Colbert, Goodwin Fret Voting and Women's Rights 'Are Now Being Denied'

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin traveled to CBS and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Wednesday to promote her new book, which is part history, part memoir about her and her late husband’s experiences in the 1960s. For Goodwin and Colbert, the main takeaway was that the achievements of the 60s, such as civil rights, are currently under threat. Goodwin’s husband Dick was an adviser to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson as well as Sen. Robert Kennedy, and she recalled to Colbert an episode of Johnson swimming naked in the White House swimming pool, “They get to the White House pool and Lyndon Johnson, naked, is swimming in the pool, up and down, paddling up and down the pool… he says, ‘come on in, boys’ and of course they have no bathing suits, so they strip. So, all of a sudden, three people are paddling around the pool and while they’re doing that, they hang onto the edge, and Johnson comes forth with a vision of what he wants that will eventually become the Great Society. It was incredible. Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, immigration reform, civil rights, voting rights, NPR, PBS. It was amazing. Amazing.”     Of all the times to compare NPR to civil rights and voting rights, this is a particularly strange one. Colbert, however, was more interested in doom-mongering about Republicans: Okay, so, there is the achievements of LBJ and the Great Society. For that matter, the New Frontier or for that matter, the New Deal, and though so many of them are actively being attempted to be dismantled right now, with some success, including the Voting Rights Act, what do you think, first of all, your husband, Dick, and as you reflect, what would you say is being lost in the dismantling of that vision? Because it was at a very important time, a time of great change in the United States and not everybody likes the changes that happened, but what do you think is being lost?? Goodwin not only agreed that voting rights are under siege, even though they aren’t, she added some further lamentations: But what was so important about the 1960s and I would love young people to remember what it was like because young people felt power then by the conviction they can make a difference in what that meant was that tens of thousands of people were marching for civil rights, for ending segregation, for the voting rights, which is now being denied, for women's rights, which are now being denied, for gay rights, which are now being denied. The only way we are going to get them back is not by looking for heroes, not looking for leaders. We have to do it ourselves and you young people are so important in that goal.  Nobody’s civil or voting rights are being taken away. Some people simply believe that civil rights should extended to everyone, even the unborn. Here is a transcript for the April 17-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/18/2024 12:29 PM ET DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:  They get to the White House pool and Lyndon Johnson, naked, is swimming in the pool, up and down, paddling up and down the pool. STEPHEN COLBERT: Was this normal? Would this happen a lot? GOODWIN: Yeah, it happened a lot. Wherever he was with his office and so they’re swimming and they’re standing there with their business suits on in their ties and he says, "come on in, boys" and of course they have no bathing suits, so they strip. So, all of a sudden, three people are paddling around the pool and while they’re doing that, they hang onto the edge, and Johnson comes forth with a vision of what he wants that will eventually become the Great Society. It was incredible. Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, immigration reform, civil rights, voting rights, NPR, PBS. It was amazing. Amazing. STEPHEN COLBERT: Okay, so, there is the achievements of LBJ and the Great Society. For that matter, the New Frontier or for that matter, the New Deal, and though so many of them are actively being attempted to be dismantled right now, with some success, including the Voting Rights Act, what do you think, first of all, your husband, Dick, and as you reflect, what would you say is being lost in the dismantling of that vision? Because it was at a very important time, a time of great change in the United States and not everybody likes the changes that happened, but what do you think is being lost? GOODWIN: But what was so important about the 1960s and I would love young people to remember what it was like because young people felt power then by the conviction they can make a difference in what that meant was that tens of thousands of people were marching for civil rights, for ending segregation, for the voting rights, which is now being denied, for women's rights, which are now being denied, for gay rights, which are now being denied. The only way we are going to get them back is not by looking for heroes, not looking for leaders. We have to do it ourselves and you young people are so important in that goal.  There’s something, you know, I was young in the 60s. It was a great feeling. I was at that March on Washington on August 28, 1963, Dick was there too, but we didn't meet because there 250,000 other people there. I wish I'd met him then, but nonetheless you felt -- I was carrying a sign “Catholics and Jews and Protestants unite for civil rights” and I felt like something was larger than myself and I hope that young people today can get that feeling, but we’re going to depend on you to march and demonstrate and protest because something bad is happening in our country and you can make it right. I really believe that.

Ruhle Claims High Gas Prices Are a Russo-Saudi Plot to Elect Trump

With gas prices on the rise, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle did what comes naturally to her: defending President Joe Biden. On Wednesday’s The 11th Hour Ruhle not only claimed that Biden has nothing to do with high gas prices, but he is being undermined by the Russians and the Saudis who are trying to get Donald Trump elected. Ruhle kicked off the segment by declaring, “We know that inflation is driving Americans crazy. If you are unsure, just call your mother. For many, it is their biggest complaint right now and because President Biden is in the White House, he gets the blame. But over the last few months, one thing he has been pointing to is low gas prices. But unfortunately, if you look closer, recently, they have been steadily and quietly going up. Now, this is a common thing going into the summer. More people drive more. It pushes up demand. That is normal. But there are other reasons as well. Ones that might be more deliberate, even political. Like Saudi Arabia and Russia continuing to cut oil production until June and remember when production is down, prices go up.”     After one of her guests, Bulwark podcaster Tim Miller, also defended Biden by citing record levels of oil production, Ruhle turned to her other guest, former Bernie Sanders adviser Chuck Rocha, and asked, “Chuck, what do you think? These prices are not the fault of President Biden. Tim just laid it out, we’ve got the highest oil production in U.S. history and some overseas oil producers who would sure like to help DJT.” Even if one grants Ruhle’s premise that Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to get Trump elected (as opposed to Moscow cutting production to raise the price of oil to fund its war machine), Biden has not done anything to respond. In fact, he has done the opposite. It is now more expensive to get a drilling lease on federal lands thanks to last week’s new regulations that changed the royalty rate for the first time in a century. As for Rocha, he naturally lamented that people will blame Biden “even if he has nothing to do and OPEC and Russia and all of these things have to do—they’re going to blame Joe Biden and the other side knows it.” Ruhle’s claim that the Russians and the Saudis are trying to get Trump elected with their oil policies is not even original. In October 2022, Ruhle’s colleague Ali Velshi theorized that Moscow and Riyadh conspired to raise gas prices to help Republicans in that year’s midterms. Here is a transcript for the April 17 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 4/17/2024 11:33 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: We know that inflation is driving Americans crazy. If you are unsure, just call your mother. For many, it is their biggest complaint right now and because President Biden is in the White House, he gets the blame. But over the last few months, one thing he has been pointing to is low gas prices. But unfortunately, if you look closer, recently, they have been steadily and quietly going up. Now, this is a common thing going into the summer. More people drive more. It pushes up demand. That is normal. But there are other reasons as well. Ones that might be more deliberate, even political. Like Saudi Arabia and Russia continuing to cut oil production until June and remember when production is down, prices go up.  … Chuck, what do you think? These prices are not the fault of President Biden. Tim just laid it out, we’ve got the highest oil production in U.S. history and some overseas oil producers who would sure like to help DJT. CHUCK ROCHA: Let me be clear that the Republicans know how to use this and will use this against Joe Biden. One of the most brilliant, small political things I saw done that was very, very powerful, last year, when I went to the pump, there was a sticker of Joe Biden with a finger pointing “I did that.” They were sticking it on gasoline pumps saying he’s the reason the gas pump was so high.  When I do focus groups all around the country, I'm still one of those old school political consultants who work on campaigns every single day, people talk about gas and groceries because no matter who you are, almost everybody in America, every week, has to buy gas and groceries and to your point, Steph, when it goes up just a little bit, they will blame the person in charge even if he has nothing to do and OPEC and Russia and all of these things have to do—they’re going to blame Joe Biden and the other side knows it.

CNN Doesn't Challenge Iranian FM On His Embassy Hypocrisy

CNN’s Erin Burnett sat down with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian on Thursday's OutFront show to discuss the situation in the Middle East. During their conversation, Burnett did not call out Amir-Abdollahian for bear hugging the Vienna Convention, while Iran has violated it repeatedly over the past several decades. Iran has spun its failed attack as large enough to send a message, but restrained enough to avoid a regional war, while warning that if Israel responded, it would respond more harshly, leading Burnett to ask, “So when you say the response will be at a maximum level, you also, I know, have warned Israel against crossing what you have used the words, quote-unquote, 'red lines.' What are those red lines, and what is a maximum level? You used, what, more than 300 drones, cruise missiles in that attack? What would escalate from there for you? What is a maximum level above that?”     By the end of the night, Burnett’s interview would mostly be out of date as Israel responded, but despite all of Tehran’s fiery rhetoric warning about such a response, it appears content to pretend it didn’t happen. As for Amir-Abdollahian’s response, he declared that “Well, the red lines that they crossed, the red line that Israel crossed was the attack upon the embassy building of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, Syria. And during that attack, seven official military advisers carrying out a fight against terrorism were martyred through a missile attack of the regime of Israel. Vienna Conventions recognized -- Vienna Conventions were not respected, so red lines were crossed by the Israeli regime.” Amir-Abdollahian’s would continue to ramble off what turned out to be empty threats and would repeatedly justify Iran’s attack as a legitimate defense after Israel violated its sovereignty by targeting its embassy. While Burnett had no way of knowing for sure at the time that Amir-Abdollahian’s was bluffing, she did have a way of knowing recent history. Throughout the interview, Burnett would question him about escalation or the failed nature of Saturday’s salvo, but she never once brought up his hypocrisy. Donald Trump didn’t just wake up one day and decide to strike Qasem Soleimani, he did it in response to Iranian proxies attacking the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. On Friday, only one day before Iran’s reckless attack, the highest criminal court in Argentina ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. In 2011, there was the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Somehow, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States managed to respond by not spastically bombing Iran and somehow, Amir-Abdollahian was not questioned about it. Here is a transcript for the April 18 show: CNN Erin Burnett OutFront 4/18/2024 7:39 PM ET ERIN BURNETT: So when you say the response will be at a maximum level, you also, I know, have warned Israel against crossing what you have used the words, quote-unquote, "red lines." What are those red lines, and what is a maximum level? You used, what, more than 300 drones, cruise missiles in that attack. What would escalate from there for you? What is a maximum level above that? HOSSEIN AMIR-ABDOLLAHIAN (through translator): Well, the red lines that they crossed, the red line that Israel crossed, was the attack upon the embassy building of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, Syria. And during that attack, seven official military advisers carrying out a fight against terrorism were martyred through a missile attack of the regime of Israel. Vienna Conventions recognized -- Vienna Conventions were not respected, so red lines were crossed by the Israeli regime. However, in our attack, within the framework of legitimate defense, why do we call it carried out at a minimum? Because it was geared towards two military targets, one the Innova Team Air Base and the other one an intelligence and information centers from which attacks took place on our building. We did not target economic and financial centers, civilian centers, only the two locations from which F-35 aircraft were flown, took off from there, and targeted the embassy building in the Golan. This was our minimum response. But in case of a repeated adventure-seeking and adventurism of the Israeli regime, what will our maximum response be? I can only say that it will be carried out at a maximum level, and it will be regretful for them. The details have been planned by the armed forces of my country. However, I do hope that Israel does not commit a grave error in calculus.

