Tonight’s edition of Thunderdome, more commonly known as CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, was spicier than usual as host and’or panelists clashed over such issues as the role of the president in setting monetary policy, and the rise of “right-wing” media as trust in corporate “Legacy Media” continues to crater. Watch as host Abby Phillip absolutely melts down and condescends at conservative panelists Scott Jennigs and Shermichael Singleton over President Trump’s attempts to influence Fed policy (click “expand” to view transcripts): CNN's Abby Phillip crashes out, refuses to allow Jennings or Singleton to get a word in edgewise for having the temerity to suggest that presidents may opine over Fed policy pic.twitter.com/52vYgbTyOU — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 SCOTT JENNINGS: Do you honestly believe the president shouldn't be able to render opinions about monetary policies? ABBY PHILLIP: Scott, you keep repeating something that nobody ever said. No one ever said that Trump cannot have it. JENNINGS: We're having original thoughts here. PHILLIP: No, no, no, no, Scott. No one ever said that Trump can't have an opinion. The question is, should the Fed act based on that opinion? And I think it's just common sense, right? The Fed, it should be acting based on economic information and data, not anybody's opinion. Trump is not an economist, and as far as I can tell, does not even have a good grasp on how trade works, which is really problematic if he's going to then turn around and start telling the Fed how to do stuff. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: …is, like, we don't want Donald Trump to have influence over the operation of the government. And, you know, I just think it's wrong.  PHILLIP: We don't want to have Donald Trump have influence over monetary policy. That is how it has worked. That is where the confidence in this system of economics comes. JENNINGS: You said monetary policy. She said DoJ, military, FBI. What were the other -- (CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: Hold on just a second. I'm going to reset because I'm going to change back to the original conversation because, Scott, you are attempting to change the subject multiple times.  JENNINGS: No. I’m trying to decide if the president should have influence on our government. PHILLIP: So, go ahead, Shermichael. SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON: Sometimes I think we forget history. Let's go back to LBJ. LBJ actually flew the Fed chief down to Texas, his ranch and berated him because he was pissed off about some of his decisions. PHILLIP: Uh huh. And then what? SINGLETON: Let's remember. PHILLIP: And then what? SINGLETON: I'm going to make -- PHILLIP: No, no, no. And then what happened? SINGLETON: I want to make my point. PHILLIP: Finish your point. What happened? SINGLETON: Then George H.W. Bush blamed his Fed chair -- PHILLIP: But, Shermichael, I'm going to pause you there. What happened? SINGLETON: So, my point is -- that's not all, my God. The point that I'm trying to make -- PHILLIP: Shermichael, tell me what happened. SINGLETON: History matters here and sometimes -- PHILLIP: It does. JENNINGS: Shermichael, they want him to be a figurehead. They don't want him to be the president. SINGLETON: We talk about Trump. PHILLIP: No, he is the president of the United States. SINGLETON: Can I finish my freaking statement? PHILLIP: No. No, no, no, no, no. SINGLETON: You just interject. I haven't concluded my thought process. PHILLIP: I want to pause here. SINGLETON: So, the point is -- PHILLIP: Shermichael -- SINGLETON: -- there have been previous presidents.. PHILLIP: Hold on. You hold on just one second. SINGLETON: …that had similar thought processes as to the Fed as Trump. That's the simple position I'm trying to make here. PHILLIP: I want to pause on your half-finished history lesson. What did the Fed do after LBJ brought him down to his ranch? SINGLETON: Listen, to LBJ or George H.W. Bush. PHILLIP: So, what is your point? SINGLETON: The point is, previous presidents have been of the mindset similar to Trump that I don't like the decision of the Fed chair, I would like the chair to change their particular opinion. PHILLIP: I feel like I am in an alternative universe here in which you guys keep telling me that I'm saying Trump doesn't deserve to have an opinion. He's a human being. He's the president of the United States. He can have whatever opinions he wants. SINGLETON: That's not what I said. I said that we're forgetting history. PHILLIP: The question is, where is the historical analogy-- SINGLETON: Trump isn't the first president to berate or dislike the position of the Fed chair. That's my point. PHILLIP: Shermichael, where is the historical analogy for the Fed acting on the desire of a president to behave in a particular way and doing so while ignoring economic data? Where is the evidence of that? SINGLETON: That's not the premise of my argument. The premise of my argument is pretty simple. We're making this as if it's breaking news that Trump has a thought process about the Fed he wants restraint and act a certain way. PHILLIP: You cannot bring history about this if you don't want to finish the history. SINGLETON: So have previous presidents. PHILLIP: You're not finishing the history, Shermichael. SINGLETON: Okay. Well, what history am I forgetting here? PHILLIP: You can't bring it into the conversation -- SINGLETON: Please inform me.  PHILLIP: You cannot bring it into the conversation if it is not germane. SINGLETON: Why can’t I? Oh, come on, Abby. PHILLIP: If the Fed did not act on that berating, then how is that a parallel? SINGLETON: So, I don't know how I can be more clear or provide more clarity here. I never stated that the Fed and either of the instances that I provided acted on the thought process or advice or anger of previous presidents. PHILLIP: Okay. Okay. Well, great. SINGLETON: My point is that Trump is acting in a similar manner of previous presidents and we cannot ignore that there. PHILLIP: There's precedents…great. There’s precedents for presidents having opinions. Thank you for that. But there is not a precedent for the Fed acting on those opinions. SINGLETON: I never said that. I never said that. That's not my argument. Normally, Phillip sets the pace of debate and steps in with a ref save when a liberal is getting choked out by one of the conservatives. Here, she very clearly entered the fray- chastising both Jennings and Singleton for thinking their own thoughts on the role presidents should play with regard to monetary policy. Jennings was accused, without evidence, of trying to change the subject. Meanwhile, Singleton was not even allowed to finish his take. It is not often, even by liberal media standards, that we see such an open display of contempt for counter-narrative arguments as was displayed by Phillip. A sneering contempt, by the way, that is at the heart of America’s loss of trust in the