would give him credit for doing something on the border or still blame him for the chaos. He confidently answered, “I think now he's being accused of playing politics with immigration when the problem is that the Republicans have been playing politics with immigration.” He continued to defend the Biden as he noted that he “is not somebody who likes to do executive orders that he thinks the courts aren't going to approve. That's why he waited so long.” Not only did Jones ignore all of Biden’s student loan executive orders, he was not going to stop there. He decided to target Republicans a little more as he added “The reality is Republicans have a strategy here. They scream ‘fire’ at the border, they spread the fire around by shipping migrants all over to blue cities, and then when somebody tries to bring a firehose, like Biden, they step on the firehose.” To bolster Biden’s supposed moderate credentials, Burnett played two soundbites from progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA). Biden waited until five months before the election to finally do something about the border and now CNN is helping him portray himself as a centrist. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts:  [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: NEW BORDER RESTRICTYIONS TAKE EFFECT AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT] (...) ERIN BURNETT: And, Ron, this is consistently one of the top -- if not the top issues as Americans rank them of what they care about for the election, Biden consistently polls far below Trump on the issue of immigration. But you just heard Ayanna Presley, even from the left of his own party, he's being slammed for this. Is this going to help him? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: “DISAPPOINTED” DEMS COMPARE BIDEN BORDER ACTION TO TRUMP WH] RON BROWNSTEIN (CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST): I think it will actually. Some immigration public opinion tends to move in the opposite direction from immigration policy. That's from my experience writing about this since the early 1990s when Republicans are in, when Trump was in, there was pretty broad resistance to a lot of the hard-line measures that he pursued, separation, obviously, of kids and their parents at the border, remain in Mexico. Under Biden, there's a broad sense that it's too tolerant. And there is now much more support from any of the harsher things that Trump wanted to do. I don't think Biden can close that gap -- BURNETT: Yeah. BROWNSTEIN: -- entirely in -- given all that’s happened in the last few years, but I do think that adopting this, which was kind of the sharpest tool in the armory of that bipartisan Senate bill gives him more ground to stand on to say, look, I'm taking reasonable steps to secure the border, and this allows him I think also a stronger position to criticize some of the things that Trump wants to do in a second term- BURNETT: Yeah. BROWNSTEIN: -particularly mass deportations. BURNETT: Yeah. And we'll see what it does, especially with -- I mean, this is obviously not targeted as the base of his party. It's targeted at moderates that he needs to win. But, Van, you know, while Biden says he's doing this because Republicans wouldn't, as I pointed out, there's been what more than 400,000 people cross the border since that bipartisan bill failed, 200,000 migrants have come into New York City since the spring of 2020 -- of 2022, 200,000, Van. I mean, I've just curious and as I said, nearly seven million since he's taken office, do you think, Van, that people are going to see this the way Biden wants them to, or are they going to say, look, all these people come in and -- came in under Biden's leadership and he owns that 7 million. VAN JONES (CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR): Look, it's hard to know how the public is going to see it. But I think now he's being accused of playing politics with immigration when the problem is that the Republicans have been playing politics with immigration. The last thing Biden wanted to do was to move on his own and to use executive authority that the courts have raised an eyebrow at. Biden is not somebody who likes to do executive orders that he thinks the courts aren't going to approve. That's why he waited so long. BURNETT: Right. JONES: The reality is, Republican to have a strategy here. They scream fire at the border, they spread the fire around by shipping migrants all over to blue cities, and then when somebody tries to bring a fire hose, like Biden, they step on the fire hose. They don't let Congress act. And so, he's got a little pail of water on his desk. He's trying to throw it on the fire because all that's left to him. But it’s Republicans who should own this last chunk because Republicans had a chance to do something, they had a chance to solve the problem. They wouldn't even support their own bill because they would rather hurt Biden and help the country. And that's the real problem here. That's real politics here. BURNETT: Ron, though, when you look at Democrats, I mean, you've got some that are happy that Biden's doing this, you know? But you have some who are slamming it. In fact, for what you say, because they're saying, oh, it's like Trump did and they actually aren't okay with that. I mean, here's just two today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): I'm disappointed that the president has, you know, has sort of gone into the same frame as Donald Trump at a very time when we need to make a distinction between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): It's disappointing to see an attempt to return to the same policies that were proven to fail in the Trump administration. (...)