PBS Mourns 'Far-Right' Influence on GOP While Encouraging Far-Left

It was a foreign policy-heavy edition of PBS NewsHour’s weekly Friday news recap segment with New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart. Together with host William Brangham, the duo would claim that the “far-right” threatens to throw the GOP into chaos for its opposition to Ukraine aid, but not only did the far-left not receive any labeling for opposing Israel aid, but it also received encouragement to keep up the protesting. Republicans and Ukraine were first up on the agenda and Brangham began by declaring, “Democrats helped Speaker [Mike] Johnson get a foreign aid package over a key hurdle, but he still faces backlash from far-right members in his own conference.”     Later, he asked Brooks if Democrats would save Johnson from a motion to vacate, “I mean, Lisa [Desjardins] was just reporting that she's got some off-the-record scuttlebutt that Johnson was offered some — if you bring these, we will protect you if it comes to that. Do you think that will actually materialize? Brooks replied that he hoped they would, “It absolutely should, because when Johnson got the speakership, he had to make concessions to the further right. He had to put some of those people on the Rules Committee, which determines what comes up to a vote.” He further added “And so I think it's very much in the Democrats interest to say, Johnson's our best shot right now at having a reasonable Congress for the rest of— the rest of this year. I'm looking at Chip Roy, who's on the Rules Committee, who voted against the Ukraine aid and who's one of the — I would say, one of the smartest people in House, and — but certainly on that far-right faction, one of the smartest people, I'm looking to see which way he goes.” Brooks concluded by arguing that Democrats cannot claim that Ukraine aid is of vital importance and then put their political interests first, “Because I think he would carry a lot of votes, and that could threaten him. But if the Democrats don't hold up Johnson, I think they would be betraying the House, betraying the kind of thing that was accomplished today. And I think it would just be a gross mistake. While some Republicans voted no on the rule because of Ukraine, some Democrats voted no because of Israel, but PBS doesn’t bring out terms such as “far-left” for them. Instead, Capehart offered up some words of encouragement, “But I would say to the people who are protesting and the young people who are upset, and all of the folks who are upset at the president and the administration for what they're doing, I keep thinking about the thing that President Obama used to say to criminal justice activists and others who were put — who were really upset with him for not doing lots — more things on criminal justice or racial issues.” Capehart also claimed that Democrats can work with their extremists, “And he would say to them, ‘I need you to keep protesting on the outside, because that puts pressure on me on the inside to get something done' and I think that is what's happening.’” Brangham agreed, “Which is famously what LBJ was being told by MLK, which is that he told him, keep the fire under my feet and thus I will deliver for you.” Even Brooks was wishy-washy on the far-left. While not using ideological labeling, he did admit there are “hate-filled and bigoted” people at the Columbia protests, for example, but he respects the people who are “who are honestly appalled by what's going on there.” Here is a transcript for the April 19 show: PBS NewsHour 4/19/2024 7:32 PM ET  WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As Lisa just reported, Democrats helped Speaker Johnson get a foreign aid package over a key hurdle, but he still faces backlash from far-right members in his own conference. …  I mean, Lisa was just reporting that she's got some off-the-record scuttlebutt that Johnson was offered some — if you bring these, we will protect you if it comes to that. Do you think that will actually materialize? DAVID BROOKS:  It absolutely should, because when Johnson got the speakership, he had to make concessions to the further right. He had to put some of those people on the Rules Committee, which determines what comes up to a vote. And so if I'm a Democrat, I'm thinking, well, the Republicans still do have the majority. So if it's not going to be Johnson, it's going to be somebody else. And it's going to be somebody else who makes even more concessions to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, and that will make my life worse as a Democrat. And so I think it's very much in the Democrats interest to say, Johnson's our best shot right now at having a reasonable Congress for the rest of the rest of this year. I'm looking at Chip Roy, who's on the Rules Committee, who voted against the Ukraine aid and who's one of the — I would say, one of the smartest people in House, and — but certainly on that far-right faction, one of the smartest people, I'm looking to see which way he goes. Because I think he would carry a lot of votes, and that could threaten him. But if the Democrats don't hold up Johnson, I think they would be betraying the House, betraying the kind of thing that was accomplished today. And I think it would just be a gross mistake. … JONATHAN CAPEHART: But I would say to the people who are protesting and the young people who are upset, and all of the folks who are upset at the president and the administration for what they're doing, I keep thinking about the thing that President Obama used to say to criminal justice activists and others who were put — who were really upset with him for not doing lots — more things on criminal justice or racial issues. And he would say to them, “I need you to keep protesting on the outside, because that puts pressure on me on the inside to get something done” and I think that is what's happening. BRANGHAM: Which is famously what LBJ was being told by MLK, which is that he told him, keep the fire under my feet and thus I will deliver for you. CAPHEART: Right.

Meacham Declares It 'A Patriotic Duty' To Vote For Biden

Presidential historian and frequent MSNBC talking head Jon Meacham traveled to HBO and Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday to wax poetic about “there is a patriotic duty” to vote for Joe Biden and that any Republican who votes for Donald Trump needs to stop and heed the words of George Washington. Maher began by reporting, “Bill Barr says he's voting for Trump. He said, ‘I think it's my duty to pick the person that I would think would do the least harm to the country. The real danger to democracy is the progressive agenda. Trump may be playing Russian roulette, but a continuation of Biden is national suicide.’ I think this is sincere. I don't think he's posturing. I think this is what a good part of this country believes. Discuss.”   “There’s a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. Present Biden is a patriot” – Jon Meacham on #RealTime pic.twitter.com/TSj3BmLNh6 — Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) April 20, 2024   Meacham’s schtick is to wrap himself in the Constitution, which he immediately did, “It is what part of the country believes. It’s also-- a good part of the country is wrong about that, as a rational matter. Now, politics and rationality are not complete bedfellows, which is part of the reason for the Constitution, is that we’re going to give reason a chance to stand against passion.” He further argued that “I believe, and I say it with care, that's become evident -- to me anyway -- that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason: patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It's not just an allegiance to your own kind. That's nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot, and I'm lucky, in that I don't have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order.” Meacham’s claims to not have “policy passions” says more about him than it does the people he’s criticizing. For them, policy questions can be moral ones, but Meacham put himself atop the moral pedestal, “Donald Trump is self-evidently not and I would say to my Republican friends -- and I live in Tennessee, so that's redundant -- that it is in fact a moral question and I was disappointed by what Barr said, you know, he was-- he got religion for a little while.”     Later, Meacham addressed those conservatives who may not like Trump, but who are also repulsed by Biden and told them to get over it because George Washington would demand it, “Well, what if—you know, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas as we used to say. You know, but this is what we have, and to me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is, if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship, as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing -- I would argue that you need to read George Washington's farewell address, you need to read the Founders that otherwise, you know, they love.” It’s not officially a Jon Meacham segment until he invokes Abraham Lincoln and this time Meacham used him to shame Barr: The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I'm not sure what he's talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we have a fall, it's not going to be from a foreign foe: It's going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions and those passions about partisanship, that's what is ruining us. The guy who admits to not having strong policy preferences should refrain from judging other people’s beliefs because at least they have beliefs. Here is a transcript of the April 19 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 4/19/2024 10:23 PM ET BILL MAHER: However, now Bill Barr says he's voting for Trump. He said, "I think it's my duty to pick the person that I would think would do the least harm to the country. The real danger to democracy is the progressive agenda. Trump may be playing Russian Roulette, but a continuation of Biden is national suicide." I think this is sincere. I don't think he's posturing. I think this is what a good part of this country believes. Discuss.  JON MEACHAM: It is what part of the country believes. It’s also-- a good part of the country is wrong about that, as a rational matter. Now, politics and rationality are not complete bedfellows, which is part of the reason for the Constitution, is that we’re going to give reason a chance to stand against passion. What Barr is doing, and what so many—I sometimes think of them as the Peter Millar Republicans, right, these are Republicans who are not full MAGA people, they’re [unintelligible] types who don't want Democrats picking judges or setting tax rates.  They talked themselves into this twice. In '16 and in '20 and then came the December and January of 2020 and 2021 and that point, I believe, and I say it with care, that's become evident -- to me anyway -- that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump, for this reason. Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It's not just an allegiance to your own kind. That's nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot and I'm lucky, in that I don't have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not and I would say to my Republican friends -- and I live in Tennessee, so that's redundant -- that it is in fact a moral question and I was disappointed by what Barr said, you know, he was-- he got religion for a little while. There is a line in Tom Sawyer where Twain says that an evangelist comes through town who was so good that even Huck Finn was saved until Tuesday. You know, Bill Barr was saved until Tuesday. JANE FURGUSON: I wonder, I mean, I do wonder, again, we’re talking as though this were an inevitability that it would be these two. I mean, more moderate conservatives who perhaps feel a little bit more homeless in the Republican Party might have been tempted to cross over in the voter base and they have now been presented with this choice, where it, you know, was never an inevitability that it would be these men and what if there’d been a different option within the Democratic Party? MEACHAM: Well, what if—you know, if ifs ands or buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas as we used to say. You know, but this is what we have and to me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is, if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship, as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing -- I would argue that you need to read George Washington's farewell address, you need to read the Founders that otherwise, you know, they love. You know, they love the Founders when they can move it around to agree with them. It's very clear that if party spirit became the organizing principle, that, that was going to be fatal to the Constitution, and it's very interesting when Barr said it's “suicide.” The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I'm not sure what he's talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we have a fall, it's not going to be from a foreign foe: It's going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions and those passions about partisanship, that's what is ruining us.

CBS Travels To Britain To Attack Trump As 'Misogynistic, Racist'

As the presidential election kicks into high gear, CBS Saturday Morning hit the road to seek the opinions of a group of people who will have zero impact on the results: the British, and more specifically, Brits who think Donald Trump is a racist and a misogynist. Michelle Miller kicked off the segment by reporting that “as Donald Trump has emerged as the likely Republican presidential nominee, Europe is increasingly watching with trepidation. The head of NATO says Trump is weakening the alliance, as president, Trump bristled at NATO allies, and now as a candidate has said he'd encourage Russia to do what it wants to a NATO country that isn't meeting its defense spending benchmarks. Holly Williams looks at how Europe and the U.K. are preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency.”     Miller was probably referring to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s February remarks where he warned that not explicitly promising to come to a NATO member’s aid weakens the alliance, but Miller was also cherry-picking. Stoltenberg has also repeatedly praised Trump’s ability to get the Europeans to increase their defense budgets while rebutting the hysterical claims from Trump’s critics that his election would be catastrophic for NATO. As for Williams’s pre-recorded man on the street segment, it began with a woman claiming that “he needs to be civilized. You know, you don’t, mob rule shouldn't be allowed to do things like that.” In a voiceover, Williams claimed that “in Europe, a second Trump presidency is viewed by many with fear and loathing.” A second woman claimed of a second Trump term, “I think it will be absolutely horrendous. I think it will be dreadful,” while a third asked, “Why would anybody else vote for him again?” Meanwhile, a man asserted, “He just seems to be relatively misogynistic, racist, and anti-immigration on the whole, which isn't great.” Williams replied, “So, not a fan?” and the man affirmed that he was “not a fan.” Williams also recalled that “according to a recent poll, over 70 percent of people in the U.K. have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.” If viewers were hoping for a similar segment full of Israeli men and women on the street discussing their U.S. presidential preferences, CBS was not going to give it to them. Here is a transcript for the April 20 show: CBS Saturday Morning 4/20/2024 8:17 AM ET MICHELLE MILLER: As Donald Trump has emerged as the likely Republican presidential nominee, Europe is increasingly watching with trepidation. The head of NATO says Trump is weakening the alliance, as president, Trump bristled at NATO allies, and now as a candidate has said he'd encourage Russia to do what it wants to a NATO country that isn't meeting its defense spending benchmarks. Holly Williams looks at how Europe and the U.K. are preparing for the possibility of a second Trump presidency. WOMAN: He needs to be civilized. You know, you don’t, mob rule shouldn't be allowed to do things like that. HOLLY WILLIAMS: In Europe a second Trump presidency is viewed by many with fear and loathing. WOMAN 2: I think it will be absolutely horrendous. I think it will be dreadful. WOMAN 3: With money, [unintelligible], everything, just, why would anybody else vote for him again? MAN: He just seems to be relatively misogynistic, racist, and anti-immigration on the whole, which isn't great. WILLIAMS: So, not a fan? MAN: Not a fan. WILLIAMS: According to a recent poll, over 70 percent of people in the U.K. have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump.