media. Fast forward to the debate on the significance of the departure of longtime 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens. CUNY professor Jeff Jarvis joins the panel and caterwauls about what the resignation of Owens and a potential CBS settlement with President Donald Trump may do to CBS’s value, which got a chuckle out of Jennings: Scott Jennings: "I think people have lost trust (in CBS) for a lot of reasons that has nothing to do with this deal. pic.twitter.com/lntf3hosa6 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 JEFF JARVIS: Shermichael, what does this do to the value of CBS, the former Tiffany Network? When people cannot know whether to trust it anymore, when they wonder what stories they'll -- they'll be, and I know you laugh, Scott, because you've been the one with trust. JENNINGS: I think people have lost trust in it for a lot of reasons. But it's nothing to do with this deal. Jennings is not wrong. CBS’s brand value has been eroding for many years now. The former Tiffany Network is essentially the genesis of “fake news”, and anyone doubting that can take a minute and google Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. As a result of an ongoing trust in media that began well before Donald Trump went down the gilded escalator, people go where they believe they will find credible reporting. CBS hasn’t been credible for a long time, and their ratings show it. In another potent exchange, Jarvis continues to grouse about the state of media, and walks right into a Scott Jennings buzzsaw when trying to talk about “right wing media”: Wild exchange: Jeff Jarvis whines about the state of media, gets schooled by Scott Jennings on the reasons behind the ascendancy of "right wing media", and Abby Phillip waves it off in complete denial. pic.twitter.com/pT8V2kU0BA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 JEFF JARVIS: The bigger question is that mass media are dying. I hate to say this in the middle of (CROSSTALK). PHILLIP: Yeah, we -- we all know that.  JARVIS: Mass media are dying. And so, if you try to think that we're going to be- please everybody, those days are over. You've got to stand on some principle. You've got to stand for something. You've got to be somewhere in this -- in this spectrum. And if you think you're just going to make nice to everybody, the problem is that the right wing, hello, Scott, has, taken advantage of this situation, I think, quite cleverly, quite wisely. They've played into a weakness. JENNINGS: What situation? JARVIS: The situation of media being under attack. And so, they've created a situation where -- JENNINGS: You've almost got it. Keep going. What -- what the right wing is taking advantage of is, finally, the American people saying enough is enough. They're tired of feeling like the mass media screens out one viewpoint versus another in political coverage. They're tired of media institutions favoring one party over another. They're tired of narratives over factual stories. If I had any advice for "60 Minutes" or anybody else, it would be: just cover the news and try to be fair about it and stop putting your finger on the scale, especially during the pandemic. JARVIS: That's -- that's -- you're -- you're talking about the old mass media myth, that you could have this thing that was in the middle. The Walter Cronkite saying, that's the way it is, when it wasn't for many Americans the way it was, when people were pissed off. JENNINGS: People -- but people back in those days trusted the media. JARVIS: No, they just couldn't be heard because there was no truth. And now that we have the Internet JENNINGS: Look at the Gallup poll. It was here, and now it's here. It's fallen off of a cliff. PHILLIP: Yeah, we -- we do have -- we do have that Gallup polling about trust in media. JARVIS: It’s terrible. PHILLIP: And now, as in recent years, and let's be honest, Scott. A lot of this is driven by the rhetoric on your side of the aisle. I mean, it's not -- JENNINGS: You think it's driven by the rhetoric and not the performance? PHILLIP: Absolutely.  Only could a cloistered member of the Acela Media believe, let alone publicly say, that distrust in media is driven by conservatives as opposed to an ongoing pattern of media suck. Conservatives did not suppress Hunter’s laptop or the lab leak theory, or actively participate in concealing Joe Biden’s decline from the American public until book deals could be had. The media did that. Trust numbers reflect that.  Finally, Jennings delivers a roadmap to regaining lost credibility. But will a post-deal CBS (or anyone else in the Legacy Media, for that matter) heed Jennings’ advice? It remains to be seen. .@ScottJenningsKY: My point is this: if you're CBS or any other news outlet, the reason that you have lost trust ought to be obvious to you. And the way to fix it also ought to be obvious to you. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with the product.… pic.twitter.com/bPk4Xom2Dp — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 JENNINGS: My point is this: if you're CBS or any other news outlet, the reason that you have lost trust ought to be obvious to you. And the way to fix it also ought to be obvious to you. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with the product. Just try to make a better product that appeals to more people, and the way you appeal to more people is by not crapping on half or more than half of the country because of their values and political viewpoints. PHILLIP: I think that that is a fair, just -- if we were sort of on another planet. Out of context, it is a fair description of what is necessary in this moment. Jennings is right inasmuch as this has everything to do with the product that media are delivering. And because they are Trump-deranged, the product will continue to be Trump derangement. And, on clue, Phillip’s rebuttal proves Jennings’ point. Time will tell whether they adjust. But if Abby’s performance is any indicator, it doesn’t seem likely. An exit palate-cleanser: Watch as former Bernie Sanders advisor Chuck Rocha finds bipartisan consensus with Jennings and Singleton, as they bond over former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel getting yelled at by some white Karen progressive podcast host: .@ChuckRocha, reacting to Rahm Emmanuel getting yelled at on an AWFUL's podcast: "That's what I need, another woke white woman telling me what to do." pic.twitter.com/1riUdeEoiq — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 23, 2025 ROCHA: That's what I need. I need another white woman telling me what to do. JENNINGS: I was going to say, I mean, with all due respect to our colleague, him getting yelled at by one of these liberal white ladies on a podcast is like the most-- Shermichael and I cannot get --this is the content America needs. SINGLETON: Oh, it is. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: Getting yelled at by liberal white ladies, who are dragging your party into the depths.  