Civil War 2? CBS’s Koppel Warns of Consequences of Another Trump Loss

On CBS News Sunday Morning, Ted Koppel visited the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg and urged Trump critics to “consider the consequences of another Trump defeat” rather than only fearing his win. He compared the celebrations following Fort Sumter being surrendered to Trump rallies and not-so subtly suggested another civil war was on the horizon. Seemingly walking back some of the media’s hyperbole, Koppel described January 6 as a “mini insurrection” and noted there has never been one that was “more recorded.” He asked Chris Gwinn, Gettysburg Chief of Interpretation and Education, if he had seen some similarities between what happened in Gettysburg and what has happened up to today. Gwinn answered that seeing the Confederate flag in the halls of Congress was something he thought would never happen.     Wanting more details, Koppel asked the park service official if that bothered him. Gwinn responded that “to see that symbol, that flag, utilized in that way, and to see it in that building was something that I think if you could go and reincarnate some of these union soldiers, these United States soldiers buried in that cemetery, they would be aghast at the sight of that.” Koppel compared this to the beginning of the Civil War when Fort Sumter was surrendered. “And yet, when the Civil War began with the surrender of Fort Sumter in 1861, there was throughout much of the land wild celebration and no inkling of the price to be paid. Wars rarely begin in a climate of foresight,” he remarked. He went into further detail as he noted that “there was throughout much of the land wild celebration and no inkling of the price to be paid.” Seemingly looking to stoke fear, Koppel hinted that the “chest beating” at Trump's rallies could be an indication of what could follow a potential Trump defeat. He showed clips from these rallies as people cheered “we love Trump” and participants shared what they would do if Trump were to lose his reelection. Koppel noted that “President Trump`s critics and their legion are fearful of what his victory in the election might mean for the country. And he might do well to consider the consequences of another Trump defeat.” The segment concluded with cherry-picked and ominous soundbites of just a couple of men in the crowd: MAN #2: We will not go another four years at the pace we`re going. Our side will fight back then. TED KOPPEL: Tell me what that means. MAN #2: It means our freedom will not be stolen anymore. TED KOPPEL: What if it happens again? MAN #3: Be ready. Just be ready for war. KOPPEL: Really? MAN #3: I think some of us are going to go and be a little nuts over it. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: ​​​​​​CBS NEWS SUNDAY MORNING 06/02/2024 9:58:18 a.m. Eastern TED KOPPEL: I don`t think there has ever been a more recorded mini- insurrection, than what happened on January 6th, and yet we`re still arguing about what happened. Are you seeing some of the same similarities that I`m seeing in what`s happening today? CHRIS GWINN (GETTYSBURG CHIEF OF INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION): To a degree. KOPPEL: I mean, you don`t have to, if it`s too hot a potato. GWINN: It`s a little hot. It`s a little hot for the park service. What I remember from the January 6th riot, insurrection, is I saw Confederate battle flags in the halls of Congress for the first time. They achieved something that Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia never even got close to. They`re physically in the halls of Congress with the same battle flag that Virginia units on this battlefield carried. And that`s something I never thought I`d see. KOPPEL: Does it bother you? GWINN: Deeply. Profoundly. KOPPEL: Because? GWINN: We fought a four-year war that cost 700,000 lives. And to see that symbol, that flag, utilized in that way, and to see it in that building was something that I think if you could go and reincarnate some of these union soldiers, these United States soldiers buried in that cemetery, they would be aghast at the sight of that. KOPPEL: And yet, when the Civil War began with the surrender of Fort Sumter in 1861, there was throughout much of the land wild celebration and no inkling of the price to be paid. Wars rarely begin in a climate of foresight. ALL: We love Trump. KOPPEL: So could the chest beating at a political rally provide real insight as to what could happen in the event of another Trump defeat? DONALD TRUMP: We have to get Biden the hell out of office and send him back to wherever he comes from. MAN #1: Condition one, be ready. KOPPEL: Which is what -- MAN #1: I don`t know. I think there`s going to be some real unrest in this country. I think everybody will step up now. In condition one, be ready. Just be ready. That`s why, sir. KOPPEL: Condition one refers to a firearm with the safety on -- ALL: We love Trump. We love Trump KOPPEL: -- a live round in the chamber and the hammer cocked. MAN #1: Condition one. TRUMP: We will never, ever, ever, ever back down. KOPPEL: President Trump`s critics and their legion are fearful of what his victory in the election might mean for the country. And he might do well to consider the consequences of another Trump defeat. DONALD TRUMP: He`s the most corrupt president -- MAN #2: We will not go another four years at the pace we`re going. Our side will fight back then. KOPPEL: Tell me what that means. MAN #2: It means our freedom will not be stolen anymore. KOPPEL: What if it happens again? MAN #3: Be ready. Just be ready for war. KOPPEL: Really? MAN #3: I think some of us are going to go and be a little nuts over it.

Rep. Byron Donalds Schools CNN's Coates on Bragg's Political Motivations

On Thursday, CNN’s Laura Coates defended Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the outcome of the Trump trial. In response to those opposing the verdict, Coates argued: “you can't pick and choose whether the system is fair based on the particular outcome of somebody you're aligned with.” Congressman Byron Donald reminded Coates that Bragg had campaigned primarily on “getting Trump.” Coates claimed that Bragg had no political intentions in bringing the case against Trump. She noted that although Trump and Biden were political opponents, Bragg was “not under the purview of the Department of Justice.” Donalds countered by pointing out why Bragg had run for District Attorney of Manhattan in the first place: “His entire campaign was focused on getting Donald Trump.” Donalds was correct; Bragg often had mentioned litigation against the former president during his campaign.     “That's why he's coming under scrutiny, because this is political, not actually about following the law” He continued. Coates stated she had “concerns” that people would “lose faith in the entire system” if they believed that this jury trial was rigged. Rather than responding to Donalds's valid critique of Bragg, she accused him of “undermining people’s confidence overall in our system,” for daring to raise objections about the trial. But Donalds answered: “Now, I'm looking at this through the lens of an American citizen and a member of Congress who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. I've watched the Biden administration spy on the American people and suppress their First Amendment rights.” He went on to give many examples of how the Biden administration appeared to have violated federal law. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: REP. BYRON ON TRUMP TRIAL VERDICT: “TRAVESTY”] LAURA COATES: I want to focus in particular on the point about who it is that was bringing in this case, and that's Alvin Bragg. I've heard a number of your colleagues talk about this being the weaponization of the government and because Donald Trump is the political opponent of Biden. But Alvin Bragg is a state level prosecutor. He is not under the purview of the Department of Justice. Why do you assign that fault to him? CONGRESSMAN BYRON DONALDS: Well, two things. Let's go back. First of all, the judge did tell the jury that they can decide amongst multiple different federal crimes to adjudicate guilt on this misdemeanor that they elevated to a felony in state court. So, if you're gonna do that, first of all, you have to bring expert testimony from somebody with the federal background on those charges. They did not allow that to be brought forward. Now, specific to Alvin Bragg, the issue here is that he ran on the entire position of getting Donald Trump. That was one of the core pillars of his campaign to become the district attorney in Manhattan. And so now you have somebody who basically said, I'm going to go get somebody, regardless of what the charges might be, regardless of what you might think a potential crime might be. His entire campaign was focused on getting Donald Trump. That's why he's coming under scrutiny, because this is political, not actually about following the law. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: TRUMP CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING OFF GUILTY VERDICT] And I go back to not identifying a crime. The FEC looked at this. They said there's nothing to see here. They are the arbiters of what is a campaign finance violation. So, for Alvin Bragg to go out there now and say, well, this is interfering with the 2016 election, he's a state level prosecutor. It's not even his jurisdiction. How can he make that claim when the FEC said there is nothing to see here and the U.S. attorney's office said there's nothing to see here? COATES: Clearly, this will be an issue on appeal, as is the different theories that the jury was able to look at. The judge did hear the concerns from the Defense Council about allowing the jury to have that very notion, and he did offer to have the campaign expert actually testify. But you're right, it would not have been a substantive testimony. I wonder what the appellate court will ultimately see. But I have concerns, congressmen, more broadly about our system, not just of justice, but in terms of our democracy. When there is this perception or there is a narrative to suggest that our legal system or our courts or a jury trial is somehow so rigged and unfair, people ultimately lose faith in the entire system. And I've sat through enough trials and heard enough verdicts as has our nation to know that you can't pick and choose whether the system is fair based on the particular outcome of somebody you're aligned with. Do you have concerns that by talking about this through the lens you are, that you are undermining people's confidence overall in our system? DONALDS: No, I don't. I don't have those concerns at all. I think that’s been undermined by Alvin Bragg, by Judge Merchan who, frankly, has been very clear about his support for Joe Biden. He should have recused himself based upon that if he was concerned about our institutions. He was not. Now, I'm looking at this through the lens of an American citizen and a member of Congress who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: DONALD TRUM GUILTY ON ALL 34 FELONY CHARGES] I've watched the Biden administration spy on the American people and suppress their First Amendment rights. I've watched the Biden administration ignore Supreme Court ruling when it comes to student loan bailouts, which is unconstitutional, a violation of separation of powers. I've watched the Biden administration ignore people's personal health and make them take vaccines against their own will because they wanted to eradicate COVID-19, another violation of federal law. (...)