Reid Claims Columbia Hamas Protests Are 'Singing About Peace'

MSNBC’s Joy Reid pulled out the head in the sand strategy for Monday’s edition of The ReidOut when discussing anti-Semitism being prevalent at Columbia University. During an interview with Rev. Mark Thompson and Maryam Alwan of Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justine in Palestine, Reid claimed she simply “didn’t hear it.” Addressing Thompson, Reid claimed that things at Columbia are fine, “I saw, Mark, these students singing and singing about peace and singing salaam, singing words of peace. So, it just didn't square with what I was even hearing on television and television commentators saying was shrieking anti-Semitism, I didn't hear it.”     Perhaps Reid wasn’t looking because a rabbi has advised Jewish students to avoid campus and return home. As for Thompson, whose MSNBC chyron labels him as a “social justice activist,” he also wanted to act as if the majority of demonstrators are simply peace activists, “No, I was there yesterday, and it was very peaceful and very moving. The-- one of the institutions affiliated with Columbia, of course, is Union Theological Seminary and the Union students held a Sunday worship service and served communion there on campus, even to those beyond the gates who couldn't get in. So, this betrays the imagery of there being violent rhetoric spewed.” Thompson conceded that “I do have a colleague whose daughter is a freshman at Barnard and she has faced some harassment, but as Maryam said, these are outliers and in the movement, we’ve always had –” Reid interrupted to add, “It happened at Black Lives Matter rallies,” as Thompson continued, “So, that’s—but, in general, it’s not a good idea to generalize what is going on. These are peaceful and non-violent demonstrations.” Meanwhile, Reid generalizes about people all the time. Almost every show is the same: conservatives are racists, sexists, religious weirdos, and Trump cultists. She does not get to claim that those who want Hamas to survive to possibly commit another October 7 get to disassociate themselves with Hamas supporters who hold signs reading “Al-Qasam's Next Targets” while pointing to Jewish counter-protestors or over 100 professors who want to “recontextualize” October 7 and frame it as a “military response.” Turning her attention to Alwan, Reid wondered, “What do you make of leaders of your school seeming, I guess, to appease maybe members of Congress that have been all over your president and want her to resign, calling the NYPD on you all?” Naturally, Alwan decided to portray herself as the victim, “It feels like it's been a McCarthyite campaign to try to equate our peaceful protest, calling them to divest from violence, and they are calling us violent instead. It was horrifying to be carried out in zip ties when we were just, you know, peacefully calling for an end to the violence.” Reid, claimed she didn’t see any anti-Semitism at Columbia, yet by referencing BDS, Alwan proved it was right there at her desk. Here is a transcript for the April 22 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 4/22/2024 7:50 PM ET JOY REID: I saw, Mark, these students singing and singing about peace and singing salaam, singing words of peace. So, it just didn't square with what I was even hearing on television and television commentators saying was shrieking anti-Semitism, I didn't hear it. MARK THOMPSON: No, I was there yesterday, and it was very peaceful and very moving. The-- one of the institutions affiliated with Columbia, of course, is Union Theological Seminary and the Union students held a Sunday worship service and served communion there on campus, even to those beyond the gates who couldn't get in. So, this betrays the imagery of there being violent rhetoric spewed. I will say this, I do have a colleague whose daughter is a freshman at Barnard and she has faced some harassment, but as Maryam said, these are outliers and in the movement, we’ve always had – REID: It happened at Black Lives Matter rallies. THOMPSON: You’ve got provocateurs.  REID: Yeah. THOMPSON: So, that’s—but, in general, it’s not a good idea to generalize what is going on. These are peaceful and non-violent demonstrations. REID: Let me, what do you make of leaders of your school seeming, I guess, to appease maybe members of Congress that have been all over your president and want her to resign, calling the NYPD on you all? MARYAM ALWAN: It feels like it's been a McCarthyite campaign to try to equate our peaceful protest, calling them to divest from violence, and they are calling us violent instead. It was horrifying to be carried out in zip ties when we were just, you know, peacefully calling for an end to the violence.

Stewart Mocks MSNBC, Tapper For Obsessing Over Trump Trial

The media is obsessed with Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial to such a degree that even Jon Stewart can’t help but mock them. On Monday’s edition of The Daily Show on Comedy Central, Stewart ridiculed the media for their priorities, with MSNBC and CNN’s Jake Tapper bearing extra scrutiny. Of course, it is not the first time the media has obsessed over something Trump-related, as Stewart recalled, “This trial will obviously be a test of the fairness of the American legal system. But it's also a test of the media's ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way, a task they have acknowledged they have performed poorly in the past.”   Jon Stewart mocked the media's (particularly MSNBC's) obsession with Trump's trial "it's also a test of the media's ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way, a task they have acknowledged they have performed poorly in the past." (1/?) pic.twitter.com/u6UESghJpk — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 23, 2024   Stewart then played a montage of several MSNBC and CNN personalities lamenting media coverage of Trump. John Heilemann claimed it was “irresponsible” to “give Donald Trump hours and hours of free air time,” while Audie Cornish claimed, “All of us have learned some very valuable lessons from the last couple of years in delineating what's significant, what's important.” After the montage, Stewart returned to introduce another series of clips, “So brave. Well done. And I think for this trial, we will see the seeds of that introspection bear fruit. Or we will learn that learning curves are for pussies.” With the exception of one clip from a local news analyst, it was exclusively MSNBC. It included multiple claims that we are witnessing “the trial of the century” and the return of the classic, “The legal walls, closing in around Donald Trump.” The trial is obviously newsworthy, but Stewart suggested, “Perhaps if we limit the coverage to the issues at hand, and try not to create an all-encompassing spectacle of the most banal of details, perhaps that would help.” That cued yet another montage of Tapper and local news reporters following Trump’s motorcade. The last reporter waxed poetic as she claimed Trump was “arriving at this intersection of American history with defiance.”     An exasperated Stewart wondered, “Seriously, are we going to follow this guy to court every [bleep] day? Are you trying to make this O.J.? It's not even a chase! He's commuting. So, the media's first attempt, the very first attempt on the first day at self-control failed. And I'm sorry to say that it didn't -- I'm sorry, hold on, we're getting breaking news.” In the next clip, Tapper was interrupting his guest, “I'm sorry to interrupt, I've just-- one second. I apologize. We're just showing the first image of Donald Trump from inside the courtroom. It's a still photograph that we're showing there. Just want to make sure our viewers know what they're looking at.” Stewart wasn’t convinced viewers needed this information, “Yes, for our viewers who are just waking up from a 30-year coma, this is what Donald Trump has looked like every day for the past 30 years.” Later, after skewering MSNBC for interviewing a dismissed juror who almost saw Trump, Stewart teed up another clip of Tapper, “Anyway, coming up, more of our three-part interview with a guy who nearly saw Donald Trump in the courtroom. So, we have a photograph—it’s freaking me out, that picture— we have a photograph, we have eyewitness accounts, but do we have anything in a pastel?” Tapper marveled about “A courtroom sketch that we're getting in right now. I'm looking at the courtroom sketch and Mr. Trump looks like he is glowering [jump cut] I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a glower or just a glance [jump cut] I don't know how this -- it's art. It's not necessarily -- it's artistic journalism, but it's not a photograph.”     Stewart then turned to Tapper’s colleague, Erin Burnett, “Why are you showing it to us? It is a sketch… Well, I guess we'll never know. Unless! We could talk to the person who drew the sketch! But do we have the time? Nothing but!” Burnett was shown conversing with sketch artist Christine Cornell, “I want to show one of your sketches today. We're going through some of them, but this one, it appears in this one that his eyes are closed. What was happening here?” Cornell didn’t have the profound answer Burnett was looking for, “My apologies, ma'am. I was sitting 50 feet away. I was having such a struggle to try and get those eyeballs in.” If that's not a metaphor for media coverage of Trump's legal battles, then nothing is. Here is a transcript for the April 22 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/22/2024 11:02 PM ET JON STEWART: This trial will obviously be a test of the fairness of the American legal system. But it's also a test of the media's ability to cover Donald Trump in a responsible way, a task they have acknowledged they have performed poorly in the past. NICOLLE WALLACE: I think to the degree that the media had lessons to learn in '16, they seemed to have been learned. JOHN HEILEMANN: It was irresponsible for cable news networks to give Donald Trump hours and hours of free air time. BRIAN STELTER: Way too much speculation and liberal wishful thinking in attempts to connect dots that did not connect. RACHEL MADDOW: It's the media's responsibility to not get distracted. NICHOLAS KRISTOF: I think we were much too busy chasing after shiny objects. AUDIE CORNISH: All of us have learned some very valuable lessons from the last couple of years in delineating what's significant, what's important. STEWART: So brave. Well done. And I think for this trial, we will see the seeds of that introspection bear fruit. Or we will learn that learning curves are for pussies. WALLACE: Here we go. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It's on, it's happening, history will be made. ALEX WITT: Shaping up to be the trial of the century. FEMALE LOCAL NEWS ANALYST: Maybe the trial of the century. CHRIS HAYES: The trial of the century. WALLACE: What just might be the trial of the century. KATIE PHANG: The taxman is here, Donald Trump. AYMAN MOHYELDIN: He will finally be forced to face the music. CHRIS JANSING: The legal walls, closing in around Donald Trump. ANTHONY COLEY: The legal walls are starting to close in on Donald Trump. STEWART: Yes, this time, Mr. Bond, it truly is your doom! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to leave this room. Obviously, when I leave, I'm not going to press the button that opens all the doors and dismantles the killing machine I've established. Don't follow me, Mr. Bond. Perhaps if we limit the coverage to the issues at hand, and try not to create an all-encompassing spectacle of the most banal of details, perhaps that would help. JAKE TAPPER: You're looking at live pictures in New York City of Donald Trump's motorcade. MALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER: It's about a 20-minute drive between Trump Tower and the court building. FEMALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER: Trump leaving Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. MALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER 2: They're now making their way across town along 57th Street. [jump cut] They just crossed Park Avenue making their way up towards Lexington Avenue. BRETT TOLMAN: He's heading down the FDR. RANJI SINHA: To the Manhattan courthouse on Chambers Street. FEMALE LOCAL NEWS REPORTER 3: Arriving at this intersection of American history with defiance. STEWART: Arriving at the intersection of American history with defiance. The brilliant juxtaposing of the gravitas of the moment with simple traffic terms was... [Chef's kiss] "He arrived at the intersection of American history, where he put a quarter in the parking meter of destiny. Leaving the car, looking to avoid stepping in the urine puddle of jurisprudence."  Seriously, are we going to follow this guy to court every [bleep] day? Are you trying to make this O.J.? It's not even a chase! He's commuting. So, the media's first attempt, the very first attempt on the first day at self-control failed. And I'm sorry to say that it didn't -- I'm sorry, hold on, we're getting breaking news. WILLIAM BRENNAN: You know, he wanted to get a jury seated. So we had a lady – JAKE TAPPER: Will, I'm sorry to interrupt, I've just-- one second. I apologize. We're just showing the first image of Donald Trump from inside the courtroom. BRENNAN: Okay. TAPPER: It's a still photograph that we're showing there. Just want to make sure our viewers know what they're looking at. STEWART: Yes, for our viewers who are just waking up from a 30-year coma, this is what Donald Trump has looked like every day for the past 30 years. … STEWART: Anyway, coming up, more of our three-part interview with a guy who nearly saw Donald Trump in the courtroom. So, we have a photograph—it’s freaking me out, that picture— we have a photograph, we have eyewitness accounts, but do we have anything in a pastel? TAPPER: A courtroom sketch that we're getting in right now. I'm looking at the courtroom sketch and Mr. Trump looks like he is glowering [jump cut] I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a glower or just a glance [jump cut] I don't know how this -- it's art. It's not necessarily -- it's artistic journalism, but it's not a photograph. STEWART: Why are you showing it to us? It is a sketch. Why would anyone analyze a sketch like it was—it’d be like looking at The Last Supper and going, "Would you say Jesus looks sad here? What do you think? It's because of Judas? What if we interview one of the waiters at one of the tables from, like, a different section of the restaurant who maybe actually didn't see him? But you know, we got time to kill."  Well, I guess we'll never know. Unless! We could talk to the person who drew the sketch! But do we have the time? Nothing but! ERIN BURNETT: Christine Cornell was in the courtroom today, the official sketch artist [jump cut] I want to show one of your sketches today. We're going through some of them, but this one, it appears in this one that his eyes are closed. What was happening here? CHRISTINE CORNELL: My apologies, ma'am. I was sitting 50 feet away. I was having such a struggle to try and get those eyeballs in. STEWART: Damn it, woman! Does Donald Trump have eyeballs or no, ma'am? Does he or no? You were in the room! Tell me! Or I will not come to your trinket shop in Newport!

