Trump’s shock-and-awe approach to the federal bureaucracy appears to be working. Nothing bedeviled President Donald Trump’s first term more than the outright resistance and hostility within the federal government to his administration. Armies of hostile bureaucrats stymied his plans, coordinated with legacy media to cook up negative stories, and generally behaved as if they—and not the president—had a right to run the executive branch. Trump is now better prepared to take on the Leviathan. The #Resistance isn’t looking nearly as formidable these days. Their defeat was deeper, the outrage from the American people is sharper, and Trump is more relentless in getting a handle on the federal apparatus. That isn’t to say that resistance isn’t taking place. On Sunday, a small group of federal employees gathered at the Office of Personnel Management to demonstrate their opposition to Trump’s shake-up of how the government does business. They reportedly intend to protest at OPM all week. The protesters appeared to number in the dozens, at most. So, this isn’t exactly a latter-day Million Man March. It might not even be the hundred-man march. Many appeared to be wearing medical masks. Democrats are now protesting outside of the Office of Personnel Management to seemingly protest the USAID audit and the treasury audit that OPM is helping DOGE with.2025 is not 2016. The public isn’t showing up for the Dems, even in deep blue D.C.Why do Dems fear audits? ?? pic.twitter.com/XDnlTrNhHe— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) February 3, 2025 The federal workers were apparently upset that the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by entrepreneur Elon Musk, has gained access to Treasury Department data and payment systems. According to DC Media Group, the protesters blocked several young men from entering OPM, though I doubt that will make much of a difference in the long run. The data miners who work for Musk have a very different work ethic than your typical D.C. bureaucrat. “DOGE is working 120 hour a week. Our bureaucratic opponents optimistically work 40 hours a week. That is why they are losing so fast,” Musk wrote on X on Sunday. DOGE is working 120 hour a week. Our bureaucratic opponents optimistically work 40 hours a week. That is why they are losing so fast. https://t.co/dXtrL5rj1K— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 2, 2025 Not only are DOGE data miners energetic, but they also appear to be rather gifted. One of them is a prodigy who decoded the Herculaneum papyrii when he was 20 years old. Sounds like he’s uniquely equipped to untangle and decipher the inner workings of our federal government. My favorite part about DOGE is how one of the guys will be some kind of insane prodigy who decoded the Herculaneum Papyrii at the age of 20 and the hit piece author’s bio trying to take him down is like, “associate staff writer for general topics, hobbies include having a cat.” pic.twitter.com/wgXE2RkVCL— Payton Alexander (@AlexanderPayton) February 3, 2025 Let’s just say, these young DOGE employees represent a stark contrast to the people trying to block them from doing their job. In the other corner, you have the deep state “civil servants.” USA Today interviewed Keya Chatterjee, “a former federal employee who is now the executive director of Free D.C., a local social justice nonprofit.” Ah, yes, it’s always hard to tell where the social justice nonprofit begins, and the federal bureaucracy ends. This is the typical background of the people who feel like they have the right to rule in this country, those who think they have a right to commandeer the wealth and power of this country to serve their pet ideological causes. “They’re stealing all of our data. They’re stealing our servers, and it is not theirs to have,” Chatterjee said, according to USA Today. “We will take it back.” Again, they think they have a special right to rule. Here you can see the mentality behind the rhetoric of “our democracy.” They really think that access to the government belongs to them alone. What deep state bureaucrats are coming to understand in these first few weeks of the second Trump administration is how thoroughly they’ve lost the “Mandate of Heaven,” as they call it in China. Trump is unleashing his swift sword of government efficiency into federal agencies, and for the most part, the American people are mostly on board. It seems like DOGE is uncovering some truly outrageous things buried within the layers of our bloated federal Leviathan. According to Musk, the Treasury Department instructed employees to always approve payments, even to known terrorist groups. “The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment-approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups. They literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not even once,” Musk wrote on X Saturday. The @DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups. They literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not even once. https://t.co/kInoGWdw4C— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 1, 2025 We are going to learn very quickly just how much of the bloat of federal government is created just to perpetuate itself or is being siphoned away, literally by crooks. Even more, we are going to see just how much the federal apparatus has been co-opted to carry out and fund explicitly left-wing goals, regardless of who is in the White House. What Trump and his administration are doing right now is extraordinary. They are actively targeting the real powers that rule the federal government in a way that has rarely happened since the adoption of the New Deal nearly a century ago. Never has the mandate to do so been so strong, as Americans have lost faith in elite institutions of all types, especially the federal government. The hyperideological bureaucrats masquerading as “nonpartisan” civil servants aren’t going to be indulged and placated this time around. The corrupt old regime that tottered along, foisting DEI on the country while it failed to effectively govern is being washed away, and right now there is little the Left can do about it. The post Deep State Resistance Is Crumbling in Trump 2.0 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I’d like to talk a day about an irony. Maybe it’s something that’s a paradox. Have you noticed that there’s certain people who are coming out of the woodwork who are diehard Trump opponents and suddenly they say, sorta, “I like Donald Trump,” or they don’t say it publicly or they don’t write it emphatically. And here’s what I mean. He went to Davos and I thought, “Wow, they’re going to destroy Don.” I don’t mean destroy him effectively, but they’re going to try to destroy him. And then the question and answers were amazing. He outlined tax reform, transparency, low interest rates, targeted tariffs, more energy development, more fossil fuels, closed borders. I thought, “Wow, that is going to drive the Davos people crazy.” And then the questions were, “Are you sure you can send us a liquid, not natural gas? We need it in Europe,” or there were, “This sounds great, but when will it start?” And you start to think, these are capitalists and they want Europe to be turned to its former grandeur. And all of a sudden, this man is saying something that is exactly opposite of the socialism that destroyed their countries and