CNN’s Coates: Supreme Court Justices Lack Legitimacy

On Thursday, CNN’s Laura Coates mocked Supreme Court justices by declaring, “at the end of the day, if I hold my breath long enough and bite my tongue long enough, you'll call me justice.” Meanwhile, former Obama White House senior director Nayyera Haq and GOP Rep. Joe Walsh made it evident that they believe the Supreme Court could use some upgrades. Coates began by playing a clip of First Lady Jill Biden on The View. In the clip, Biden started out by warning, “Think of the Supreme Court. For God's sake, talk about things getting worse! Can you imagine if we put any more Republicans on the Supreme Court?” As the clip continued, Jill Biden confidently stated that, “We will lose all of our rights! We’re talking about women’s rights, gay rights” if Donald Trump gets reelected.     Afterward, Coates asked, “Should they be leaning into this messaging more about the Supreme Court composition?” Walsh agreed with what Biden had to say. After stating that he is a “political conservative,” he noted that “It's perfectly okay to use the Supreme Court to your political advantage.” Although Walsh supported her statements, he continued, “I just worry. I don't want anyone to question the legitimacy of the Court,” but as this interview would prove, people were already questioning the legitimacy of the justices. Walsh seemed to be unsure of whether or not he should be in favor of what Biden stated. He refers to what she said as “perfectly okay” but then acknowledges that he worries about the perspective people will have in regards to the Supreme Court. Right after he shared his concern, he stated, “But yeah, call them out politically all day long.” While Walsh tried to portray himself as the reasonable conservative Haq was quick to illustrate that, for the left, the Court’s legitimacy is directly tied to its rulings, “the Court is questioning its own legitimacy and providing fodder for these conversations by acting and behaving in unethical ways.” While Haq claims that the Court is questioning its own legitimacy, it is evident that the media, rather than the justices themselves, is questioning the court's legitimacy. Haq called the lifetime appointment of justices “unique in the modern landscape.” She also tried to argue we should reconsider this because of “how long people are living these days” as if her problem with conservative justices is their age and not their rulings. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: CNN Laura Coates Live 5/29/24 11:46:58-11:49:12 (…) LAURA COATES: And, of course, we talk about the Supreme Court more broadly. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, this was a very big election issue. There were many Republicans who said they're going to compartmentalize their feelings about Donald Trump and their visceral reactions to him personally because of the promise of being able to overturn Roe v. Wade. And really, it remains a campaign issue, the composition of the court and who might decide who's on it. Just ask the former leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. But the first lady, Jill Biden, was talking about how the election could actually impact the court. Listen to this. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: JILL BIDEN: “WE WILL LOSE” RIGHTS IF TRUMP APPOINTS ANOTHER JUSTICE] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DR. JILL BIDEN: Think of the Supreme Court. For God's sake, talk about things getting worse! Can you imagine if we put any more Republicans on the Supreme Court? SUNNY HOSTIN. No, no. BIDEN: No! JOY BEHAR: We’re finished. BIDEN: We will lose all of our rights! So, we're talking about women's rights, gay rights. (END VIDEO CLIP) COATES: Should they be leaning into this messaging more about the Supreme Court composition? JOE WALSH (FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE): Yes, and I say this as a political conservative. It's perfectly okay to use the Supreme Court to your political advantage. I just worry. I don't want anyone to question the legitimacy of the court. But yeah, call them out politically all day long. NAYYERA HAQ (FORMER WHITEHOUSE SENIOR DIRECTOR): That's part of the challenge, right? That the court is questioning its own legitimacy and providing fodder for these conversations by acting and behaving in unethical ways, by making decisions that go contrary to what they said they would do in their confirmation hearings. That's part of the challenge of there being no check on the Supreme Court. And listen, we didn't start with the Constitution that had nine Supreme Court justices. The court has been expanded. And it will be interesting to see if there is another Biden term, how they address this challenge of the imbalance in the court. WALSH: We've got one side, Laura, that has been talking about rigged elections. I don't want the Democrats to be the party that talks about rigged rulings, but go after them politically. HAQ: The challenge we have with the Supreme Court is they're not elected at the end of the day. WALSH: Yeah. HAQ: And that lifetime appointment is something very unique in the modern landscape, considering how long people are living these days. COATES: And they are very savvy about how to answer the questions to get at the end of the day, if I hold my breath long enough and bite my tongue long enough, you'll call me justice.  