Kimmel Mocks Red States For Book Bans, Cites Books Banned By The Left

Tuesday was World Book Day and ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel celebrated by bringing a quintet of librarians together to tell Republicans to “shut the [bleep] up” over their supposed book bans. The only problem was that the books Kimmel and his new friends highlighted, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird, are regularly targeted by race-obsessed progressives. Kimmel began by declaring, “It’s also World Book Day today or as the state of Florida calls it, Bonfire Day.” After a digression into the demise of the phone book and the Yellow Pages, Kimmel continued, “All jokes aside, this World Book Day is a weird one. There are at least 100 bills in various red states, three of which have become law already, threatening librarians with prison for the crime of lending books. Books that aren't government-approved. Which to me, not only is this the opposite of what our country's supposed to be about, it's completely nuts. We're going to throw librarians in jail for loaning out Huckleberry Finn. This is not what they signed up for. I think it's disgusting and wrong and anti-American.”     Schools that target Huckleberry Finn generally do so under the guise that the book contains the N-word and therefore removing the book from the curriculum is needed “to protect the dignity of our students.”  Kimmel then played a sketch the show put together of five librarians reacting to Kimmel’s anti-red state diatribe. The librarians informed viewers that they are “not groomers,” “not sex fiends,” “not pornographers,” and “not Satanists.” One lamented, “Some people want to make us criminals,” while another declared, “It's not meth. It's Judy Blume.” They wondered why Republicans want to “make books the enemy” and “make knowledge the enemy.” Three of them responded that conservatives should “shut the [bleep] up.” In a post-credit scene, one added, “You can have To Kill A Mockingbird when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! Or you can check it out.” Like Huckleberry Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird is targeted by blue school districts for its unsettling, but historically accurate language, while also being attacked for the alleged white savior complex of its protagonist. Meanwhile, Kimmel’s monologue and the corresponding skit from the librarians were just another case of Jimmy Kimmel Live! not sufficiently checking their facts. Here is a transcript for the April 23 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 4/23/2024 11:46 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL:  It’s also World Book Day today or as the state of Florida calls it, Bonfire Day. … All jokes aside, this World Book Day is a weird one. There are at least 100 bills in various red states, three of which have become law already, threatening librarians with prison for the crime of lending books. Books that aren't government-approved. Which to me, not only is this the opposite of what our country's supposed to be about, it's completely nuts. We're going to throw librarians in jail for loaning out Huckleberry Finn. This is not what they signed up for. I think it's disgusting and wrong and anti-American. But don't take it from me, take it from these real-life librarians. MALE LIBRARIAN: I'm a librarian. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: I'm a librarian. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: I've been a librarian for 26 years. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 3: We're librarians. MALE LIBRARIAN: Masters of the library sciences. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Not groomers. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: Not sex fiends. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: Not pornographers. MALE LIBRARIAN: We're the people who hand out library cards. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: We do story times. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: We put away the books you guys leave out on the tables instead of putting them on the reshelf cart. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: The clearly labeled reshelf cart. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: You can read that, right? MALE LIBRARIAN: We're not the deep state. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: We're not Satanists. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: We're librarians. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 3: But some people want to make us criminals. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: Put us in jail. MALE LIBRARIAN: I would not do well in jail. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: It's not meth. It's Judy Blume. MALE LIBRARIAN: Judy effing Bloom. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Judy effing Bloom. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: Fine us thousands of dollars? FEMALE LIBRARIAN 3: Like we have thousands of dollars. FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Make books the enemy? MALE LIBRARIAN: Make knowledge the enemy? FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: And you know what we say to this? ALL: Shh! FEMALE LIBRARIAN: Shut the [bleep] up! FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: Shut the [bleep] up. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 4: Please shut the [bleep] up. MALE LIBRARIAN: What's wrong with you? NARRATOR: Paid for by Americans Against Americans Against Librarians. FEMALE LIBRARIAN 2: You can have To Kill A Mockingbird when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! Or you can check it out.

Politico Exposes Media's Anti-Trump Legal Echo Chamber's Meetings

Cable news has often been described as an echo chamber, but a Tuesday report from Politico’s Ankush Khardori provided evidence that cable news legal analysts regularly meet up to discuss what talking points they should bring with them when they are on the air. Khardori begins, “As the Jan. 6 committee was working on its bombshell investigation into the Capitol riot and President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the last election, committee staffers took some time out of their seemingly 24-hour jobs one day in 2022 to brief a group of lawyers and legal pundits on a Zoom call.” He further notes, “The group’s gathering was not a one-time event, but in fact an installment in an exclusive weekly digital salon, whose existence has not been previously reported, for prominent legal analysts and progressive and conservative anti-Trump lawyers and pundits. Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.” The meetings resemble cable news itself, “Some group members wouldn’t describe themselves with any partisan or ideological lean, but most are united by their dislike of Trump.” Khardori further reports that former Obama official and Trump Impeachment 1.0 lawyer Norman Eisen hosts the group. Other regulars include a who’s who of anti-Trump media figures and famous liberal law professors such as Bill Kristol, Laurence Tribe, John Dean, George Conway, Andrew Weissmann, Jeffrey Toobin, Harry Litman, Barbara McQuade, Joyce White Vance, Jennifer Rubin, Mary McCord, Karen Agnifilo, Elliot Williams, Ryan Goodman, Renato Mariotti, Asha Rangappa, Shan Wu, and Norman Ornstein. Apparently, multiple people thought it was a good idea to welcome Toobin to a Zoom call. Apart from the regulars, “Sometimes there is a special guest,” Khardori adds, “like the Jan. 6 committee staffers (who recalled briefing the group). One Friday last May, after E. Jean Carroll defeated Trump in the first of her two defamation cases to go to trial, her lawyer Roberta Kaplan joined as a guest to talk for roughly half an hour about her strategy for beating Trump in court. Another time, J. Michael Luttig, a conservative legal scholar and former judge who helped lead the public campaign to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment, showed up to make his case.” Khardori does note later on that CNN’s Elie Honig once challenged Luttig on his arguments and Khardori himself notes that echo chambers tend to make their members look foolish, “The conversations, though, could also spread dubious analysis, or perhaps lead to wish-casting. The effort to disqualify Trump under the 14th Amendment never really had a chance, but many commentators — including some who participate in the calls — publicly argued otherwise.” Additionally, Khardori recalled, “As I was reporting this story, I learned that some members of the group were understandably anxious about its publication. Trump has claimed that there is a legal conspiracy against him, and there is a risk that news of a group such as this could give Trump and his allies an attractive target.” The people present on these Zoom calls may portray themselves as a bunch of law nerds bouncing ideas off of each other, but the end results look like a group of people who agree with each other about how awesome they are and who then go on air and tell their audiences what they want to hear.

Hayes Dismisses Johnson As 'Angry' For Columbia Press Conference

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reacted to the latest developments at Columbia University and campuses around the country on Wednesday’s edition of All In by seeking to provide cover to the protestors by claiming they are simply “anti-war” and that all the anti-Semitism is from off-campus “trolls.” As for the GOP response, he dismissed Speaker Mike Johnson as “angry.” Coming out of a commercial, Hayes declared that “Fresh off the passage of those foreign aid bills that President Biden signed today, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't take a victory lap. Instead, the LSU graduate made an angry press appearance on the campus of Columbia University in New York, where he was booed by most of the crowd assembled.”     Was Johnson supposed to be happy? The fact that the crowd booed him says more about the crowd than it does about Johnson, but Hayes continued, “As you probably heard, the school has been the center of the media world for the last week over student protests of Israel's war in Gaza.” He added: Last week, the school's president, after appearing before a House committee, had many of those students arrested by the New York Police Department, thrown out of their university housing amid allegations of harassment against Jewish students on campus, or at least near the campus gates, where non-students and trolls have gathered to spout some truly genuinely vile, threatening stuff in viral scenes.  As Hayes was acknowledging the anti-Semitism present among the demonstrators, MSNBC showed pictures of some of these people. One was a group marching behind a banner that read “From Gaza to Jenin” and “Revolution to Victory” with a map of what they imagine a future Palestinian state should look like. It was a map that included not simply Gaza and the West Bank, but all of what is internationally unquestionably recognized to be Israeli territory. That is something that groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, who are students demonstrating on campus, would agree with, and they are given platforms on MSNBC. Yet, Hayes sought to dismiss concerns about this form of anti-Semitism, instead claiming they are simply anti-war and that the real problem is that Republicans want to put an end to these illegal encampments: Even as the anti-war protests spread to other universities across the country, and conservatives like Johnson blast higher education as a bastion of radicalism, again, Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley have even called for the National Guard to come in. Today, Greg Abbott sent in the Department of Public Safety into the UT Austin campus. None of this new for any of these conservatives. Cotton, you’ll remember, wanted the Army to crush protests against police brutality in 2020. It was more that Cotton wanted to end the rioting and the looting, but why would Hayes let facts get in the way of a good narrative? Additionally, these demonstrators aren’t anti-war, they’re just upset that their side is losing a war that it started. Here is a transcript for the April 24 show: MSNBC All In With Chris Hayes 4/24/2024 8:45 PM ET CHRIS HAYES: Fresh off the passage of those foreign aid bills that President Biden signed today, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't take a victory lap. Instead, the LSU graduate made an angry press appearance on the campus of Columbia University in New York, where he was booed by most of the crowd assembled.  As you probably heard, the school has been the center of the media world for the last week over student protests of Israel's war in Gaza. Last week, the school's president, after appearing before a House committee, had many of those students arrested by the New York Police Department, thrown out of their university housing amid allegations of harassment against Jewish students on campus, or at least near the campus gates, where non-students and trolls have gathered to spout some truly genuinely vile, threatening stuff in viral scenes.  Even as the anti-war protests spread to other universities across the country, and conservatives like Johnson blast higher education as a bastion of radicalism, again, Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley have even called for the National Guard to come in. Today, Greg Abbott sent in the Department of Public Safety into the UT Austin campus. None of this new for any of these conservatives. Cotton, you’ll remember, wanted the Army to crush protests against police brutality in 2020.