Behold a tale of two music festivals attended by two very similar groups of people – both attended by aspiring hippies in their 20s. Both were high on a sense of fearlessness and freedom that only exists in a Western civilization.  But the similarities between the Nova music festival in Israel on October 7, 2023 and the Coachella concert in April 2025…ended there.  Nova's attendees were descended upon by 7th century murderers and rapists on paragliders, set with the sole mission to exterminate them all. Coachella's comrades were descended upon by the private jets of the rich, and almost famous who took to their stage to cheer on those rapists. Unlike their Israeli counterparts, these coked-out Californians left their festival as smug, yet unharmed, as they had entered it.  Their illusion of elitism remained intact. This episode of “Woke of the Weak” examines the hypocrisy of Coachella’s privileged dilettantes who used their overpriced music festival to egg on the destruction of the very civilization that created their cocoon of comfort. 

After Donald Trump’s inauguration, Joe Biden disappeared from the scene for a while. Most assumed he would bow out of politics completely and spend his days puttering around his Rehoboth Beach retreat. But apparently he’s still got a little gas left in the tank — literally. On April 15 at the 2025 national Conference of Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled in Chicago, Biden delivered his first speech since leaving the White House. In it, he defended Social Security, condemned President Trump for making cuts to the program, and claimed the damage to Social Security is “breathtaking.” But that’s not all he did. Rick Burgess of “The Rick Burgess Show” plays the most cringeworthy clips from the speech. The blundering began immediately. Before his walk-out song was finished playing, Biden launched into his speech. The video shows him yammering away while the music completely drowns out his voice. “He's not just saying, ‘Hey, good to be here.’ He goes into the speech,” laughs Rick. “Completely oblivious,” sighs Greg Burgess. Once the music was cut and people could actually hear him, Biden told a story about Scranton, Pennsylvania, claiming that when he was a child, he’d “never seen hardly any black people in Scranton” but that changed in the fourth grade when he saw “colored kids on a bus.” Rick suspects that this story was not on the teleprompter. Biden went on to stumble through a few lines about the Americans with Disabilities Act before the most embarrassing moment perhaps in his career happened. Mid-speech, a noise that can only be described as a farting sound suddenly rang out over the microphone. There are a lot of theories about it. Some claim a chair scooting off camera was responsible for the sound; others believe a troll added the noise before circulating the video; and then there are those who believe that Biden indeed farted during his speech. The panel watches several versions of the clip, including the one aired by ABC News, and the sound is almost undeniable. Regardless of the truth, Rick, Greg, and Calvin Wilburn can’t help but howl in laughter. “I tried a little cheek sneak there and it had a little more volume than I thought,” Rick mocks. To see the footage and hear more of the panel’s hilarious commentary, watch the clip above. Want more from Rick Burgess?To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