CNN’s Coates: De Niro’s Appearance Was Not Political

On Tuesday, CNN’s Laura Coates failed to understand how actor Robert De Niro’s appearance in New York was a political move by the left. De Niro spoke outside the courthouse as closing arguments in Donald Trump’s trial began. The day before he appeared in New York, he starred in a new Biden Campaign released a new advertisement which criticized Trump. Coates began by playing two clips. The first was of De Niro claiming, “I love this city. I don't want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country. And eventually, he could destroy the world. That's the tyrant he's telling us he'll be. And believe me, he means it.” The second was of Donald Trump Jr., “This is a political persecution. That was evidenced today, today by the Biden campaign themselves holding a rally here. They bring in Robert De Niro.”     Despite his affiliation with the Biden Campaign, Coates did not see anything political about it, “But you also had Republicans having rallies outside the courthouse as well. And De Niro, last I checked, is actually not an elected official.” Though this may be accurate, he did narrate a Biden campaign advertisement the day before he spoke in New York. In the ad, De Niro said “Trump wants revenge and he will stop at nothing to get it.” This ad made De Niro’s political affiliation quite clear to anyone who saw it. She did not elaborate on how voters are being intimidated yet continued to show support to the Biden administration for sending De Niro to speak in New York. De Niro was not alone in New York. As Coates observed, he was “flanked by two police officers who helped defend the Capitol on January 6th, Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone.” Dunn spoke following De Niro’s speech saying “Americans need to wake up. This is not a drill.” Fanone stated that if Trump won, he would be an “authoritarian who answers to and serves only himself.” Later in the segment, Coates ended by reiterating that she does not understand how individuals see this as a political move. She finished by declaring, “I just wonder about the narrative that suggests that Robert De Niro's presence next to two officers from the January 6th Capitol events, that that justifies -- that says and confirms political viewpoints or politicization of the Justice Department. None of them are a part of it at all any longer. So, I failed to understand that connection, but there's always tomorrow.” Harry Dunn tried to become a politician by running unsuccessfully ran for Congress to represent Maryland’s 3rd district last year. He lost by 11.2 percent to Sarah Elfreth in the Democratic Primary. Fanone is a CNN analyst whose comparison of Trump to Osama Bin Laden made even Laura Coates herself uncomfortable. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: CNN’s Laura Coats LIve 5/28/2024 11:35:20-11:37:23 LAURA COATES: For weeks now, President Biden has barely had anything to say about Donald Trump facing criminal charges. His campaign taking his lead and staying quiet for the most part. Well today, that all changed. The Biden campaign holding a press conference right outside the courthouse featuring Robert De Niro. And he wasn't alone. He was flanked by two police officers who helped defend the Capitol on January 6th, Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone. Check this out. [Cuts to video] ROBERT DE NIRO: I love this city. I don't want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country. And eventually, he could destroy the world. [Transition] That's the tyrant he's telling us he'll be. And believe me, he means it. [Cuts back to live] COATES: Well, how was De Niro received? Well, things got ugly as he clashed with Trump supporters when he was leaving, and a classic New York dustup full of curses and insults. Trump's son making sure to give his opinion as well. Here's Don Jr. [Cuts to video] DONALD JOHN TRUMP JR: This is a political persecution. That was evidenced today, today by the Biden campaign themselves holding a rally here. They bring in Robert De Niro. [Cuts back to live] COATES: But you also had Republicans having rallies outside the courthouse as well. And De Niro, last I checked, is actually not an elected official. So, who's right and who's wrong in the conversations and the vantage point they bring? And more importantly, will either message win over voters or will it backfire? With me now, Leigh Ann Caldwell, anchor for Washington Post Live and co-author for Washington Post Early 202 newsletter, Shermichael Singleton, a senior political commentator, Mike Dubke, a former Trump White House communications director, and Alencia Johnson, a former senior advisor to the Biden 2020 campaign. All right, Alencia, you heard my take and both have done political rallies outside. One involves speaker of the House. One involves Robert De Niro. Not equal. ALENCIA JOHNSON (FORMER SENIOR ADVISER FOR THE BIDEN 2020 CAMPAIGN): Not quite equal. But I think the reality here is having Robert De Niro there actually gets under Donald Trump's skin, right? Because he used to be this big guy in Hollywood. He's supposed to be the king of New York. And Robert De Niro is a big guy in Hollywood, a mainstay of New York, and he's going directly after Donald Trump. And this was actually a really good move, I believe, on the Biden campaign's part because Democrats want to see a fight, and they want to see it coming from the Democratic side. And we don't want to have politicians involved in this and, you know, do the same thing that the Trump candidacy is doing and intimidating voters. But having Robert De Niro and surrogates out there making the case, that was a strong move from the Biden campaign. I applaud it. (…) 11:44:00-11:44:25 COATES: I just wonder about the narrative that suggests that Robert De Niro's presence next to two officers from the January 6th Capitol events, that that justifies -- that says and confirms political viewpoints or politicization of the Justice Department. None of them are a part of it at all any longer. So, I failed to understand that connection, but there's always tomorrow. Thank you so much, everyone.