CNN Wonders Why Johnson Cares About Anti-Semitism at Columbia

When Speaker Mike Johnson traveled to Columbia University on Wednesday to call for President Minouche Shafik's resignation, he was joined by CNN’s Erin Burnett who sat down with Johnson for an interview on OutFront. Burnett would claim that it was a good thing Johnson was booed or the situation might have spun out of control and also asked him why he cares so much about anti-Semitism at Columbia considering it is a private university. Previewing her interview, Burnett recalled, “They were, and I'm going to show you here, this is my cell phone video, chanting ‘Free Palestine,’ heckling, booing when Johnson called for the president of the school to resign. They were not friendly. They couldn't actually hear the Speaker, which I can tell you is a good thing, because much of what he said would have incensed that crowd.     During the recorded interview, Burnett wondered if Johnson was overreacting, “The NYPD, at least as of Monday, said they've not received a single call from Columbia University of reports of any physical harm.” Johnson pushed back: But you have to speak to these Jewish students who are in fear of their lives, who are cowering in their apartments right now, who are not coming to class. In fact, the administration recognized the threat was so great, they canceled classes. Now they've come out with this hybrid idea, ‘Well, if you're Jewish, maybe you do want to stay at home. Maybe you'd be better off for you.’ It is so discriminatory. It's so wrong in every way. The responsibility of a university administrator is to keep peace on campus and ensure the safety of students -- job number one. If they're incapable of doing that, they need different leadership. I think this is time for a really strong hand. Not convinced, Burnett tried again, “I'm trying to understand, though, why as Speaker of the House, this is an issue you would want to get involved with? It's a private university. It's an issue happening here. Why is this something that you are choosing to get involved in calling for the removal of the president of a private university?” Johnson, again, held firm, “Well, they receive federal funding as well. And Congress is looking at all of these aspects to determine how they're using those funds. Is that appropriate? If they can't fulfill their basic obligations, I don't think the American taxpayers want to be funding this kind of thing.” He also noted that it isn’t just students, “We know that professors are engaging in this as well, some of their professors. Some have been supportive of the Jewish your students, but I believe it's a small subset from what I'm told. They've allowed this to go on and it is not okay with the American people. This isn't a partisan issue. This is about right and wrong, and we've got to call it for what it is.” Burnett then asked, “And so, when -- when people talk about genocide and say that Israel is engaging in genocide, do you think that that is a legitimate conversation that they should be allowed to have as part of First Amendment rights here, or no?” Johnson reminded Burnett that he used to be a First Amendment lawyer when he answered, “when you shout down and physically threatened with intimidation and threats of violence the other side, that is not a peaceful expression, as peaceful -- peaceful exchange of ideas. That's something very different and that's what we're saying that they need to get control of.” Elsewhere in the interview, Burnett would ask, “The main thing they were chanting was ‘Free Palestine.’ How is that anti-Semitic?” and “Do you think that protesting the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, protesting the tens of thousands of innocent people who have died there is anti-Semitic in and of itself?” Both times Johnson would throw the blame back where it belongs: Hamas, but it should also be added that by “Free Palestine” many, if not most, of these people do not mean ending Israeli administration of certain parts of the West Bank. Rather, they mean Israel’s destruction and, yes, that is anti-Semitic. Here is a transcript for the April 24 show: CNN Erin Burnett OutFront 4/24/2024 7:57 PM ET ERIN BURNETT: They were, and I'm going to show you here, this is my cell phone video, chanting "free Palestine," heckling, booing when Johnson called for the president of the school to resign. They were not friendly. They couldn't actually hear the Speaker, which I can tell you is a good thing, because much of what he said would have incensed that crowd. … BURNETT: All right. So let me ask you about that because when it comes to that, the NYPD, at least as of Monday, said they've not received a single call from Columbia University of reports of any physical harm. MIKE JOHNSON: Well – BURNETT: No physical harm. JOHNSON: Right. But you have to speak to these Jewish students who are in fear of their lives, who are cowering in their apartments right now, who are not coming to class. In fact, the administration recognized the threat was so great, they canceled classes. Now they've come out with this hybrid idea, “Well, if you're Jewish, maybe you do want to stay at home. Maybe you'd be better off for you.” It is so discriminatory. It's so wrong in every way. The responsibility of a university administrator is to keep peace on campus and ensure the safety of students -- job number one. If they're incapable of doing that, they need different leadership. I think this is time for a really strong hand. BURNETT: I'm trying to understand, though, why as Speaker of the House, this is an issue you would want to get involved with? It's a private university. It's an issue happening here. Why is this something that you are choosing to get involved in calling for the removal of the president of a private university? JOHNSON: Well, they receive federal funding as well. And Congress is looking at all of these aspects to determine how they're using those funds. Is that appropriate? If they can't fulfill their basic obligations, I don't think the American taxpayers want to be funding this kind of thing. We know that professors are engaging in this as well, some of their professors. Some have been supportive of the Jewish your students, but I believe it's a small subset from what I'm told. They've allowed this to go on and it is not okay with the American people. This isn't a partisan issue. This is about right and wrong, and we've got to call it for what it is. BURNETT: And so, when -- when people talk about genocide and say that Israel is engaging in genocide, do you think that that is a legitimate conversation that they should be allowed to have as part of First Amendment rights here, or no? JOHNSON: Of course, look, I was a First Amendment lawyer for 20 years, I went to the courts and defendant the -- our First Amendment freedoms, religious expression, the right of free speech on campus. I litigated those cases. Of course, the university is supposed to be the free marketplace of ideas. But when you shout down and physically threatened with intimidation and threats of violence the other side, that is not a peaceful expression, as peaceful -- peaceful exchange of ideas. That's something very different and that's what we're saying that they need to get control of. When they camp out around the campus and they prevent students from exercising their rights, that's the problem. 

Daily Show Tells Netanyahu Campus Encampments Are His Fault

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the anti-Semitism at multiple encampments on college campuses across the United States and that did not sit well with Comedy Central’s temporary co-hosts of The Daily Show, Jordan Klepper and Ronny Chieng on Thursday. Conceding there are “plenty of bad actors,” the duo argued that the encampments are Netanyahu’s fault because of “Israel’s disproportionate use of force.” After playing clips of Speaker Mike Johnson and Sen. Josh Hawley calling for the National Guard to break up the encampments, Klepper teed up a clip of Netanyahu, “Honestly, I can't think of anybody worse to give their opinion on how to protest the war in Gaza. Well, there is one guy.”     In the clip, Netanyahu declared that “what’s happening in America's college campuses is horrific. Anti-Semitic mobs have taken over a leading university. [jump cut] It’s unconscionable. It has to be stopped.” The protests are ostensibly about Netanyahu and his country’s policies. In reality, many of the demonstrators are protesting his country’s existence, but either way, of course, the leader of the Jewish State is going to have thoughts about these people. Nevertheless, Klepper responded, “Oh, thanks for taking the time to give your feedback, Benjamin Netanyahu! Is there nothing else going on with you?” Chieng followed by starting the blame game, “Yeah, I know, this guy is like, ‘The situation in U.S. college campuses is unacceptable, do you see how the buildings are not rubble? I am disgusted!’" Klepper was happy to play along, “Here's the point: there’s a lot of noise and plenty of bad actors, but fundamentally, what's driving these protests is anger over Israel's disproportionate use of force. So before we respond to the protests with disproportionate force, maybe we should listen to what they have to say, and then, if we still don't agree with the students, then we can send in the college improv troupe.” If you are someone who simply has genuinely heartfelt, but nevertheless wrong-headed ideas about how a ceasefire is needed to end suffering and pursue a two-state solution, then why are you at a protest movement led by people who do not support such a policy? The point where the naïve among the protesters should have disassociated themselves from the “plenty of bad actors” has long since passed.  Here is a transcript for the April 25 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 4/25/2024 11:17 PM ET JORDAN KLEPPER: Honestly, I can't think of anybody worse to give their opinion on how to protest the war in Gaza. Well, there is one guy. BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: What’s happening in America's college campuses is horrific. Anti-Semitic mobs have taken over a leading university [jump cut] it’s unconscionable. It has to be stopped. KLEPPER: Oh, thanks for taking the time to give your feedback, Benjamin Netanyahu! Is there nothing else going on with you?  RONNY CHIENG: Yeah, I know, this guy is like "The situation in U.S. college campuses is unacceptable, do you see how the buildings are not rubble? I am disgusted!" KLEPPER: Here's the point: there’s a lot of noise and plenty of bad actors, but fundamentally, what's driving these protests is anger over Israel's disproportionate use of force. So before we respond to the protests with disproportionate force, maybe we should listen to what they have to say, and then, if we still don't agree with the students, then we can send in the college improv troupe.

Ex-NBC Disinformation Reporter Is The New CEO Of The Onion

No, that headline is not satire. Ex-NBC disinformation reporter Ben Collins announced on his Twitter account on Thursday that he is the new CEO of The Onion. It’s a fitting end for both parties as they tailspin into the depths of bitter politics. Before he was suspended by NBC for having an unprofessional obsession with Elon Musk, he was on the network’s disinformation and extremism beat, which was exclusively focused on the right side of the political spectrum. Collins’s shtick was to find the most outrageous things coming from the internet and pretend that they represented all conservatives. For example, he declared that Kanye West’s anti-Semitism was within the Republican Party’s Overton Window.   NEWS: My friends and I now own and run The Onion. I’ll be the CEO. We’re keeping the entire staff, bringing back The Onion News Network, and share the wealth with staff. Basically, we’re going to let them do whatever they want. Get excited.https://t.co/CQtWzFHn4A — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) April 25, 2024   He also claimed ex-Harvard President Claudine Gay’s plagiarism scandal was no big deal because the people most likely to talk about it were conservatives, that the opposition to Critical Race Theory is made up to scare people into voting for Republicans, and falsely blamed Fox News for spreading conspiracy theories about the 2019 fire at the Notre Dame cathedral. Now, he’s going to be the CEO of a dying satirical website. To that end, Collins and his business partners have been tweeting and urging people to donate $1 to help rescue the site.   Pitch in your $1 here:https://t.co/IAHe5uoINv — Jeff Lawson (@jeffiel) April 26, 2024   After 9/11, The Onion made it okay for Americans to laugh again by making fun of the hijackers by reporting that they were surprised to find themselves in hell. Now, The Onion has devolved into essentially terrorist propaganda as it bitterly runs story after story after story after story after story after story after story, with borderline blood libel claims that Israel is some sort of death-loving nation intent on wiping out the Palestinians and Americans simply don’t care. Additionally, The Onion agrees with Collins on Gay and CRT. Collins made his name defending social media censorship as necessary to combat fake news and disinformation. Some of Facebook’s fact-checking partners still do not have satire labels and now Collins is going to the country’s predominant left-wing humor/fake news websites. Behind the joke, there is an argument being made and based on both their histories, The Onion is about to become more insufferable just when nobody thought that was even possible.