which they bought into. And now they don’t have to do it. And they’re secretly, but more openly even admiring Donald Trump. Same phenomenon happened when I was on campus, not long on the Standford campus, a professor whom I know came up to me, and I would say that he is a moderately anti-Trumper, never Trumper maybe, and he whispered, said, “Wow, the end of DEI is actually not that bad, is it?” And what he was saying is, “There’s no more racial quotas and maybe I wanted to be a dean.” I’m saying, I’m extrapolating what he was saying. “Maybe I want to be a dean or maybe I want to get published at University Press and there’s not going to be any racial quotas anymore or discrimination and I’m for that because the DEI is a monstrosity. There won’t be any czar that calls me up and says your syllabus doesn’t have enough DEI material in it, or I’ve looked at your grading pattern and you’re inordinately giving Cs to people of color. No more commissars.” So even they are, you know, happy that Donald Trump is doing this. And then we get into the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and people are really angry at Donald Trump because in this tragedy of the airline accident, Donald Trump actually said things that were quite blunt. He said that DEI was maybe at fault, and we now know that the, and I don’t want to get into a critique yet of the crash, but it seems like the helicopter was too low, and there was culpability, which seems like one of the air traffic controllers was not there. It seems like somebody left early. It seems like there was a mistake on, giving directions about the proper elevations. But we do know this, and Donald Trump brought it up, and that was that the FAA consistently under Joe Biden had racial quotas and they abolish programs and universities that encourage people who had either expertise through the curriculum or prior military experience who would do well on meritocratic exams to try to join the FAA and they were rejected because of their race. That is a fact and in fact, there has been several lawsuits challenging the FAA and the first nomination to the FAA, of course, the candidate that Biden picked didn’t even know the fundamentals of aviation. He came from the Denver airport, but he didn’t have any knowledge of the actual mechanics of how airports worked, it seemed. My point is that when he did that, everybody in the media thought it was awful. But then people who probably didn’t even vote for him said, “Wait a minute. I want to be safe. I want my daughter to be safe. I want my husband to be safe. You mean there’s people in these control towers that were selected for criteria other than merit?” And while it might have been illiberal or maybe inconvenient, Donald Trump told the truth. What I’m getting at is this. This country has moved so far to the left on energy, on DEI, on transgenderism, on crime, on the border, that people even who supported it, whether they’re the people in LA that lost their homes, or the people who voted for Adam Schiff—and we saw what he did at the nomination—they want a return. And this man is the only person, Donald Trump, with the guts and the backbone to not just make a transition, not to the far right. back to the center or the center traditional right that secretly, at least for now, they are happy that it’s going on because they feel that they and most Americans will be the beneficiaries, And you know what’s correct? They’re absolutely right. Thank you. This is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Thank you so much for tuning in today. Please subscribe to The Daily Signal for our next episode. Maybe you can check out my own website at VictorHansen.com for podcasts, lectures, Ultra Series, behind a paywall, but more importantly, just daily columns that are accessible and free to everyone. Thank you very much. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Even Never Trumpers Are Warming Up to The Donald appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Despite the Biden-Harris administration’s “whole-of-government” attempt to increase unionization, the percentage of American workers belonging to unions notched down each of the past four years of their administration. Marking yet another record-low, 9.9% of American workers belonged to unions in 2023. This follows a steady decline from 13.4% at the turn of the century in 2000, and from a high of about 33.5% in the mid 1950s. While the media reports have documented new unionization efforts—including some successes—in recent years, those newly-unionized jobs haven’t been enough to replace unionized job losses and other workers choosing to ditch their unions. For example, roughly 22,000 unionized workers lost their jobs at the then 99-year-old Yellow Trucking company when, despite the company’s offer of a substantial pay hike, their union blocked Yellow from implementing a modernization plan that was necessary for its survival.      The 2018 Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCE also contributed to a decline in unionization by preventing public sectors workers from being forced to join a union as a condition of employment. Workers in right-to-work states also have that same freedom, and consequently only 5.5% of workers are unionized in those states, compared to 13.2% in states that force private sector workers to join the union as a condition of employment. While the record-low unionization rate suggests that the Biden-Harris administration was unsuccessful in its efforts to increase unionization, the reality is that unionization almost certainly would have declined even further absent the Biden-Harris administration’s actions to tip the scales in unions’ favor. In particular, the Biden-Harris administration made it difficult or impossible for workers to get rid of unions they no longer want and changed the rules governing union elections to restrict workers’ freedoms and rights to not join a union. For example, longtime employees of the first Trader Joe’s store to unionize in Hadley, Massachusetts were quickly frustrated by the union that was supposed to represent them but instead silenced them—including asking security to escort them out of a negotiation session. When many other Trader Joe’s employees also realized the union wasn’t providing them anything new and was instead creating a divisive and inhospitable work environment, a group of 46% of the workers petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to for a decertification election, to let employees vote on whether or not to get rid of their union. Despite the fact that workers had well over the 30% of signatures necessary for a decertification election, the National Labor Relations Board denied their request, saying that Trader Joe’s was under investigation for unfair labor practices. According to Michael Alcorn and Leslie Stratford, two Trader Joe’s employees leading the decertification attempt, “The company is accused of everything from having an ‘overly broad’ dress code to giving one of our coworkers a ‘negative appraisal’.” Most of the allegations were from years prior, before workers unionized.  