15 Percent: CNN’s Hunt Worries RFK Is Dangerous to Biden’s Reelection

On Tuesday, CNN This Morning host Kasie Hunt asked former White House correspondent Margaret Talev which major party candidate would suffer the most damage if Robert Kennedy Jr. were on the ballot in November. With the presidential election drawing near, RFK Jr. Kennedy was at 15 percent in the polls. Hunt described RFK Jr. as “dangerous” for the Biden team after he reportedly met the requirements to get on the Michigan ballot, a critical state President Biden was faltering in. Former President Donald Trump and Kennedy attended the Libertarian Party’s convention last Saturday as they worked to potentially win over third-party voters. Talev noted that Trump “has made inroads into the Libertarian Party just as he has made some inroads into every facet of American politics” but followed that by saying Kennedy has the potential to be a “spoiler” in the upcoming presidential election.     When Hunt asked Talev which majority party candidate would suffer the most damage if Kennedy was on the ballot, her answer speculated that both candidates would be affected. Talev stated that he was seen, by swing voters, as a middle ground between Trump and Biden’s policies. Describing him as a “fascination to many” who may not know his policies or stances on certain issues outside of knowing the “Kennedy” family name. Hunt discusses how “dangerous” it would be for the Biden administration if RFK Jr. was to be on the Michigan ballot. “How dangerous is that for the Biden team considering that there are so many people there who are so unhappy with what's going on in terms of Gaza and Biden there?” she wondered. The RFK Jr. campaign announced last month that the Natural Law Party, a minor party with ballot access, nominated them in the state of Michigan. Michigan, typically a blue state, voted 50.6 percent for Biden in the 2020 presidential election. Michigan has the highest percentage of Arab Americans at 2.1 percent which is one of the reasons why Talev claims that Michigan is a crucial state to win in the election. Many young adults in Michigan are inclined to vote for the candidate who will assist the Palestinian civilians. The state also has the highest number of United Auto Workers in America rounding out at 600,000 individuals working in the manufacturing industry. Talev ends by saying, “But right now, the concern really is not just Arab American voters but younger voters and the fact that so many of the auto union workers that were once strongly affiliated with the Democratic Party could now be susceptible to at least a white male auto workers.” Hunt responded to this statement by claiming that “it happened in 2016” despite the UAW Union endorsing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Seemingly trying to have it both ways, they described Kennedy as both a “danger” and a “fascination” throughout this interview. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: CNN This Morning 5/28/2024 5:45:53-5:52:20 DONALD TRUMP: Nominate Trump for president of the United States. Whoa, that's nice. That's nice. Only if you want to win. Only if you want to win. Maybe you don't want to win. Maybe you don't want to win. If you want to lose, don't do that. Keep getting your three percent every four years. KASIE HUNT: Wow, there is a lot going on there. Donald Trump getting heckled and booed at the Libertarian Party's convention on Saturday. His attempt to win over third-party voters clearly did not go as planned but it does show that his campaign is focused on critical third-party voters in November. And there is, of course, one third-party candidate in particular that both Trump and President Biden have voiced concern about, and that is Robert Kennedy Jr. It's worth noting neither Trump nor RFK Jr. won the Libertarian Party nomination over the weekend. Joining me now, Axios senior contributor, Margaret Talev. Margaret, good morning. MARGARET TALEV (SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR, AXIOS, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY, JOURNALISM AND CITIZENSHIP, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY): Good morning. HUNT: Can we start with what we saw? TALEV: Oh. HUNT: I mean, Donald Trump is never on a stage where he gets booed like that. He clearly wasn't happy about it. TALEV: Yeah. I don't think that was the reception he thought he was going to get there. But the reality is that he has made inroads into the Libertarian Party just as he has made some inroads into every facet of American politics. And I think he thought if he can go there and court Libertarian voters who are sort of leaning more Trump, even if he was not going to capture a nomination, it would be worth courting those voters. I think another big part of what he was trying to do was just not cede that floor to RFK Jr., right, because this could be an important year where a third-party candidate could be a spoiler. RFK Jr. certainly has the potential to do that. And there was some thought that RFK Jr. would be very well-received there -- and he was certainly received differently than Donald Trump was. But, yeah. I mean, to your point, you see -- we do a lot of focus grouping with battleground voters and swing voters and at this point in the election, RFK Jr. is sort of a fascination or a maybe to many of them who don't actually know pretty much anything about his policies, and his stances, and his background. The ones who lean more Democratic know the Kennedy name. HUNT: Right. TALEV: The ones who lean more to the right like the idea that there could be someone who is not Biden or Trump and all of those things make him potentially potent if he can get on ballots or get on a debate stage. HUNT: Well, and that was kind of the interest, right? I mean, there was -- there were some conversations -- we had some reporting around RFK Jr. wanting to potentially be on the Libertarian ticket because they have ballot access -- TALEV: Yeah. HUNT: -- across the country. So, you mentioned how there are voters that are in either Trump or Biden -- I mean, this is the big question we've been trying to answer. With RFK on the ballot, which major party candidate suffers the most damage? Here's what RFK Jr. had to say about Donald Trump. I thought it was -- it's an interesting line of attack -- watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: With the lockdowns, the mask mandates, the travel restrictions, President Trump presided over the greatest restriction on individual liberties this country has ever known. (END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: I mean, that is -- it's obviously not a line of attack from President Biden. They attacked -- Democrats attacked Donald Trump for being irresponsible on how he fought the COVID pandemic. TALEV: Absolutely. HUNT: But this is not a record that Donald Trump likes to talk about either. TALEV: No. I mean, you're absolutely right, and that's why I think the idea was sort of go block and tackle. Don't let RFK just make his case alone. Interestingly, Donald Trump did not go out on that stage and pan RFK Jr. He ended up going out on the stage and panning the audience that was there to receive him. HUNT: Uh-huh. TALEV: But it's -- we, consistently from voters, hear -- we do not hear the idea from most voters that they're embracing him because of his anti-vax or critical of vaccines position, or critical of mandates. It's just the opposite. Voters at this stage -- a lot of those swing voters or persuadable voters are embracing this idea that RFK Jr. is sort of splitting the difference. That his politics are in the middle between Trump and Biden. They really don't know anything about him or his running mate. It's just sort of memes of superficial impressions, but that could be very powerful if he could harness it. HUNT: Yeah, it's really interesting and there is this big question about the debate stage, right, because right now, RFK Jr. is not supposed to be on the debate stage in June -- the first debate coming up June 27 here on CNN. The two big questions for him are ballot access and polling thresholds. The polling -- I mean, he seems to be around 15 percent, which is where he would need to be in four major polls. Ballot access is a trickier thing. What is your, sort of, expectation about whether we might see -- we haven't seen this since, you know, Ross Perot was on stage -- a third-party candidate on a debate state. TALEV: Yeah. Many of the -- really, it's that crucial bloc of younger voters right now wasn't even alive the last time that a third-party candidate was sort of in this position. I think it's been 32 or 33 years, and we've seen it three times in history. So, the odds are against him but he has moved very quickly to try to capture that ballot access in crucial states. So, I think it bears watching. And don't forget, there's a couple of debates -- but also, there's just name recognition, voters' awareness. Again, if it comes down to anywhere as close a race as the last one was, that vote and maybe the Libertarians' vote -- some of the folks who were at this convention -- could be pivotal. HUNT: One of the places where RFK Jr. claims to be on the ballot is Michigan. How dangerous is that for the Biden team considering that there are so many people there who are so unhappy with what's going on in terms of Gaza and Biden there? TALEV: Yeah. Michigan, obviously, is this really crucial state both because of the Arab American vote, some of the younger vote that's sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian civilians. It was thought at one point that women's rights and abortion rights could sort of, like, help propel in Michigan. But right now, the concern really is not just Arab American voters but younger voters and the fact that so many of the auto union workers that were once strongly affiliated with the Democratic Party could now be susceptible to at least a white male auto workers.