PBS Tries To Blame Conservatism For Mass Stabbing

Thursday’s Amanpour and Company demonstrated everything wrong with public broadcasting by using hushed and solemn tones to offer up the most incendiary hot takes. This particular hot take came from feminist, gender, and sexuality studies Prof. Kate Manne and NPR’s Michel Martin as they tried to tie conservatism to the recent mass stabbing in Australia. As Manne acknowledged, the perpetrator was “a diagnosed schizophrenic who had recently, according to his family, discontinued medication, and he was living in a way that was largely itinerant.” However, “But I think we can recognize that when it comes to that question of why he targeted girls and women and why it is invariably a Joel rather than a Jane, a man rather than a woman, who has this kind of horrifically violent eruption after romantic or sexual disappointment, then we can recognize that his father's explanation is, again, helpful that he was motivated by the sense of entitlement to women's labor and to be ministered to and cared for by women.”     Later, Martin started the process of trying to tie this schizophrenic woman-hater to conservatives, “Some people feel like there's kind of a worldwide movement of trying to sort of reclaim male dominance. Like, for example -- like in South Korea, for example, there's like a whole political movement to kind of fight feminism, right? The argument that there are like political parties and political leaders whose main organizing principle is that. And I'm just wondering, do you see something worldwide? And if so, what is it?” Manne, of course, agreed, “Yes, we are absolutely seeing a rise in anti-feminist leaders worldwide who are basically capitalizing on the fact that between men and women, particularly what we see this when it comes to young men versus young women, there is a real disparity in attitudes towards feminism… And we also see that these attitudes are very common -- more common, unsurprisingly, in young Republican men and to some extent, women.” That just means people have different definitions of feminism. Young women associate it with equality and women’s rights while Republicans associate it with abortion and fake news about unequal pay, and young men associate it with the anti-male stereotyping that Manne would soon engage in after Martin asked, “Why do you say unsurprisingly?” Manne replied with all the left-wing buzzwords, “Well, I do think that anti-feminism and conservatism are in lockstep, partly because conservative ideology is often invested in patriarchal roles and expectations being maintained, particularly for people who are also invested in white supremacy and racist ideals and values being promulgated and maintained in society.” Later, Martin asked, “What do you think would make a difference?” Manne responded, in part, by declaring: So, I think we have to go right to the root of it and really start with education. Parents and educators need to be teaching people in general, children in general, but young boys in particular, that they are not entitled to social and sexual services from girls and women… I think we need to address intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and also forms of incel ideology in our education systems. And I think that there is a real call for not just teaching the nuts and bolts of sex, but also what coercive and misogynistic sexual practices look like. One example of this is there has been an alarming rise as a recent New York Times report by Peggy Orenstein showed in the rates of strangulation by men upon women during sexual encounters, and that is not a safe practice from the perspective of brain health. Did Manne actually read Orenstein’s piece? The words “conservatism” and “misogyny” do not appear. Things that do appear include pornography, ShoTime’s Californincation, Fifty Shades of Grey, HBO’s Euphoria and The Idol, and “The chorus of Jack Harlow’s ‘Lovin On Me.’” Here is a transcript for the April 25 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 4/25/2024 MICHEL MARTIN: When the father of the killer expressed these thoughts, he said he wanted a girlfriend and he has no social skills and he was frustrated out of his brain, some people thought that he was blaming the victim -- victims, but I felt that he was just describing what he saw, and I just wonder -- I thought that was helpful information to know that he -- that that was what was in his mind. KATE MANNE: I admit that when I initially saw the remarks taken out of context, I worried that it was an example of what I call himpathy, where sympathy is extended to a male perpetrator of violence and misogyny over his female victims. But when I saw the entire interview of this grieving father, my reaction was very different. I think he was just trying to explain, not excuse or justify his son's actions. I think he was horrified by what his son did. His statement had a recognizably both and form. He said, “I am loving a monster. And to you he's a monster, to me, he's a sick boy. He's a very sick boy. Believe me, he's a sick boy.” And that is not inaccurate. Joel Cauchi was a diagnosed schizophrenic who had recently, according to his family, discontinued medication, and he was living in a way that was largely itinerant. He was on the fringes of society. We don't have to sympathize with him whatsoever to recognize that when it comes to a particular question, why did this man, who was aggrieved and lonely, snap on this day, then we can invoke the fact that he had a particular kind of mental illness that unlike most kinds of mental illness does result in an increased rate of violence. But I think we can recognize that when it comes to that question of why he targeted girls and women and why it is invariably a Joel rather than a Jane, a man rather than a woman, who has this kind of horrifically violent eruption after romantic or sexual disappointment, then we can recognize that his father's explanation is, again, helpful that he was motivated by the sense of entitlement to women's labor and to be ministered to and cared for by women. … MARTIN: Some people feel like there's kind of a worldwide movement of trying to sort of reclaim male dominance. Like, for example -- like in South Korea, for example, there's like a whole political movement to kind of fight feminism, right? The argument that there are like political parties and political leaders whose main organizing principle is that. And I'm just wondering, do you see something worldwide? And if so, what is it? MANNE: Yes, we are absolutely seeing a rise in anti-feminist leaders worldwide who are basically capitalizing on the fact that between men and women, particularly what we see this when it comes to young men versus young women, there is a real disparity in attitudes towards feminism. And we see this in the U.S. context too where almost half of young Democratic men in a recent study by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2022 showed that nearly half of Democratic men believed, when they were young, that feminism was a backward step and that it was a mistake and a negative for society. And that is in marked contrast to women's attitudes where young women, it was less than a quarter who said that. And we also see that these attitudes are very common -- more common, unsurprisingly, in young Republican men and to some extent, women. MARTIN: Why do you say unsurprisingly? MANNE: Well, I do think that anti-feminism and conservatism are in lockstep, partly because conservative ideology is often invested in patriarchal roles and expectations being maintained, particularly for people who are also invested in white supremacy and racist ideals and values being promulgated and maintained in society. We're seeing a lot of feminist social progress. We're seeing women educated in record numbers, and women being able to achieve positions of power and prestige and leadership and having a voice in new ways, we're seeing women tell their stories as in the MeToo movement in ways that are unapologetic and unashamed. But it's not in spite of that, but I think precisely because of that we also simultaneously see anti-feminist backlash where patriarchal forces are trying to re-entrench and re-establish the status quo, and that you often see people who are influenced by those social forces being caught in the grip of misogynist ideologies, and also those misogynistic ideologies being used and exploited to elect certain people who are anti-feminist positions of power worldwide. MARTIN: What do you think would make a difference? MANNE: So, I think we have to go right to the root of it and really start with education. Parents and educators need to be teaching people in general, children in general, but young boys in particular, that they are not entitled to social and sexual services from girls and women, and that they need to be obligated to other people and reciprocating forms of care that we all owe to each other, but not because of our gender, rather, just because we're decent human beings. I think we need to address intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and also forms of incel ideology in our education systems. And I think that there is a real call for not just teaching the nuts and bolts of sex, but also what coercive and misogynistic sexual practices look like. One example of this is there has been an alarming rise as a recent New York Times report by Peggy Orenstein showed in the rates of strangulation by men upon women during sexual encounters, and that is not a safe practice from the perspective of brain health. So, we need to be teaching young people that this is not a sexual practice that is safe. And it is one that is rooted in a form of domination and control that is deeply misogynistic. I think that some of the answers also have to do with having better mental health care available for victims recovering from these kinds of assaults and traumas and even just the everyday weathering that we suffer as the result of street harassment. And also, yes, potential perpetrators also need access to better mental health care in America and Australia alike.

PBS Is 'Frustrated' By Lack Of 'Nuance' On Reaction To Campus Encampments

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart both claimed to be “frustrated” on Friday's PBS NewsHour that the encampments occurring on college campuses are not being treated with the “nuance” they deserve. They both called for the anti-Semitic among the demonstrators to be expelled, but insisted most are honest and sincere people who simply want to see the suffering of Gazans end. Host Amna Nawaz started by asking Brooks, “David, they have spread very quickly. They are sustaining on campuses. How do you look at these? I mean, should these be a sort of warning sign to the Biden Administration? What do you make of how quickly and widely they spread?”     Brooks claimed to “have been frustrated that people aren't making some distinctions here. So, I think most of the protesters are appalled by the horrors the Palestinians are suffering and they're well-motivated by compassion. There are some people who are probably hard-left people, and they get to have their views.” He also noted, “There are a lot of people who are anti-Semitic and violent. And so you should not be able to say, as one of the Columbia students said, ‘Zionists don't deserve to live.’ If that happens, you should be expelled. And so, in my view, they should let them protest. But if somebody says something, ‘Go back to Poland,’ or even a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, ‘Go back to Gaza,’ that's ruining the community of the campus and so those people should be expelled.” It wasn’t some random student who said, “Zionists don’t deserve to live,” it was one of the leaders. At what point do the people who style themselves as peace activists who genuinely, but naively simply want a ceasefire and Palestinian administration of the West Bank have a moral obligation to dissociate themselves from leaders who want to destroy Israel and murder its supporters? After reiterating his call for expulsions, Brooks worried that “As for the Biden administration, I do worry that the Chicago convention is going to look a lot like 1968 and that will just be terrible for the Biden administration. The president will look hapless and powerless.” After Brooks rattled off some polling data showing the Israel-Hamas War ranks 15th out of 60 issues for young people, it was Capehart’s turn. He echoed Brooks, “I think the discussion about what's happening on these-- in these protests is missing a lot of nuance. Not everyone who's protesting is anti-Semitic, is rooting for violence, or is he even causing the violence? They are there for legitimate reasons. And I agree with David. If a person of the college community is disrupting and saying racist, anti-Semitic things, then, yes, they should be expelled.” At the same time, Capehart urged caution, “But we also should be mindful that, who are these people who are saying these things? Some might be members of the university or college community, but some could be from the outside. And my big fear from the BLM movement is, folks from the outside causing violence and then the blame being foisted upon the people who are legitimately protesting. And that is my big concern when we talk about this latest national protest.” The BLM leaders also professed to being Marxists, so maybe instead of shaming people for noticing their major protest movements are run by radicals and horrible people, the left should get better protest leaders with better causes. Here is a transcript for the April 26 show: PBS NewsHour 4/26/2024 7:41 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, as you saw earlier in the show, we continue to report on the spread of these campus protests, pro-Palestinian protests, by and large, and protesting Israel's war conduct in Gaza. David, they have spread very quickly. They are sustaining on campuses. How do you look at these? I mean, should these be a sort of warning sign to the Biden Administration? What do you make of how quickly and widely they spread? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I have been frustrated that people aren't making some distinctions here. So, I think most of the protesters are appalled by the horrors the Palestinians are suffering and they're well-motivated by compassion. There are some people who are probably hard left-people, and they get to have their views. There are a lot of people who are anti-Semitic and violent. And so you should not be able to say, as one of the Columbia students said, “Zionists don't deserve to live.” If that happens, you should be expelled. And so, in my view, they should let them protest. But if somebody says something, "Go back to Poland," or even a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli, "Go back to Gaza," that's ruining the community of the campus and so those people should be expelled. So, that's the distinction that should be made. And, somehow, the people who are really threatening the community by threatening violence, they're not being expelled. And I think that would have the deterrent effect that would separate really the bad actors from the people who are just well-motivated to do — to try to save lives. As for the Biden administration, I do worry that the Chicago convention is going to look a lot like 1968. NAWAZ: Really? BROOKS: And that will just be terrible for the Biden administration. The president will look hapless and powerless. One other final thing that I just found interesting, Harvard does this survey. What are young adults interested in, what issues? Israel/Gaza is 15 out of 60. And so a lot of people I know are passionately in on both sides of this issue. NAWAZ: Yeah. BROOKS: But most young voters are interested in inflation, crime, health care, the normal issues. And so it's important for us, those — especially those of us who are in “educated circles,” not to generalize from our own immediate experience, because a lot of people are thinking about very different things than this. NAWAZ: Jonathan? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I would say I agree with you, David. I think the discussion about what's happening on these in these protests is missing a lot of nuance. Not everyone who's protesting is anti-Semitic, is rooting for violence or is he even causing the violence? They are there for legitimate reasons. And I agree with David. If a person of the college community is disrupting and saying racist, anti-Semitic things, then, yes, they should be expelled. But we also should be mindful that, who are these people who are saying these things? Some might be members of the university or college community, but some could be from the outside. And my big fear from the BLM movement is, folks from the outside causing violence and then the blame being foisted upon the people who are legitimately protesting. And that is my big concern when we talk about this latest national protest.