As Alcorn and Stratford wrote, “If the mere allegation prevents us from holding a decertification election, it’s hard to see an election ever moving forward. … It’s hard not to conclude that the NLRB cares more about protecting unions than it does about workers’ rights.” The issue at hand for these Trader Joe’s employees and many other workers across the country is that the Biden-Harris administration’s National Labor Relations Board reinstated so-called “blocking charges” whereby unions can strategically file unfair labor practice allegations against employers to indefinitely delay elections (both unionization and decertification) if they do not believe the results will go their way. Trader Joe’s employees are among many who have been denied the right to vote their unions out. Starbucks reported in February 2024 that workers at 27 of its stores had filed decertification petitions, but the National Labor Relations Board had not allowed any of those elections to take place and had dismissed some workers’ petitions outright. In addition to preventing workers from escaping unions they no longer want, the Biden-Harris administration also made it easier for workers to be forced into unions they don’t want. For example, the NLRB also issued a new regulation that prevents workers from requesting the right to a secret ballot election if their employer voluntarily agrees (or is pressured into accepting) unionization without workers having the opportunity to vote in a secret ballot election. And the Biden-Harris administration’s NLRB issued a decision that undid 76 years of precedent and which restricts employers’ free speech rights by preventing them from holding so-called “captive audience” meetings to provide workers with important information about unionization, including their legal rights. As the Big Labor movement has shifted its focus from providing things that attract workers to want to join unions and is instead using politics and power to force more workers into unions, workers are losing out. Over the past five years, union wages grew 5.7 percentage points less than nonunion wages (22.7% nominal growth for union workers versus 28.4% for nonunion workers). And unions’ historic wage advantages—the difference between earnings of union vs. nonunion workers—has been declining across most industries. In manufacturing, it has almost disappeared, and in wholesale and retail trade, union workers make less than nonunion workers.    The continued decline in unionization in the U.S. despite government efforts to force more workers into unions demonstrates the diminishing value of unions. But workers still desire upward mobility and a voice in the workplace, which unions could provide if they adapt and change their divisive, top-down, one-size-fits-all methods. By focusing on individual workers’ desires and on helping workers achieve long-term wage gains through increased productivity (which require allowing technology and automation that enhance productivity), unions could begin to reverse their decline. And policymakers can help prioritize workers’ rights and voices by allowing voluntary labor organizations and reducing government-imposed barriers to work. The post In New Record Low, Unionization Rate Falls to Single Digits in 2024 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Ron Johnson, leading Senate oversight in the new majority, anticipates more transparency under the Trump administration—but still expects challenges from the same bureaucrats that stonewalled his information requests during the Biden administration. Johnson, R-Wis., is the chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, part of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “Will we get all the information we requested? I don’t know. My assumption is the shredders, the BleachBit programs are in high gear,” Johnson told The Daily Signal. “I suggested early on after President [Donald] Trump’s election that he ought to appoint somebody called a secretary of information extraction. The deep state does not give up its secrets easily, no matter who’s in charge.”  The entrenched bureaucracy battle against transparency is another reason to promptly confirm Trump’s Cabinet choices, Johnson said.  “It’s one of the reasons why we need to get his nominees confirmed quickly, the sub-Cabinet posts confirmed quickly,” Johnson said. “He’s put acting administrators in place. He did that very swiftly because President Trump in his first term, he wasn’t a seasoned politician. … He came in far more trusting of the administration, that people would respect the fact that he won the election. He was now president. He’s commander in chief. The permanent bureaucracy, they don’t, they just look at any president, and the attitude is that this, too, shall pass.” Johnson wrote about 60 oversight letters as a ranking member of the subcommittee to the Department of Health and Human Services and subagencies regarding what he called the government’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  “The lack of transparency from the agencies has been jaw-dropping,” Johnson added. “We’re going to focus on that. I’ve got a pent-up demand for information that belongs to the American public that they have every right to see, things like the analysis of the vaccine-injury surveillance systems.” He noted that after several years, committee members gained access to about 50 pages of redacted email from Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases after initially requesting several thousand pages.  “The redacted emails were incriminating enough. Who knows who’s in those last 50 pages, so that there will be an early target of subpoenas,” Johnson said.  On his way out, President Joe Biden granted a pardon to Fauci, who some members of Congress think played a potential role in directing U.S. tax dollars to pay for gain-of-function virus research in a Chinese laboratory. The term “gain of function” describes a risky process of making a pathogen more dangerous or contagious for the purpose of studying a response. Fauci has previously denied that such federal funding occurred for the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, he accepted the Biden pardon.  A presidential pardon would likely prevent someone from invoking a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for testimony. However, the Wisconsin senator said, the first order of business will be to obtain documents before calling Fauci to testify.  “First, we have to get the documents. I mean, what you don’t want to do is just call somebody in for an interview before they have the documentation to base your questions on. You don’t want to call people in for a hearing until you’ve probably done a transcribed interview,” Johnson said.  The post Confirming Trump Cabinet Is Key to Forcing Deep State Transparency, Sen. Ron Johnson Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Police Constable Who Investigated British Grooming Gangs Says Evidence was Met with Indifference

Trudeau: On Second Thought ...