MSNBC’s Ruhle: Inflation Is High But the Economy Is Great

According to a new Harris-Guardian poll, more than half of Americans think that we are currently experiencing a recession, but on Thursday, MSNBC’s host of The 11th Hour, Stephanie Ruhle could not seem to believe why people would believe that. She did acknowledge that inflation is high by conceding, “I will give it to you, inflation is a problem, right? Rent is high, mortgages are high, insurance is high, buying a car is high, groceries cost a lot of money, but a recession?”     Peter Spiegel, U.S. Managing Editor of the Financial Times, discussed how detrimental this inflation is for the Biden’s  campaign, “They know that they can't win on this. It’s not like inflation is going to turn around in six months, and people will forget that prices were cheaper two years ago.” Followed by a suggestion to the Biden administration to “neutralize” it so they can focus on other important issues. Even when we were in a recession, Ruhle defended Biden by spinning the economy was doing great. Nevertheless, according to Ruhle, the president doesn’t have anything to do with inflation, “But the president also doesn’t control prices, he doesn’t control inflation…” The yearly inflation rate under Trump was recorded as 1.9 percent, whereas the yearly inflation rate under the Biden  is currently at 5.7 percent and Ruhle wants to act as if all of Biden’s stimulus spending had nothing to do with it. Barry Ritholtz, founder of Ritholtz Wealth Management, spoke up, calling the poll “nonsensible” since most people do not respond to unknown phone numbers. He also criticized how surveys have been proven to be wrong in the past, however those were more candidate preferences than economic perceptions. Breaking down inflation, Ruhle  looked at the price of groceries and the prices at different outlets. “Aldi, Walmart, Target, some fast food places like McDonald's, are cutting prices to offer deals to draw in more customers. Does that not tell you that maybe they did not raise the prices? Maybe they did not need to raise prices as much as they did over the last two years?” In September, food prices jumped, adding to the inflation, as did medical care costs and rent. Click "Expand" to view the transcripts: MSNBC The 11th Hour 5/23/2024 11:36:31-11:40:04 [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: MORE THAN HALF OF AMERICANS BELIEVE U.S. IN RECESSION] STEPHANIE RUHLE: All right. Related topic, we have a strong but complicated economy. There is a new Harris-Guardian poll that everyone is talking about. It found that more than half of the Americans polled think that we are in a recession. I will give it to you, inflation is a problem, right? Rent is high, mortgages are high, insurance is high, buying a car is high, groceries cost a lot of money, but a recession? What do you think of that? PETER SPIEGEL (FINANCIAL TIMES U.S. MANAGING EDITOR): Yeah. Well, I mean talked about this last time I was on the show. Joe Biden is not getting any credit for what is actually an incredibly strong economy. Tight labor market, GDP growth, but you have put your finger on the problem. Inflation is huge. We’re drowning everything else out. You go to the store, we go to the store, eggs, meat, you try to fill up your car with gas, this is the thing that everyday Americans are looking at and it’s particularly Biden voters. It tends to be more middle-class or working-class voters who are showing up and have to pay the money for their gas, they have to pay the money for their groceries and we have seen it poll after poll. We had our own poll that came out last week said the same thing and the issue for the Biden Administration is, and I’ve talked to the White House, I was there last week. They know that they can't win on this. It’s not like inflation is going to turn around in six months, and people will forget that prices were cheaper two years ago. RUHLE: But the president also doesn’t control prices, he doesn’t control inflation, and it is not like former President Trump has offered a single policy solution to address any of these things. SPIEGEL: They need to neutralize it, though. They need to neutralize it so they can talk about the other issues like democracy and the threat to democracy that Trump poses. What they are trying to do is at least neutralize the issue because they know they can't win on the issue. BARRY RITHOLTZ (RITHOLTZ WEALTH MANAGEMENT CO-FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN AND CIO): Can I call BS on a lot of these polls? Can I? RUHLE: Yes, you can. RITHOLTZ: So first, half the country thinks the stock market is falling this year? There were like 12 all-time highs set this year, the market was up substantially last year. SPIEGEL: And today, a two day, high, yes. RITHOLTZ: I just don't -- I find a lot of these polls to be nonsensible. Who the hell is answering their cell phone when an unknown number or text comes in? RUHLE: I don't even answer it for people I know. RITHOLTZ: That is number one. There was a poll the other day, one in five people think Joe Biden is responsible for Roe v. Wade being overturned? It was 17 percent – it’s almost one in five. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Polling, let me remind everybody, they got the Trump election in 2016 wrong, they totally got the margin of victory in 2020 wrong. The red wave in 2022 politically, they got that wrong. I don't know why we think that making a few hundred or a few thousand calls, to people who aren't answering their phones, is going to give you a representative sample of America. RUHLE: Okay on the topic of prices, though, and inflation, you just walk through when you look at meat, when you look at eggs, some of those prices are changing, we just saw the stories this week. Aldi, Walmart, Target, some fast food places like McDonald's, are cutting prices to offer deals to draw in more customers. Does that not tell you that maybe they did not raise the prices? Maybe they did not need to raise prices as much as they did over the last two years? SPIEGEL: Well the other thing, and you’re hundred percent right about the polls, so take this with a grain of salt. The other thing the polls do show though is- RUGLE: Which is cheaper at Aldi this week. SPIEGEL: They show that the American people blame corporate America as much if not more than politicians for what is going on. So, when you hear frequently, the messaging now you’re hearing from the White House is very much, “hey not our fault, the big corporations are raising your taxes.” And that is very much actually where the American people are right now. So again, if you talk about this -- you try to neutralize this issue, that’s where you’re gonna see the messaging.  It’s going to be on corporate America because they do believe, the polls show this, that that is where their voters believe is the fault.  