NBC Downplays Columbia Leader's Anti-Semitism, CBS Still Ignores

On Friday morning, ABC, NBC, and CBS all ignored Columbia encampment student leader Khymani James’s January remarks that Zionists don’t deserve to live and they should be grateful he personally isn’t murdering them. Since then, the results have been mixed. Friday’s World News Tonight on ABC played the video and Saturday’s Today alluded to it, but did not play it, and the amount of specifics the viewer got was dependent on their NBC affiliate. Meanwhile, CBS Saturday Morning continued to ignore the video. The best CBS could muster was a recorded segment on the latest developments around Columbia that included an interview with a pro-Israeli counter-protestor. “Nobody’s talking about the hostages,” a Columbia graduate student told correspondent Michael George.     George portrayed concerns about anti-Semitism as something this student was worried about, but he himself felt no need to elaborate on, “This Columbia grad student who took part in the rally argues those in the encampments are promoting anti-Semitism and ignoring the hostages still held by Hamas.” The student added, “If you want peace to be achieved, as we do, and if you want a ceasefire, the hostages need to be released.” Apart from teases and introductions, the only relatively substantive report viewers that have an NBC affiliate that only airs the first 60 minutes of the Saturday edition of Today would've got came from correspondent Liz Kreutz, “At Columbia, the university banning a student protester who made anti-Semitic remarks in a video that surfaced this week. Khymani James apologizing on Friday for the incendiary comments saying they ‘misspoke in the heat of the moment.’” That is not a misprint. James is the kind of guy who calls for the mass murder of Jews while demanding you use he, she, and they pronouns. As for Kruetz, she did not provide any context as to what those remarks might be. Those who get the 90-minute version would’ve gotten an extra report from fellow correspondent George Solis, who provided slightly more context, “Meanwhile, students here at Columbia have been camping out now for 11 days now, and still at issue, pro-Palestinian protesters calling on the university to divest any financial support to Israel. Now, Columbia has banned a student leader in the protests after videos surfaced of the individual calling for the death of Zionists, the student has since apologized for the remarks.” The previous night on ABC, correspondent Stephanie Ramos had her own pre-recorded segment that featured a soundbite from Jewish student Noa Fay, “On this campus, people chant that Zionists are not welcome, calling on, quote, ‘death to the Jewish state.’” Unlike CBS, ABC provided proof that Fay was not being hyperbolic, as Ramos immediately followed up with the clip of James ranting, “Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists.” Ramos wavered a bit when she added, “Back in January, Columbia student protester Khymani James live-streamed those comments after a disciplinary hearing with the school probing similar posts. Today, protest organizers distancing themselves from him.” An unnamed camper provided the context that James was not a mere protestor, but a leader, “He apologized and he asked for space to reflect and learn and grow and that he will step away from being press spokesperson.” It seems likely that James is simply sorry he got caught rather than truly remorseful for his actual remarks, as Ramos added, “Tonight, the university addressing that video posted by that student, calling it ‘extremely alarming,’ adding that calls for violence are unacceptable.” If only NBC and CBS viewers could be made aware of such alarming threats. Here are transcripts for the April 26 and 27 shows: ABC World News Tonight 4/26/2024 6:40 PM ET PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTORS: Bring them home! Bring them home! STEPHANIE RAMOS: Outside Columbia University, pro-Israel counter-protesters calling for the release of hostages. LEAT UNGER [Family member of Israeli hostage]: The release of hostages must come first and foremost to end the suffering on both sides. RAMOS: Today, Jewish students called on Columbia to keep every student safe. NOA FAY: On this campus, people chant that Zionists are not welcome, calling on, quote, “death to the Jewish state.” KHYMANI JAMES: Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists. RAMOS: Back in January, Columbia student protester Khymani James live-streamed those comments after a disciplinary hearing with the school probing similar posts. Today, protest organizers distancing themselves from him. PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTOR: He apologized and he asked for space to reflect and learn and grow and that he will step away from being press spokesperson. RAMOS: Tonight, the university addressing that video posted by that student, calling it “extremely alarming,” adding that calls for violence are unacceptable. *** NBC Today 4/26/2024 7:07 AM ET LIZ KREUTZ: At Columbia, the university banning a student protester who made anti-Semitic remarks in a video that surfaced this week. Khymani James apologizing on Friday for the incendiary comments saying they “misspoke in the heat of the moment.” … 8:05 AM ET GEORGE SOLIS: Tensions escalating this morning as a large police presence is unfolding in Boston, where authorities are dismantling a student encampment there at Northeastern and making arrests. Meanwhile, students here at Columbia have been camping out now for 11 days now, and still at issue, pro-Palestinian protesters calling on the university to divest any financial support to Israel. Now, Columbia has banned a student leader in the protests after videos surfaced of the individual calling for the death of Zionists, the student has since apologized for the remarks.  *** MICHAEL GEORGE: At Columbia university as talks between school administrators and pro-Palestinian protesters continue— PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTORS: Bring them home! GEORGE: -- pro-Israeli demonstrators, many non-students, made their voices heard outside the campus. PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTOR: Nobody’s talking about the hostages. GEORGE: This Columbia grad student who took part in the rally argues those in the encampments are promoting anti-Semitism and ignoring the hostages still held by Hamas. PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTOR: If you want peace to be achieved, as we do, and if you want a ceasefire, the hostages need to be released.   *** NBC Today 4/26/2024 7:07 AM ET LIZ KREUTZ: At Columbia, the university banning a student protester who made anti-Semitic remarks in a video that surfaced this week. Khymani James apologizing on Friday for the incendiary comments saying they “misspoke in the heat of the moment.” … 8:05 AM ET GEORGE SOLIS: Tensions escalating this morning as a large police presence is unfolding in Boston, where authorities are dismantling a student encampment there at Northeastern and making arrests. Meanwhile, students here at Columbia have been camping out now for 11 days now, and still at issue, pro-Palestinian protesters calling on the university to divest any financial support to Israel. Now, Columbia has banned a student leader in the protests after videos surfaced calling for the death of Zionists, the student has since apologized for the remarks.  *** MICHAEL GEORGE: At Columbia university as talks between school administrators and pro-Palestinian protesters continue— PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTORS: Bring them home! GEORGE: -- pro-Israeli demonstrators, many non-students, made their voices heard outside the campus. PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTOR: Nobody’s talking about the hostages. GEORGE: This Columbia grad student who took part in the rally argues those in the encampments are promoting anti-Semitism and ignoring the hostages still held by Hamas. PRO-ISRAEL PROTESTOR: If you want peace to be achieved, as we do, and if you want a ceasefire, the hostages need to be released.

Stelter Acknowledges Anti-Semitism At Columbia, Urges No Judgement

Former CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter returned to the network on Monday’s CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip to acknowledge that while there have been insistences of anti-Semitism among the Columbia campers, “we should try to remain as free of judgment of the students as we can” because he, his fellow panelists, and most of his viewers used to be students as well. Stelter was responding to National Review’s Reihan Salam, who took a radically different approach, “When you look at the Columbia campus, when you look at the UCLA campus and a number of other campuses, what you have is really violence, intimidation, harassment that has become really systematic and really quite terrifying.”     Not only did Salam go after the students, he also condemned the feckless school administration and the professors who support the students: If you're someone who's at home and you're watching this unfold, then I think that you're thinking a lot about our supposedly elite institutions, institutions that are meant to lead our society, that are meant to be exemplars of knowledge and truth seeking, instead descending into this chaos because you have university leaderships that do not have backbone, that have not actually demonstrated real viewpoint neutrality. You have faculty members at Columbia who are cheering on students who are, again, just harassing, intimidating, threatening other students.” This did not sit well with Phillip, who tried to divide the demonstrators into good guys and bad guys and contended that crackdown efforts are also targeting the former, “I do want to -- I mean, what is happening at Columbia, I mean, we have a little bit more visibility there. But there is a sense in which, now, and I think this is part of the point we were trying to illustrate, is that there are a lot of protesters who are doing none of those things that you just described and they're still being dragged off of the campus and put in handcuffs. So, both things are happening at the same time.” Illegal trespassing and encampment is still illegal, even if you're not being violent or chanting anti-Semitic slogans. Nevertheless,  Stelter concurred, “This is happening across the country. And we're not hearing about all these other campuses where this is happening at the same time. I think it's right to criticize university leadership, but I think we should try to remain as free of judgment of the students as we can because many of us were students a long time ago. Students, it's a time for education. Education can be learned in a very hard way. Some of these students are getting a very hard, but very real education.” Two things. First, the idea that college students should be free of judgment because they’re young and prone to make bad choices should only go so far. The idea that mass murder is wrong should not be something that a 20-something-year-old adult, who happens to be college student, needs to learn. Second, Stelter ignored Salam’s vital point about the faculty’s role in this. It’s one thing to say students should be better educated, but when the educators praise October 7, the education itself becomes the problem. Stelter continued by claiming most demonstrators are just honest, upstanding people, and we need more like them, “I don't think these young people mostly are seeking global media attention. Some definitely are, by the way. Some definitely are. And there have been some hateful slogans chanted. But there are a lot of students now caught up in this who are not seeking that attention, who are just with their classmates. And, by the way, Bill Maher's right when he says that, you know, there's some narcissism that comes with activism. But I think as a country, we're better off with more protests, not less, as long as the safety concerns are acknowledged.” No, we’d be better off with better protests, not more. Here is a transcript for the April 29 show: CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 4/29/2024 10:13 PM ET REIHAN SALAM: When you look at the Columbia campus, when you look at the UCLA campus and a number of other campuses, what you have is really violence, intimidation, harassment that has become really systematic and really quite terrifying. And if you're someone who's at home and you're watching this unfold, then I think that you're thinking a lot about our supposedly elite institutions, institutions that are meant to lead our society, that are meant to be exemplars of knowledge and truth seeking, instead descending into this chaos because you have university leaderships that do not have backbone, that have not actually demonstrated real viewpoint neutrality. You have faculty members at Columbia who are cheering on students who are, again, just harassing, intimidating, threatening other students. ABBY PHILLIP: I do want to -- I mean, what is happening at Columbia, I mean, we have a little bit more visibility there. But there is a sense in which, now, and I think this is part of the point we were trying to illustrate, is that there are a lot of protesters who are doing none of those things that you just described. BRIAN STELTER: That's right. PHILLIP: And they're still being dragged off of the campus and put in handcuffs. So, both things are happening at the same time. STELTER: This is happening across the country. And we're not hearing about all these other campuses where this is happening at the same time. I think it's right to criticize university leadership, but I think we should try to remain as free of judgment of the students as we can because many of us were students a long time ago. Students, it's a time for education. Education can be learned in a very hard way. Some of these students are getting a very hard, but very real education. I don't think these young people mostly are seeking global media attention. Some definitely are, by the way. Some definitely are. And there have been some hateful slogans chanted. But there are a lot of students now caught up in this who are not seeking that attention, who are just with their classmates. And, by the way, Bill Maher's right when he says that, you know, there's some narcissism that comes with activism. But I think as a country, we're better off with more protests, not less, as long as the safety concerns are acknowledged.

PolitiFact Slaps False Label On Johnson's Criticism Of Columbia

Amid the encampment at Columbia University, PolitiFact slapped the “false” label on Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday for declaring that the school advised Jewish students to stay away from campus. The only problem is that Johnson never explicitly claimed that they did, but rather that was the unstated implication of their hybrid learning plan. Louis Jacobson writes, “Later, during an April 24 CNN interview that aired after his Columbia visit, Johnson said he was standing up for "Jewish students who are in fear of their lives, who were cowering in their apartments right now, who are not coming to class. In fact, the administration recognized the threat was so great, they canceled classes. Now they've come out with this hybrid idea. ‘Well, if you're Jewish, maybe you do want to stay at home. Maybe you'd be better off for you.’” The NewsBusters write-up of that CNN interview can be found here. As for Jacobson, he continues, “Johnson called this attitude ‘so discriminatory. It's so wrong in every way. The responsibility of a university administrator is to keep peace on campus and ensure the safety of students — job No. 1.’" He also writes, “Johnson’s comment prompted an April 25 post from a new account on X from the Columbia Journalism School devoted to fact-checking statements about the Columbia protests” and “The post quoted Columbia University's provost’s office, saying, "The university administration has not issued any directives or specific instructions to Jewish students about avoiding campus or taking classes remotely." Jacobson goes on to cite President Minouche Shafik stating her preference was for students who live off-campus to stay home. As for that CJS account, they have managed to fact-check one Israeli professor and counter-protestor, Shai Davidai, for saying the protests prove Hamas is on campus claiming "There is currently no evidence of any member of Hamas on Columbia's campus" as if Hamas's ideology is absent or that no member of the faculty has ever praised Hamas. They also shamed Punchbowl/NBC's Jake Sherman for claiming that an anti-Semite was at Columbia when he was, in reality, just down the street. They can't be bothered to check any of the protestors incendiary claims about genocide, however. Still, there is also a significant discrepancy in Jacobson’s article versus the CJS. The CJS account claimed Johnson “suggests” the Columbia administration advised Jewish students to stay home, whereas Jacobson used the more definitive “said.”  It is common for people to paraphrase others when they believe that they are trying to get away with saying something odorous in a polite way. Columbia explicitly advising Jewish students to stay home would be a P.R. disaster, meaning Johnson’s paraphrase was his way of citing what he thought the administration was really saying by their refusal to end the encampments against Israel and Zionists, which is just anyone who thinks Israel should exist. Jacobson conceded that there was a Columbia-affiliated rabbi who urged Jewish students to stay home, making it possible that Johnson simply confused the rabbi with the administration. If that is true, then Jacobson should’ve written another one of PolitiFact’s explainer articles that do not feature the truth-o-meter. Speaking of the truth-o-meter-free explainer articles, Joe Biden has explicitly compared Republicans to Jim Crow, which Republicans, of course, deny. However, Jacobson couldn’t be bothered to pull out the truth-o-meter for that Biden claim, instead writing, “Some historians say Biden’s rhetorical point was justified as a way of highlighting the dangers of backsliding from hard-won voting rights.”