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2023. > For 2021 and 2022, for all of 2020. For all of 2019. For all of  2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.)   ■ New on February 3, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Call on MSNBC for weekly Trump impeachment votes See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ January 27, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Vance schools CBS and bishops on illegal immigration (Washington Examiner post) America is learning pretty quickly that Vice President JD Vance is no pushover easily cornered on tough issues. In our latest Liberal Media Scream, we feature Vance’s retort to Catholic bishops and CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan over complaints that the Trump administration is being mean in its effort to deport criminal illegal migrants. Appearing on Face the Nation, Brennan sounded hurt that the administration would enter schools to find their targets. She cited complaints from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which funds efforts to settle illegal immigrants in America, as do other religious groups. Vance had clearly heard it all before and was quick to point out that protecting America and Americans, including migrants here legally, is President Donald Trump’s No. 1 job. Brennan worried that the administration’s policy has “a chilling effect, arguably, to people to not send their kids to school.” Vance reversed her spin to make his point: “I desperately hope it has a chilling effect on illegal immigrants coming into our country.” And when she cited concerns from the bishops, Vance said, “As a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns, or are they actually worried about their bottom line?” Clearly, it is going to be a tough four years for liberals in the media, such as Brennan, since Team Trump is ready and willing to parry the left media’s slant on major issues. From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about another area that you campaigned on quite a lot, and there was a flurry of activity on. And that has to do with immigration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week condemned some of the executive orders signed by President Trump, specifically those allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter churches and to enter schools. Do you personally support the idea of conducting a raid or enforcement action in a church service, at a school? VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Well, let me address this. Of course, if you have a person who is convicted of a violent crime, whether they’re an illegal immigrant or a non-illegal immigrant, you have to go and get that person to protect the public safety. That’s not unique to immigration. But let me just address this particular issue, Margaret, because, as a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. And I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns, or are they actually worried about their bottom line? We’re going to enforce immigration law. We’re going to protect the American people. Donald Trump promised to do that. And I believe the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, if they’re worried about the humanitarian costs of immigration enforcement, let them talk about the children who have been sex-trafficked because of the wide-open border of Joe Biden. BRENNAN: So, you personally support them going into schools and churches? VANCE: Let them talk about people like Laken Riley, who were brutally murdered. I support us doing law enforcement against violent criminals, whether they’re illegal immigrants or anybody else, in a way that keeps us safe. Let me ask this question, Margaret. Separate the immigration issue. If you had a violent murderer in a school, of course, I want law enforcement — BRENNAN: Of course. VANCE: — to go and get that person out. BRENNAN: Of course. VANCE: So, then what’s the point of the question? BRENNAN: You changed the regulation this week. That’s the point of the question: giving the authority to go into churches and go into schools. VANCE: Exactly. We empowered law enforcement to enforce the law everywhere to protect Americans. BRENNAN: But that also has a knock-on effect, a chilling effect, arguably, to people to not send their kids to school. VANCE: I desperately hope it has a chilling effect — BRENNAN: In the churches … VANCE: — on illegal immigrants coming into our country. BRENNAN: You think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are actively hiding criminals from law enforcement? VANCE: I think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has, frankly, not been a good partner in commonsense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for. And I hope, again, as a devout Catholic, that they’ll do better. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Brennan went into the interview thinking she had the moral high ground and facts on her side, presuming it would be easy to show how badly misguided are so many Trump policies. But she ran into JD Vance, who delivered a master class in how to take on and undermine the premises of the Washington press corps.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ January 19, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CBS sucks up to Biden to the end: ‘Did deliver’ (Washington Examiner post) Our final Biden-era Liberal Media Scream finds CBS News kissing up to President Joe Biden to the end, brushing aside all the polls and its own reporting to declare he was effective. “In many ways,” CBS chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes said, “he did deliver.” The media have resisted reporting on Biden’s mental and physical failings over his four unpopular years in office. And even on his last weekend in office, outlets such as CBS went out of their way to prop up a president who polls as one of America’s worst. From CBS News Sunday Morning: NANCY CORDES: In many ways, he did deliver. His administration oversaw the successful rollout of the COVID vaccines. The stock market steadily rose to record highs, while unemployment fell to a near-record low. Overseas, he expanded NATO, strengthened alliances in Asia with the goal of containing China, and cobbled together lasting support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The duty of a president is to defend what is best about America. CORDES: He did so while racking up major legislative victories, including massive new investments in clean energy and semiconductor manufacturing. BIDEN: I believe, to my core, there isn’t a single thing this country cannot do when we put our mind to it. CORDES: And he scored a win that eluded his predecessors: signing a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Going down with the ship, CBS and Cordes are still trying to convince people that despite the rejection of his presidency and his policies by the voters, Joe Biden really was a great president who delivered laudable accomplishments. The media and Biden do share at least one thing in common: In the eyes of much of the public, they are both losers.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ January 13, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS delights that Trump will forever be a ‘convicted felon’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is already anticipating the coming media hate that will greet President-elect Donald Trump when he enters office for a second time a week from today. No surprise, but biased liberal PBS “analyst” Jonathan Capehart isn’t just readying his anti-Trump talk for Inauguration Day. He is already looking to pour on the hate in every Trump story. On Friday’s PBS NewsHour, Capehart, who also hosts a poorly-rated MSNBC show, took delight in predicting that after being sentenced last week in a much-mocked legal case, Trump will forever be known as a “convicted felon,” and he wants every reporter to mention that in their stories about Trump. Cheered the talker, “What’s also great punishment is the sentencing today, where the judge said, you’re going to be president, you’re not going to go to jail, but you’re a convicted felon. And so for the rest of his life, any story written about him will have to mention the fact that he’s a convicted felon — if not on the first reference, definitely by the second reference.” From Friday’s PBS NewsHour: GEOFF BENNETT: But after, you know, being convicted of 34 felonies, there are people who look at this case, and they say that Donald Trump walks away with a punishment that is less than what one would receive for a speeding ticket. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Look, this case, this hush money case, was the case that everybody said was the crappy case of the four. Remember, Donald Trump was indicted four times, and this one was the least important, the shakiest. And yet it’s the one case where Donald Trump was held accountable, the one case where he was brought to trial before a jury of his peers in his hometown of New York City and was found guilty 34 times. I think that is great punishment. What’s also great punishment is the sentencing today, where the judge said, you’re going to be president, you’re not going to go to jail, but you’re a convicted felon. And so, for the rest of his life, any story written about him will have to mention the fact that he’s a convicted felon — if not on the first reference, definitely by the second reference. And that is fitting, that is right, that is just. Do I wish the other three cases had gone to trial and that he had faced accountability on those? Yes, but this will do. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Talk about petty immaturity. Capehart’s reaction to the judge’s sentence on Trump bared how much of the press corps’ hostility to Trump was always fueled by personal animosity as much as by disgust with conservative policies. So a smug Capehart gets joy from a court giving him the okay to apply a derogatory label to the incoming president.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ January 6, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC the sole #Joementia denier (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC’s Symone Sanders-Townsend as the media’s last denier that President Joe Biden has lost it. What’s crazier than the obvious is that she claims that it is incoming President-elect Donald Trump who suffers brain fog. Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Sanders-Townsend’s defense of the president who dropped out of his reelection campaign after his brain locked during a debate with Trump came just hours before his bizarre cursing rant about immigrants following a White House ceremony. “The question on the table is, ‘Is the president all they way there?’ And the answer is unequivocally yes,” Sanders-Townsend said on the show. The MSNBC host, in fact, charged it is Trump whose mental capacities should be questioned. Biden “can at least put a sentence together,” but “the president-elect is the one I am concerned about.” From Sunday’s Meet the Press: SYMONE SANDERS TOWNSEND: Well, I was very surprised that when you asked the question about mental acuity he didn’t more forcefully push back. The question on the table is, “Is the president all the way there?” And the answer is unequivocally yes. Now, people can say that you feel as though President Biden might be a little too old to do the job, but he is doing the job. And his mental acuity is there. So, I think that there’s a conflation of two things here: his mental capacity and serving another four years as old as he is. But those are two separate things in my opinion. And, look, these people that have known Joe Biden their entire political lives, I know Joe Biden is like, “Can you all just please defend me a little more?” MARC SHORT: I think it hurt Democrats. It hurt Democrats in November to try to tell the American people something they could see with their own eyes wasn’t true. SANDERS-TOWNSEND: But it’s not true that the president doesn’t have the mental acuity. SHORT: Of course it is, Symone. The American people saw that for themselves in the debate— SANDERS-TOWNSEND: What are you saying? He can at least put a sentence together. The president-elect is the one I am concerned about because I recently talked to the president. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “Sanders is a last holdout, a true foolish believer. Virtually all of her colleagues, even those who pretended for years that Biden was fine, started to acknowledge, as soon as Biden was no longer the Democratic candidate for reelection, that he’s not all there. But not Sanders. She’s still in the tank and embarrassing herself, especially when suggesting it’s Trump who has the mental shortcomings.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ December 30, 2024: Liberal Media Scream: Eleventh-hour CBS admission of ‘undeniable’ Biden brain fog (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features CBS admitting, with just three weeks to go in President Joe Biden’s administration, that he and his aides have been lying about his cognitive decline and that the media helped cover it up. And having known about it for months or longer, now, the media are promising to call out health problems when they see them, a not-so-subtle warning to President-elect Donald Trump. “We should have much more forcefully questioned whether he was fit for office for another four years,” CBS correspondent Jan Crawford said on Face the Nation. From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, with Major Garrett serving as the fill-in host: MAJOR GARRETT: One of the other things we also do in the year-end correspondents’ table is dig into what was undercovered or underreported. Jan? JAN CRAWFORD: Um, undercovered or underreported. That would be, to me, Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline that became undeniable in the televised debate. GARRETT: At the presidential debate with Donald Trump. CRAWFORD: Unquestioned. And, you know, it’s starting to emerge now that his advisers kind of managed his limitations. It’s been reported in the Wall Street Journal, for four years. And yet he insisted that he could still run for president. We should have much more forcefully questioned whether he was fit for office for another four years, which could have led to a primary for the Democrats. It could have changed the scope of the entire election. Yet still, incredibly, we read in the Washington Post that his advisers are saying that he regrets that he dropped out of the race. You know, that he thinks he could have beaten Trump. And I think that is either delusional, or they’re gaslighting. ROBERT COSTA: President Biden has said repeatedly he was sick during the debate, June 27 in Atlanta, and he’s always been fine and he leaves fine. That is his position, the position of many of his top aides as well, even though there is that reporting. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “Too bad that as an on-air reporter for CBS, Crawford couldn’t have done something to get CBS to give airtime to the recent Wall Street Journal story documenting Biden’s many years of cognitive inabilities. Yet Costa, in parroting the White House talking points, demonstrated his own complicity, like virtually all of the Washington press corps, in advancing the White House’s big lie.