My interest in former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn began on Oct. 6, 2022 — the third day of the first Oath Keepers trial at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Shortly after a recess and before the jury returned to the courtroom, lead prosecutor and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler approached the lectern. He informed U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that Jonathon Moseley — a recently disbarred attorney — had threatened to release two confidential FBI documents known as “302s.” Much of what Dunn described in his FBI interviews, congressional testimony, court appearances, and even his book and media tour simply didn’t happen. Form FD-302 consists of written notes and recollections recorded by an FBI special agent following an interview. In this instance, Nestler referred to two 302s based on separate interviews with Officer Dunn. The FBI conducted the first interview in May 2021 and the second in August 2021. Nestler stated that both forms remained sealed by the court and were labeled either “sensitive” or “highly sensitive.” Moseley, however, argued that the documents could now be released publicly because the House Select Committee on January 6 had introduced them as part of its proceedings. What I saw looked like a pre-orchestrated performance between Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler and Judge Amit Mehta — the first of several such moments I witnessed during that trial. Mehta appeared furious at the idea that Moseley believed he could release something still under his seal. I watched the exchange unfold from the media room on the first floor of the district courthouse. That room received live audio and video feeds from the courtroom upstairs, where the trial was taking place. On a typical day during the nine-week trial, 20 to 30 journalists gathered there to cover proceedings. It was the only place in the courthouse where we could use laptops and other electronic devices, which were banned in the courtroom itself. Most reporters spent their time compiling notes for end-of-day write-ups. But a small group of us tweeted the proceedings in real time. After Nestler informed the judge of Moseley’s threat to release the FBI 302s, Mehta responded in a way I had never seen before. He turned his attention to the journalists in the media room and instructed us to “tweet out” a message directly to Moseley: If he released the 302s — or any other documents still protected under court seal — Mehta would hold him in contempt of court. “He’ll find out,” the judge said. What was in there? The media room burst into laughter at Judge Mehta’s directive that we do his bidding and relay his warning. Within seconds, keyboards clattered as journalists rushed to compose their own versions of the judge’s threat, broadcasting it across social media. Each day of the trial, I took my place in the back right corner of the media room. I was a newcomer among a group of seasoned courtroom reporters — an outsider observing the insiders. During the first two weeks, the courthouse remained under a COVID-19 masking mandate. From my seat, I could let my mask dangle from one ear without attracting much attention — or the disapproval of my more dutiful colleagues. That vantage point also gave me a clear view of the room. I could watch what the other reporters were typing, observe their screens, and monitor how they shaped the narrative. While they laughed and tweeted Mehta’s warning to Moseley, I kept my focus elsewhere. One question consumed my thoughts: What is in those two 302s? What exactly did those two FBI forms contain that the prosecution — and the judge — didn’t want the jury or the American public to see? One clue had already surfaced on social media. It came from Dunn’s May 18, 2021, FBI interview, cited in a pretrial motion filed by Stewart Rhodes’ attorney, Edward Tarpley. A footnote on page 12 of the filing quoted the following excerpt: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn informed all protestors they needed to leave and told the Oath Keepers that the protestors were fighting officers. The Oath Keepers advised Dunn they would help keep the protestors from the lower west terrace area. Dunn advised he allowed them to stand in front of him to help keep the protestors from getting down the stairs. Dunn left this area when he was relieved by USCP riot officers. — FBI Interview of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, May 18, 2021, page 2, publicly disclosed by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. This account — Dunn’s own description of his encounter with four Oath Keepers at the top of a Capitol staircase near the Rotunda — appeared to support their claim that they had helped de-escalate a volatile situation. Rather than confronting the officer, the Oath Keepers allegedly positioned themselves between Dunn and a more aggressive crowd, attempting to prevent further escalation. I had to get my hands on those 302s — and eventually, I did. Inventions and evasions The second 302, based on Officer Harry Dunn’s August 16, 2021, interview with the FBI, told a very different story from the first. In that follow-up, Dunn completely reversed his account. He now claimed he never gave the four Oath Keepers permission to assist him at the top of the staircase. Instead, he described the interaction as hostile, saying they tried to force their way past him. Dunn also invented a second encounter — this one taking place a floor below, in the crypt. In that version, he said another group, also wearing militia-style gear resembling the Oath Keepers’, attempted to position themselves between him and a more aggressive crowd of protesters. The contrast between the two interviews raised more questions than answers. Although I’ve never publicly released the two 302s, both proved invaluable. They offered critical details — and pointed me toward what to watch for once Congress finally granted journalists access to the long-promised 41,000 hours of Capitol CCTV footage from January 6. Drawing from that surveillance footage, D.C. Metropolitan Police body-worn cameras, and other open-source videos released during various January 6 trials, Blaze Media has been able to confirm a troubling pattern: Much of what Harry Dunn described in his FBI interviews, congressional testimony, court appearances, and even his book and media tour simply didn’t happen. Two weeks before the October 2023 release of his book, “Standing My Ground: A Capitol Police Officer's Fight for Accountability and Good Trouble After January 6th,” Dunn agreed to meet with me for an off-the-record conversation. We spent four hours together at the U.S. Capitol Arboretum. Because the meeting was off the record, I can’t disclose anything Dunn said. But I came prepared with some frank and direct points of my own. By then, I had already spent days in the Capitol CCTV viewing room, combing through surveillance footage we would later call “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn.” I had also read an advance copy of his book. To say the video evidence and his personal narrative about January 6 don’t match is putting it mildly. It's the understatement of the century. I shared with Dunn several specific examples where the video evidence directly contradicted his claims of heroism and derring-do on January 6. Eventually, he asked how I planned to write his story. “Harry, the media, Congress, even the president — they’ve made you a national hero,” I told him. “But I can make you a real hero if you give me the names of those who pushed you to change your story about the Oath Keepers in that second FBI interview.” After that, I walked him to his car. He said he’d think about it. But he never gave me those names.