Reid Compares College Israel Haters To The Civil Rights Movement

MSNBC’s Joy Reid opened up Monday's The ReidOut with an unhinged monologue directed at those who are critical of the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic demonstrations on college campuses as she condemned those who seek an end to the illegal trespassing and compared the demonstrators to those who marched for civil rights back in the 60s. Reid claimed, “The government and university presidents want you to know that the right to protest is a farce. You can be tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, tackled and thrown to the ground, and arrested. At Emory University, a shocking scene unfolded as Atlanta police and Georgia state troopers arrested protesters and released chemical agents on campus.” Explaining a video that was being shown, Reid continued, “At least two videos have emerged of Emory professors getting arrested. This is Professor Noëlle McAfee who will join us in a few moments. The use of police force against these protesters should alarm you, and it mirrors the violence that is happening in Israel, with police responding to anti-war protesters there as well.”     Of course, Reid omitted that McAfee was arrested for disorderly conduct and not simply for being at a protest. Moving right along, Reid went all in on the idea that young people must be taken seriously, not because they happen to have anything compelling to say, but because they are young, “Why would the state line up against our students who are the future? Especially young people like these, who are at some of the most prestigious universities in America, doing exactly what one is supposed to do in college, which is to think critically, stand up for what they believe in, and demand a better world.” No. First of all, they are not thinking critically, they are simply regurgitating what their professors tell them. Second, if what you stand for is bigotry, hatred, and historical and geopolitical ignorance, you should not stand up for what you believe in, but repent instead. Reid also wants to claim Israelis are being arrested for the same thing to neutralize allegations of anti-Semitism, but Israelis are protesting to bring home the hostages even if it means Hamas survives. These students are not doing that. In one of the photos Reid showed, someone was holding a sign that read "Zionism is ≠ not anti-Semitism,” but embarrassing double negatives aside, according to the State Department, under presidents of both parties, it is because anti-Zionism isn’t dislike of Benjamin Netanyahu, the current war, or Israeli administration of the West Bank, but the belief that Israel needs to be eradicated. Somehow, Reid’s rantings were about to get even worse, “Students who are speaking out against atrocities they are seeing abroad, a war where Palestinians are getting killed in air strikes in areas that the Israeli military designated as safe zones.” The fact that safe zones exist is proof of the protestor’s ignorance and lack of critical thinking. That Israel won’t let Hamas abuse them isn’t an indictment of Israel. Still, Reid rolled on, “They're watching children starve while workers bringing desperately needed food are killed by sniper drones. Potential war crimes so appalling that Israel fears its leaders could soon face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.  Israel fears the ICC not because it has committed war crimes, but because it doesn’t trust the ICC to be impartial. Still, Reid finally got to the heart of the matter, “These actions are what these young people are protesting. As they did in reaction to Vietnam and the Iraq War, and during the Civil Rights Movement and against South African apartheid.” There it is. There are no more legitimate civil rights battles to fight, so teaming up with anti-Semites is a small price to pay to satisfy their “Selma envy.”  Here is a transcript for the April 29 show: MSNBC The ReidOut 4/29/2024 7:05 PM ET JOY REID: The government and university presidents want you to know that the right to protest is a farce. You can be tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, tackled and thrown to the ground, and arrested. At Emory University, a shocking scene unfolded as Atlanta police and Georgia state troopers arrested protesters and released chemical agents on campus.  At least two videos have emerged of Emory professors getting arrested. This is professor Noëlle McAfee who will join us in a few moments. The use of police force against these protesters should alarm you, and it mirrors the violence that is happening in Israel, with police responding to anti-war protesters there as well.  You have to wonder why. Why would the state line up against our students who are the future? Especially young people like these, who are at some of the most prestigious universities in America, doing exactly what one is supposed to do in college, which is to think critically, stand up for what they believe in, and demand a better world.  Students who are speaking out against atrocities they are seeing abroad, a war where Palestinians are getting killed in air strikes in areas that the Israeli military designated as safe zones. They're watching children starve while workers bringing desperately needed food are killed by sniper drones. Potential war crimes so appalling that Israel fears its leaders could soon face arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court. These actions are what these young people are protesting. As they did in reaction to Vietnam and the Iraq War, and during the Civil Rights Movement and against South African apartheid.

Colbert Twists Sources To Spread Hysteria About Snipers At Colleges

Stephen Colbert spread hysteria about the anti-Israel encampments on college campuses on Tuesday’s edition of The Late Show on CBS. Making matters much worse is that Colbert took his own sources out of context in order to make his claims. First, however, Colbert had to set the scene, “The protests ramped up a couple of weeks ago, after students erected tents on Columbia University's main lawn to show solidarity with Gaza.” After being interrupted by applause from the audience, he continued, “and the university president took the controversial step of calling in the police to arrest those involved. Now, even if you don't agree with the subject of their protests as long as they are peaceful, students should be allowed to protest. It's their First Amendment right.”     You do not have a First Amendment right to illegal trespass. You cannot walk into the Ed Sullivan Theater. pitch a tent, and claim that is your new home until CBS meets your demands. Colbert would concede at the end “that overnight, protestors at Columbia broke into a campus building.” Still, he claimed “That is the kind of idealism you learn in college, it's one of the few college lessons you can use your whole life, unlike beer funneling, which you stop being able to do around 35, when your wife catches you.” Colbert wants to pretend that the demonstrators are simple peace activists and not anti-Semitic, but before you could tell him what groups like Students for Justice in Palestine really believe, he continued, “’Photos online show police snipers set up on the roofs of buildings at Ohio State University and Indiana University.’” When doing his monologue, Colbert will talk over screenshots of his sources. That last quote came from a Snopes article, but here is the full quote, “Two photographs circulated online in posts claiming that state police snipers had set up on the roofs of buildings at Ohio State University and Indiana University.” It also reads, “The OSU newspaper The Lantern reported that the people on the roof of the OSU building were initially using spotting scopes to watch protesters, but switched to rifles once arrests began on the green space below.” Colbert continued, “although ‘the Ohio State University administration stated that these were state police officers… which the school also employs during football games.’ "’What are you worrying about, students? The snipers are always there. For football games, women's volleyball, an acapella.’” The part of the Intelligencer article that Colbert’s ellipse took out was, “Ohio State administration stated that these were state police officers working as spotters, which the school also employs during football games.” Snopes also reported that at the time the videos went viral, there were no snipers at Ohio State (they never confirmed or disproved the Indiana claim), but after arrests began, “the two people on the roof had indeed switched to "long-range firearms as part of their protocol."  Colbert spread fake news about the timing of the snipers, he fed into the hysteria that implied that law enforcement that provides security for large crowd events has itchy trigger fingers, and he took his sources out of context to do it. Here is a transcript for the April 30 show: CBS The Late Show 4/30/2024 11:41 PM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: The protests ramped up a couple of weeks ago, after students erected tents on Columbia University's main lawn to show solidarity with Gaza, and the university president took the controversial step of calling in the police to arrest those involved. Now, even if you don't agree with the subject of their protests as long as they are peaceful, students should be allowed to protest. It's their First Amendment right. That is the kind of idealism you learn in college, it's one of the few college lessons you can use your whole life, unlike beer funneling, which you stop being able to do around 35, when your wife catches you.  And it's not just at Columbia. Yesterday, cops arrested at least 100 protestors at UT Austin. This morning, they arrested at least 30 protestors at UNC Chapel Hill. Yes, college administrators are using the classic de-escalation tactic of sending in heavily armed police and threatening to call the National Guard. Photos online show police snipers set up on the roofs of buildings at Ohio State university and Indiana University, although the Ohio State University administration stated that these were state police officers … which the school also employs during football games "What are you worrying about, students? The snipers are always there. For football games, women's volleyball, an acapella. You've been warned, guy who goes "Sha-doop shooby Doop." Buy a guitar!" Now, tensions right now are so high that overnight, protestors at Columbia broke into a campus building, which probably will not help their cause with the public.

MSNBC Blames 'Bad Faith' GOP For Campus Chaos

Princeton professor and MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude Jr. joined the Wednesday edition of Ana Cabrera Reports to discuss the chaos on college campuses. In Glaude’s upside down view of the world, it is not the anti-Semitic campers who are the problem, they just “want a better America,” but the “bad faith” Republicans condemning school administrations for tolerating it. Cabrera wondered, “I am curious, though, as to how you see these protests, Eddie, through a broader lens. Some have compared these college campus demonstrations to protests during the Vietnam War. Do you think that's an accurate comparison?”     The correct answer would have been, “No, that's ridiculous. There is no draft directly affecting these students and groups leading this, like Students for Justice in Palestine, are not anti-war, they are pro-war, just pro-the other side that happens to be losing.” That is not the answer Glaude gave, however. Instead, he went all in on the cult of youth: Well, you want to reach for the familiar in order to understand the current moment, and I get that, but I want us to -- I want us to view these protests within the context of our current moment, the current geopolitical context and that is we're in a period where our politics are heightened, that the conflicts within the country where it feels as if we're at each other's throats, these young people have concluded, many of them that America in so many ways is broken and they've come of age in so many ways, not only in terms of how-- we might describe them, Ana, as the catastrophic generation. He added, “They've come of age in the midst of school shootings, in the midst of economic collapse, in the midst of a pandemic, over a million folks are dead. So, these folks are arguing for a better America, a better world, and then they're witnessing the horror of Gaza. Even with the horror of October 7th, they're witnessing the horror of the consequences.” As a young person, the author feels compelled to add that young people in America today have never had to fight a world war (or any war for that matter, those who have gone to war were part of an all-volunteer force), never protested anything remotely close to Jim Crow, and have been blessed with tremendous advancements in medical care and technology (the author is very grateful for phone-based GPS). They are obsessing over one and only one conflict. They are not condemning China’s actual genocide of the Uyghurs. Every generation, past, present, and future has its own foreign policy crises and times of economic turmoil. Still, Glaude determined Republicans were the real problem, “let's be clear and just really quickly, Elise Stefanik, Republicans in the Congress are bad faith actors in this debate, and they're driving this and administrators should understand when they respond to them, these bad actors will eventually turn only them. We see this with the president of Columbia, they urged her to act in a certain way, she acted and they still called for her resignation. We need to understand our charge as educators and live that charge in relation to our students, not in the political climate of our current moment.” It is Glaude who is acting in bad faith because she only acted after she let the situation get out of hand. Here is a transcript for the May 1 show: MSNBC Ana Cabrera Reports 5/1/2024 10:13 AM ET ANA CABRERA: I am curious, though, as to how you see these protests, Eddie, through a broader lens. Some have compared these college campus demonstrations to protests during the Vietnam War. Do you think that's an accurate comparison? EDDIE GLUADE JR.: Well, you want to reach for the familiar in order to understand the current moment, and I get that, but I want us to -- I want us to view these protests within the context of our current moment, the current geopolitical context and that is we're in a period where our politics are heightened, that the conflicts within the country where it feels as if we're at each other's throats, these young people have concluded, many of them that America in so many ways is broken and they've come of age in so many ways, not only in terms of how-- we might describe them, Ana, as the catastrophic generation. They've come of age in the midst of school shootings, in the midst of economic collapse, in the midst of a pandemic, over a million folks are dead. So, these folks are arguing for a better America, a better world, and then they're witnessing the horror of Gaza.  Even with the horror of October 7th, they're witnessing the horror of the consequences and let's be clear and just really quickly, Elise Stefanik, Republicans in the Congress are bad faith actors in this debate, and they're driving this and administrators should understand when they respond to them, these bad actors will eventually turn only them. We see this with the president of Columbia, they urged her to act in a certain way, she acted and they still called for her resignation. We need to understand our charge as educators and live that charge in relation to our students, not in the political climate of our current moment.

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

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

MSNBC Hosts Praises Colleges That Surrendered To The Israel-Haters

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

Meyers Claims Columbia Should've Rejected Police, Surrendered Instead

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

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

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

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

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

PBS Wonders Why College Protests Are Labeled Anti-Semitic

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

CBS Claims Human Smuggling At Border 'Is More Complex'

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

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

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

Oliver Doubles Down On Attempt To Bribe Thomas Off The Court

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

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

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

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

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

Acosta Practically Begs IDF Spox To Give Up Fight Against Hamas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBS Repeats Debunked Hamas-Published Child Casualty Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABC, Once Again, Helps The Left Smear Alito

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

PolitiFact Spins For Democrats On Late-Term Abortion

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