CNN Insists Justice Alito Tied to January 6 Because of Historic Flag

On Wednesday, CNN’s Laura Coates referred to the “Appeal to Heaven” flag flown outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as controversial and questioned his legitimacy in overseeing important election cases. Despite the fact that the “Appeal to Heaven” flag symbolized the unyielding pursuit of liberty and justice, Coates asks former FBI attorney Andrew Weissmann if Alito should be involved in cases such as Trump’s presidential immunity claim or other January 6th cases. According to a New York Times report, Justice Alito was seen flying the “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his home last year which Coates described as a “controversial” flag. The flag dated back to before the American Revolution and symbolized the growing anger of the colonists who were not willing to give their freedom away to the oppressive English Monarch. The flag today symbolizes that the American people’s journey should be towards a more perfect union. Although this flag stands for many American values, Coates rather associated this flag with rioters.  She downplayed the history of the flag she states “But it has been carried by rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.” The Appeal to Heaven flag was carried in the protest that occurred but was among other flags such as the American flag. The American flag, flown by many Americans including Alito, should also be associated with the January 6 protest.     When Coates asked Weissmann if Alito should be overseeing important cases, Weissmann answered: The idea that he sat on the decision to decide whether the president should be disqualified because he was an insurrectionist, should he be disqualified from being on the ballot again, that is a decision that you would think he might have to recuse himself on. In May of this year, the decision to include former President Trump on the ballot was unanimous by all of the Supreme Court Justices. Excluding Alito from being involved in this case would not have changed the outcome of Trump being on the presidential ballot. He completely ignored the history of the flag and asserted that flying it was only about January 6: And if you think back to what those flags mean at the time, as you reported, this is about flying that flag just shortly after the January 6th insurrection. We all can remember our reaction to what was going on, particularly if you were in Washington, D.C. But I think for the nation, it was shocking and horrifying. And not only was he flying a flag that was a symbol used during that insurrection, but his sort of claim that it was something that was okay to do because it was retaliation for a sign that was sort of against Trump that his neighbor was flying. Weissmann stated that a justice flying this flag had an “appearance of impropriety” and decried that there was “no system to hold him to account so that he isn't sitting on cases where there's an appearance of impropriety.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN Laura Coates 5/23/2024 11:20:59-11:24:25 [ON SCREEN HEADLINE: Second Provocative Flag Spotted Outside Alito Property] LAURA COATES: So tonight, another controversial flag spotted outside of a Supreme Court justice's property. Again, Samuel Alito. The New York Times for a second time uncovering the photos. But this time, it was the "Appeal to Heaven" flag that was flying outside his vacation home in Jersey. Now, that flag has a long history dating back to the Revolutionary War. But it has been carried by rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Now, Alito, he previously pointed fingers at his wife for raising the upside-down U.S. flag, a "Stop the Steal" symbol, at his Virginia home during a clash with a neighbor, notably just three days before Biden's inauguration. Now, one might wonder who was responsible this time. Well, joining us now, senior prosecutor to Robert Mueller Special Counsel Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and also the co-author of The Trump Indictments, Andrew Weissmann. Andrew, so good to have you on. Thanks for stopping by today. You know, when you hear about the Supreme Court justices and yet another controversial issue like this, does it raise questions for you about the fact that he is sitting and overseeing important cases like, I don't know, Trump's presidential immunity claim or other January 6th cases? ANDREW WEISSMANN (FORMER FBI ATTORNEY): Absolutely. The idea that he sat on the decision to decide whether the president should be disqualified because he was an insurrectionist, should he be disqualified from being on the ballot again, that is a decision that you would think he might have to recuse himself on. But even more important is the point that you're making, which is that he has just heard in his sitting on a case deciding the issue of presidential immunity. And if you think back to what those flags mean at the time, as you reported, this is about flying that flag just shortly after the January 6th insurrection. We all can remember our reaction to what was going on, particularly if you were in Washington, D.C. But I think for the nation, it was shocking and horrifying. And not only was he flying a flag that was a symbol used during that insurrection, but his sort of claim that it was something that was okay to do because it was retaliation for a sign that was sort of against Trump that his neighbor was flying. So, his neighbor has a First Amendment right to fly that, and so a sitting Supreme Court justice has on his lawn. And I don't buy that sort of like "my wife did it" defense when it's on his own front lawn. To me, the issue is it's an appearance of impropriety. And there really is, unfortunately, right now, there is no system to hold him to account so that he isn't sitting on cases where there's an appearance of impropriety. COATES: I mean, he does have life tenure, much like federal court judges do, the other Article III judges. But there is a difference in the way in which one has this code of ethics and guidelines that do require a certain behavior compared to really, it's good to be the king when it comes to the Supreme Court. (…)

NBC Fear Mongers Over Louisiana Abortion Drug Bill

On the Wednesday edition of Today, NBC Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson mourned Louisiana’s decision to pass a bill that will reclassify two drugs commonly used in abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled and dangerous substances. Co-host Craig Melvin introduced Jackson by reporting, “In a first of its kind move, lawmakers in Louisiana have now passed a bill to reclassify two commonly used drugs in abortions as ‘controlled dangerous substances.’”     Jackson replied that, “If the governor does ultimately sign this bill into law, and he’s expected to, Louisiana would be the first state in the country to criminalize these abortion drugs in this way, but critics fear it may not be the last.” In a pre-recorded report, Jackson continued, “Louisiana lawmakers moving forward with a plan to put two abortion drugs in the same category as so-called “controlled dangerous substances” like depressants and stimulants. Criminalizing the possession of mifepristone and misoprostol - used to induce abortions for anyone without a prescription.” Jackson did manage to interview the bill's primary sponsor, State Sen. Thomas Pressly, where she recalled “his sister was given an abortion drug while pregnant without her consent.” However, Jackson left out the details. Catherine Herring, was six to eight weeks pregnant with her daughter when she began to suspect that her husband, Mason, was spiking her water with abortion pills. In Louisiana, mifepristone and misoprostol can be easily obtained through the mail or picked up out of state. Herring installed cameras in her home which revealed that she was taking abortion pills against her consent. In February of this year, Mason Herring pleaded guilty to injuring a child and the assault of a pregnant woman. He was sentenced to six months in jail. Pressly filed Senate Bill 276 to criminalize the possession of abortion drugs without a prescription. He stated, “My goal is certainly not to prevent women from getting the access to these pills when they need them. It is to simply say when you're a bad actor in possession of these pills that you should be held accountable.” The bill also makes it a crime to slip abortion pills to a pregnant woman without her given consent. With a prescription, individuals will be able to use these drugs. The purpose of this bill is to raise awareness on how dangerous these pills can be to your health if not taken with a doctor’s permission and guidance. However, that didn’t stop Jackson from fear-mongering. She cited doctors in Louisiana who believe that this bill will “create confusion and misinformation” since the drugs can also be used after a miscarriage or to induce labor. But as Pressly himself noted, he isn’t banning the drugs. An individual will just need to obtain a prescription of it from their doctor. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NBC Today 05/22/2024 8:17:40 AM ET CRAIG MELVIN: The battle over reproductive rights, a key issue in the 2024 race has escalated. In a first of its kind move, lawmakers in Louisiana have now passed a bill to reclassify two commonly used drugs in abortions as “controlled dangerous substances.” NBC’s senior Washington correspondent, Hallie Jackson, is following this one for us. Hallie, good morning. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Louisiana’s Push to Criminalize Abortion Pills] HALLIE JACKSON: Hey there Craig, good morning to you. This is a controversial plan that hundreds of Louisiana doctors say they oppose. If the governor does ultimately sign this bill into law, and he’s expected to, Louisiana would be the first state in the country to criminalize these abortion drugs in this way but critics fear it may not be the last. A new front line this morning in the battle over abortion access. LOUISIANA POLITICIAN: And the bill is finally passed. JACKSON: Louisiana lawmakers moving forward with a plan to put two abortion drugs in the same category as so-called “controlled dangerous substances” like depressants and stimulants. Criminalizing the possession of mifepristone and misoprostol - used to induce abortions for anyone without a prescription. JULIE EMERSON (Republican Louisiana State Representative): When over utilized, this drug can be incredibly harmful. JACKSON: The bill's author says his sister was given an abortion drug while pregnant without her consent. THOMAS PRESSLY: My goal is certainly not to prevent women from getting the access to these pills when they need them. It is to simply say when you're a bad actor in possession of these pills that you should be held accountable. JACKSON: But critics question how the state could enforce the proposal and warn it may have a chilling effect. AIMEE ADATTO FREEMAN (Democratic Louisiana State Representative):  Let me tell you something, 50th in maternal outcomes is not pro-life. JACKSON: Two hundred eighty Louisiana doctors in a letter say reclassifying the drugs is “not scientifically based” and “creates confusion and misinformation” considering the drugs are also used after miscarriages and to induce labor. NICOLE FREEHILL (Louisiana Obstetrician and Gynecologist): Only a very small percentage of the time are they utilized for abortion care. JACKSON: Louisiana already has one of the most restrictive laws in the country banning both medication and surgical abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest, only for the life of the mother. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade more than a dozen states have put in place stricter abortion laws, raising the political stakes on reproductive rights heading into November.