What is the best Oblivion Remastered birthsign? After saving the emperor once again down in the Imperial Sewers, Cyrodiil’s divine ruler will become more curious about your true identity. It’s here that you’ll be presented with a selection of 13 birthsigns that each provide boons (and sometimes debuffs) to your character. However, you can only pick one. Choose wisely, and your character will flourish in the open-world RPG. Choose poorly, and your Oblivion Remastered journey could become more labored - you won't be able to change your birthsign after leaving the sewers. While the best birthsigns in Oblivion Remastered will largely depend on your intended build, below we detail the top go-tos, alongside a full list of constellations so you can see what else is on offer. Continue reading Best Oblivion Remastered birthsign MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Oblivion Remastered quest list, Oblivion Remastered mods, How long is Oblivion Remastered?

There are a lot of things that League of Legends fans think of when they hear the name 'Gragas.' There's that K/DA skin, sporadic pregnancies, and, of course, 'bomba!' But the most iconic part of his kit is, of course, his gigantic cask and his love of beer - something that Riot claims was causing issues with Europe's age rating laws. As a result, the 'Drunken' part of 'Drunken Rage' (Gragas' W) was set to be removed, sparking mass backlash from the fanbase. Thankfully, Riot has heard the complaints, and upon further inspection has determined that Gragas can continue drunkenly raging for the forseeable future. Continue reading Riot confirms Gragas can stay drunk in League of Legends, walks back changes MORE FROM PCGAMESN: League of Legends ranks explained, League of Legends Mythic shop rotation, LoL tier list

The launch date for the new AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT gaming GPU has reportedly been brought forward. A new leak suggests that the original plan was for a June release, but it now looks as though both the 16GB and 8GB cards could be available as soon as May 18, 2025. These new GPUs from AMD will be vying to become the best graphics card options for gamers on a budget. It faces stiff competition from the likes of the Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB model, but until we know more about the RX 9060 XT price and specs, it's hard to know exactly how it will fare. Continue reading AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT will land sooner than expected, according to this new leak MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Ryzen 7 9800X3D review, Best gaming CPU, Radeon RX 9070 XT review

CNN Reporter Gets a BRUTAL Explanation for Why New Media Is Replacing Old Guard at the White House

'But You Ain't Got No Legs!': Joe Biden Posts Earth Day Photo and We Have MANY Questions

Available on PS5® October 2, 2025.