Without Evidence: Psaki Asserts Alito Sold Beer Stocks Due to a Tweet

On Monday, former Biden White House flack turned MSNBC host Jen Psaki pushed a wild conspiracy theory that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito sold his shares of Anheuser-Busch in solidarity with a boycott of Bud Light all because of a mysterious tweet. Of course, she made these allegations without a shred of evidence; she didn’t even show the tweet. In April of last year, a trans social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney posted a video with Bud Light cans a part of a March Madness ad campaign. The video went viral and Bud Lights sales dropped almost immediately as a national boycott ensued, causing Anheuser-Busch’s stock price to drop.     According to Psaki, four months later, and unidentified “anti-LGBTQ influencer” allegedly posted a “pre-transition photograph” of Mulvaney (she huffed that the post “disgustingly referred to her as ‘a dude’”). It was that tweet that supposedly triggered Alito’s sell off. “So, an anti-trans boycott breaks out because of one post by one trans influencer and a Supreme Court Justice sells his shares in the company she was endorsing and buys shares from their competitor. I mean just totally normal Supreme Court Justice kind of stuff,” she scoffed. Psaki provided no evidence that this tweet was the reason Alito sold his shares. She couldn’t prove he ever saw the tweet; he doesn’t even have a X account. A more reasonable explanation for Alito’s sell off? Bud Light was suffering from an ongoing boycott. Sales were down because people were adamant about not buying from Bud Light but they wanted their financial support to go somewhere that would hurt Bud Light. Because of this, people became more interested in buying beer from Molson Coors – Bud Lights biggest competitor. People wanted to support Coors as a way to financially hurt Bud Light even more. This lead to Coors having global net sales that amounted to $11.7 billion. The reason for Justice Alito selling his shares was probably more related to the fact that Bud Light had lost over $1.4 billion in sales. If an individual’s stock drops then they sell that stock and usually buy a rising stock that is projected to do better than the stock they originally had. Very few people would want to buy or keep stock of a company that was being boycotted and actively losing money. When one company is boycotted, other companies tend to have a surge in sales and in this case it was Coors. Coors reported that their brand volume grew by 23 percent in the U.S. Psaki's speculation on Alito's stock transactions lacked the likelihood of the Justice seeing a post on a platform he did not have an account for. The reality of his financial actions may be because he was losing money and there was a better stock to buy into. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Inside with Jen Psaki 05/20/24 8:57:14 pm JEN PSAKI: You might recall that in April of last year, a trans social media influencer named Dylan Mulvaney posted this video, the one you can see on the screen with some Bud light cans she was sent as part of a March Madness campaign. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Bud Light Boycott Resurfaces with New Reporting] Now, you may also remember that the video started a firestorm of hate from the right and even a boycott of the beer and the company that produces it, Anheuser-Busch. Bud Light sales plunged in the weeks following Mulvaney’s Instagram video because of anti-trans outrage on the right. So, fast-forward to April of last year, four months after the original video was posted. That is when an anti-LGBTQ influencer posted a quote “pre-transition photograph” of Dylan Mulvaney and disgustingly referred to her as “a dude.” Well the very next day, on April 14th, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito reportedly sold his shares of share of Anheuser-Busch. He also bought shares of their competitor, Molson Coors. That is all according to financial disclosure filings first reported by lawdork.com -- best name ever. So, an anti-trans boycott breaks out because of one post by one trans influencer and a Supreme Court Justice sells his shares in the company she was endorsing and buys shares from their competitor. We saw that all from financial disclosures. I mean just totally normal Supreme Court Justice kind of stuff. And if you watched the show yesterday, you may be thinking, “Hey didn’t we just hear something super weird and concerning about Justice Alito?” The answer is “yes,” yes you did. That’s because The New York Times just reported on an upside down flag that was hung outside his home following January 6th. At a time when that symbol was being used in support of Donald Trump and the big lie. Now, he has blamed all of that on his wife and a feud she was having with the neighbors. Just Mrs. Alito just roguely putting a symbol of the insurrectionists up on the home that he literally must have walked by every single day. Yeah that’s how he describes it. Now, don't forget that Justice Alito also took a luxury fishing trip with a GOP billionaire who had cases before the Supreme Court. His excuse for that one was that the seat on the private plane “would have otherwise been vacant.” Of course, that is what you get on any plane. So, yes, there is a lot of smoke surrounding this one Justice. And amid this avalanche of reporting about just how online and political and cozy with billionaires Justice Samuel Alito is, I keep going back to an interview he gave with The Wall Street Journal in 2022 where he said this “Everyone is free to express disagreements with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning” – okay – “But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.”  (…)