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ December 23: Liberal Media Scream: CBS’s Margaret Brennan offended at ‘unelected’ Musk (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a network critic of President-elect Donald Trump taking offense at ally Elon Musk’s lobbying Congress on behalf of the Republican. CBS’s Margaret Brennan, host of Face the Nation, hit Musk as an “unelected” influencer, which, of course, she is, too. Brennan called Musk’s role in the budget talks last week “confusing” on Sunday. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) said, “It feels as if Elon Musk is our prime minister.” To which Brennan interjected, “Unelected.” Gonzales agreed he is unelected but pointed out how “he has a voice, and I think a lot of, a large part of that voice is a reflection of the voice of the people.” The exchange on Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about the dynamic here because it’s confusing, frankly. I mean, Elon Musk is tweeting against bipartisan deals negotiated and led by the speaker of the House. What role exactly is he playing here? REP. TONY GONZALES (R-TX): It’s kind of interesting. We have a president. We have a vice president. We have a speaker. It feels like — as if Elon Musk is our prime minister. And I spoke with Elon a couple of times this week. I think many of us- BRENNAN: Unelected. GONZALES: Unelected, but, I mean, he has a voice. And I think a lot of, a large part of that voice is a reflection of the voice of the people. Once again, a 1,500-page bill, how does that pass the smell test? It’s absolutely wrong. It’s what’s wrong with this place. So, we have to get back to regular order. The other part of it, too, is while House Republicans were fighting over this spending bill, guess what Senate Democrats were doing? They were ensuring that President Biden got his 235th liberal judge over the finish line. That’s why it’s so important that House Republicans stay united, stay laser-focused on delivering on a President Trump agenda next year. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “Guess who else is unelected but has lots of influence over public policy? High-powered wealthy media figures like Margaret Brennan who regularly pontificate on TV. One big difference between Brennan and so many others in the press corps who are upset with Musk’s power? He’s popular, and they are not.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ December 16: Liberal Media Scream: Of course MSNBC defends Stephanopoulos lies (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the lowly rated MSNBC defending the lie told by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that resulted in the media giant this weekend forking over $16 million to President-elect Donald Trump as punishment. Instead of backing Trump or avoiding the matter, such as Stephanopoulos did himself during his Sunday hosting of This Week, the hosts of MSNBC’s The Weekend on Sunday decried ABC’s payment. They also dismissed the lie told during a March interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) that Trump was found liable for rape. “The media now is sort of falling into that ‘oh, we want to play nice’ mode,” Michael Steele said. Symone Sanders said, “This feels like it has a really chilling effect” on media coverage of Trump. Trump today said he is targeting other media that lied about him during the campaign and his first administration. From MSNBC’s The Weekend on Sunday morning: MICHAEL STEELE: I’ve been, on this program and elsewhere, complaining, because it is a complaint, about how the legal system itself has been so easily manipulated. The media now is sort of falling into that “Oh, we want to play nice.” What’s your assessment of how this affects the way the country governs itself when both the judicial and the media space seem so willing to blow past the obvious problems with this incoming administration? SYMONE SANDERS: This feels like it has a really chilling effect, like, shout out to the standards department, okay, standards is always making sure that we keep the bar high and substantive and accurate. But what George Stephanopoulos said in that interview, I mean, it seems to hold up with what the judge said after the fact and now these news organization, and himself, George Stephanopoulos himself, is paying a million dollars of his own money to the lawyers, and ABC, $15 million dollars, it’s insane…. The parsing of this, the judge said that George Stephanopoulos was right essentially. But Donald Trump sued anyway for defamation. And ABC made the calculated decision that, you know what, we’re just going to pay. George Stephanopoulos also has to pay. He’s on the hook for a million dollars of his own money. And that leaves the rest of us with what? We want to be accurate, right? We have a standards department. We are all endeavoring to keep the bar high and substantive and not engage in interviews and conversation where people just lie about conspiracy theories and they themselves aren’t accurate. But this seems quite targeted and I don’t think George Stephanopoulos was wrong. I’m sorry. Now you all got nothing to say because none of you want a lawsuit. See, this is the chilling effect! My mom is about to text me: shut up, because what are you doing? Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Stephanopoulos was caught red-handed making a defamatory statement, repeatedly, about President-elect Trump and ABC was concerned enough about their liability to settle. Yet the MSNBC hosts have learned nothing, with Steele worrying about the media being too nice to Trump and Sanders, incredibly, doubling down on the false allegation. Instead of worrying about ‘chilling effects,’ maybe journalists should consider not smearing Trump, or anyone, with false characterizations.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ December 9: Liberal Media Scream: PBS TDS blames Trump for Hunter Biden’s pardon (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features tax-dollar-supported PBS behind the latest Trump Derangement Syndrome claim that the incoming president caused President Joe Biden to flip-flop and pardon his son Hunter Biden of felony charges. Sounding more like a practiced Democratic Party spokesman than a journalist, commentator Jonathan Capehart said on PBS NewsHour that Joe Biden had no choice but to pardon his son because President-elect Donald Trump wanted to throw the book at Hunter Biden, who has been caught up in gun and tax cases. He also appeared to blame Vice President Kamala Harris for the pardon, suggesting that her loss cleared the way for Trump to target the younger Biden. Winging it as usual without any evidence, the Washington Post columnist and PBS regular said: “I am almost certain, 99% certain, that President Biden was hoping that Vice President Harris would win and that this would not be an issue.” The president’s pardon has been condemned by many Democrats, and it threatens to ruin what’s left of Biden’s presidential legacy. A handful of defenders, however, are making excuses for Biden’s pardon. Capehart, a contributor to PBS as well as the host of a weekend show on MSNBC and an opinion writer for the Washington Post, on Friday’s PBS NewsHour: HOST GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, in your view, was it justified, and what’s the lasting impact? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, one, yes, it was justified. When the president said that he would not pardon his son, wouldn’t grant clemency, the facts on the ground were completely different. It’s the middle of a presidential campaign. He was the candidate for president, didn’t want to be viewed as interfering. He’s no longer the candidate. His vice president is the presidential nominee. I am almost certain, 99% certain, that President Biden was hoping that Vice President Harris would win and that this would not be an issue. But when the person who won the race won the race by vowing, through a campaign of retribution, revenge, naming the Biden family in general and Hunter Biden, in particular, as someone or groups of people, he wanted to go after if he won election, of course, the president looks at the facts, says I cannot allow that to happen to my son. And I understand the criticisms and the brickbats that the president is taking. But for some Democrats to be complaining about how “you’ve ruined norms” and “you’ve given him an avenue,” have they not been paying attention to who Donald Trump is either during the campaign or during his four years as president the first go-round? And these are the same people who would be yelling at Biden had he not done something and then President Trump took action against Hunter Biden: “Why didn’t you save your son? Why didn’t you help your son when you had the opportunity to do so when you were president?” He’s done it. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “The very definition of rationalizing situational ethics and further proof, if any were needed, that Capehart is more a Democratic Party partisan than any kind of impartial analyst. If a Democrat or liberal does it, Capehart will defend it.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ December 2: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough back to attacking Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough back to attacking President-elect Donald Trump, showing he learned “nothing” from his trip to Mar-a-Lago to break bread with the incoming president. Siding with those who criticized his trip to Florida with wife and co-host Mika Brzezinski, Scarborough came out Monday with his guns blazing at two Trump top staff picks, Kash Patel for FBI director and Pete Hegseth for defense secretary. “There are two picks right now that, if you talk to people in Washington, D.C., they will, this morning, tell you two of the most dangerous selections they’ve seen,” Scarborough said. Scarborough and Brzezinski traveled to Florida two weeks ago to “mend fences” with Trump after years of bashing the former president. Once they announced their trip, however, their media friends pummelled the duo, and Scarborough’s monologue on Monday showed whose side he was on. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough on Monday’s Morning Joe: We hear what people talk about flooding the zone and a lot of information coming at you all at once and not being able to sort through things. There are two picks right now that if you talk to people in Washington, D.C., they will, this morning, tell you two of the most dangerous selections they’ve seen. No. 1, Pete Hegseth. Simply because he’s unqualified to run the most complicated and most powerful bureaucracy not only in America but in the world. And No. 2 now, Kash Patel. Kash Patel, of course, is a person who infamously said he was going to jail reporters and journalists and news people who did not go along with the 2020 election conspiracy theory. And we’re going to be talking in a little bit to Elaina Plott Calabro, who wrote a story about six months ago on Kash Patel. Let me just read you just a little bit from that: “When Patel was installed as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense, just after the 2020 election, Mark Milley, who, of course, was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised him to not break the law. Quote: ‘Life looks really s***ty from behind bars,’ Milley reportedly told Patel. When Trump entertained naming Patel for deputy director of the FBI, Attorney General Bill Barr, again, another Trump loyalist, confronted the White House chief of staff and said, quote: ‘Over my dead body.’ “When in the final weeks of the administration, Trump planned to name Patel deputy director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, the head of the CIA, threatened to resign. Trump relented only after an intervention from Vice President Mike Pence. She goes on to ask: Who is this man, and why did so many top officials fear him?” We will go through it. It’s certainly not because he’s an expert in any of these fields. It’s not even because he’s an ideologue. It’s because he seems, according to this piece and everything we’ve seen, singularly focused on exacting revenge on people who did not carry through on Donald Trump’s threats of retribution. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “So much for Joe Scarborough’s trip to Mar-a-Lago to build a new relationship with the incoming president after years of vicious attacks on him. If Scarborough is just going to continue to channel the deep state’s refusal to accept the right of Trump to staff his administration by trying to impugn those picks, he’s learned nothing about why so many have such contempt for the legacy media.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ November 25: Liberal Media Scream: Axios founder rants ‘Elon Musk is bulls**it’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the co-founder of Axios ranting about billionaire Elon Musk and his comments on X about being part of the news media. “Being a reporter’s hard,” said Jim VandeHei. “Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day, or X today, saying, like, ‘we are the media, you are the media.’ My message to Elon Musk is: Bulls**t. You’re not the media. You having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness doesn’t make you a reporter.” VandeHei’s comments came after he accepted the National Press Club’s Fourth Estate Award. Musk has been on X from Mar-a-Lago zinging the media as he prepares to head the Trump-created Department of Government Efficiency. The billionaire’s comments irked many in the media, especially since he owns X, and VandeHei showed that he’s one of those miffed with Musk. The comments were shown on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, which dubbed them “very powerful.” Jim Vandehei at the Fourth Estate Award Gala held Thursday at the National Press Club, as played Monday on Morning Joe: JIM VANDEHEI: I hate this damn debate about, oh, “we don’t need the media.” It is not true … There’s something about freedom, capitalism, the animal spirits of democracy, but at the core of that is maybe transparency, maybe a free press, maybe the ability to do your job without worrying to go to jail, maybe the ability to sit in a war zone and tell people what is actually happening so they’re not just looking at distortion, matters. It matters profoundly. It’s why, it’s not like we just love getting up at 3:00, 4:00 in the morning, doing this every single day, we do it because we love it. We do it because it matters. The work that we do matters. Everything we do is under fire. Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day, or X today, saying like, “We are the media, you are the media.” My message to Elon Musk is: Bulls**t. You’re not the media. You having – [applause] you having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness doesn’t make you a reporter any more than me looking at your head and seeing that you have a brain and telling you have an awesome set of tools makes me a damn neurosurgeon. Right? Like what we do, what journalists do, what you did in Mississippi, what Al Jazeera does in the Middle East, you don’t proclaim yourself to be a reporter. Like, that’s nonsense. Like being a reporter’s hard. Really hard. You have to care. You have to do the hard work. You have to get up every single day and say I want to get to the closest approximation of the truth without any fear, without any favoritism. You don’t do that by popping off on Twitter. You don’t do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. Come on, slow clap, everybody. First of all, I got to say, extraordinary content. It needed to be said. It continues to need to be said when all of the garbage that’s flying around on social media, lying about reporters, lying about the hard work they do, lying about the hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down about not only their alternative set of facts but alternative set of facts about what people like you do. And I love how you connected reporters in Mississippi in the 1960s to reporters fighting for their life to get the story out in the Middle East today. Jim, it was very powerful. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Really good. SCARBOROUGH: Very powerful. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Arrogance combined with obliviousness. In the face of record low trust in the media, instead of some introspection about why the media have lost the public’s trust, VandeHei decided to instead lash out at the competition, a platform which wouldn’t have such relevance if the legacy media weren’t so discredited. It’s as if Ford responded to exploding Pintos by denouncing the gas mileage claims made by GM.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ November 18: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Raddatz shows why it’s time to boycott networks (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features one example of the media lunacy that has followed the sweeping electoral and popular vote for President-elect Donald Trump despite years of warnings and smears from the resistance media. While most in the Democratic Party are licking their wounds and trying to figure out how they did so poorly against Trump and why they picked the worst candidate around in Vice President Kamala Harris, many liberal TV anchors are still suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.” Sunday showed them all still at work. On 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley opened with a rant against Trump’s Cabinet picks. And he was preceded by the frenzied Sunday public affairs shows trying to convince the nation that the president-elect was unfit for duty. On Monday, two of those with the worst case of TDS, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, all but admitted their preelection anti-Trump hype on their MSNBC show Morning Joe was a lie when they revealed that they traveled to Mar-a-Lago last week to break bread with Trump. The worst example of the ranting rage on network TV came from ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who opened Sunday’s This Week with a charge that Trump’s picks were “retribution” for those who have wronged him. “The retribution begins,” she declared. From the top of Sunday’s This Week on ABC: MARTHA RADDATZ: The retribution begins. DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT: We’re going to clean out the corrupt, broken, and failing bureaucracies. RADDATZ: The president-elect sparking alarm with controversial Cabinet nominees, including a firebrand Fox TV host to lead the Department of Defense. PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE: I’m straight up just saying, we should not have women in combat roles. RADDATZ: Noted vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health and human services secretary. TRUMP: He wants to make people healthy. It’s driven him pretty wild over the last number of years. RADDATZ: And ardent Trump loyalist, now former congressman, Matt Gaetz, to run the Justice Department. SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): He’s got a really steep hill to climb to get lots of votes, including mine. RADDATZ: Democratic Sen.-elect Elissa Slotkin responds to the nominations. Plus, former CDC Director Richard Besser, former prosecutor Preet Bharara, and analysis from our powerhouse roundtable. Plus: JOE DEL BOSQUE, CALIFORNIA FARMER: We pay some of the highest wages for farm workers in the nation right here in California, and they won’t come out. RADDATZ: We traveled to California farmland to see what Trump’s massive deportation plans could mean for farmers and the nation’s food supply. Texas Republican Tony Gonzales joins us for reaction. ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, it’s This Week. Here now, Martha Raddatz. RADDATZ: Good morning, and welcome to This Week. Donald Trump is wasting no time naming the team he wants around him in a second term. In rapid-fire fashion, he announced a series of nominees this week to fill the White House and lead key Cabinet departments. Many of them were right by Trump’s side last night to attend a UFC fight at Madison Square Garden in New York. Among them, controversial picks like the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who will lead a new Department of Government Efficiency, an amorphous role aimed at slashing federal spending. While that move raised a lot of intrigue, other picks have raised eyebrows to say the least, and some, outright opposition. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explains our pick: “Less than two weeks after the MAGA agenda won an electoral mandate and showed how the legacy media have lost their influence, Raddatz is still living in a preelection world. Instead of explaining to her viewers what the appeal of Trump’s picks could be, or presenting a balanced take with matching praise and criticism for them, she didn’t even try to hide her disdain for them. And Disney wonders why they’re losing viewers.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ November 12: Liberal Media Scream: How dare Trump make demands on Senate, CNN whines (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features CNN struggling to find new ways to attack President-elect Donald Trump. This time, it’s Trump’s pressure on the Senate to OK his Cabinet picks, which are coming fast and furious, without the normal confirmation steps. At CNN, they said it’s just Trump “again bucking norms.” From Sunday’s CNN: ALAYNA TREENE: [President-elect Donald Trump] said, quote: “Republican senators seeking the coveted leadership position in the United States Senate must agree to recess appointments in the Senate, without which, we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner.” The post goes on to describe other things. But I want to explain why this is so important. Essentially, Donald Trump is calling for the shattering of norms. Now what this means, a recess appointment, I know this sounds like we’re getting in the weeds a bit with the Hill lingo. But recesses are normally avoided in Congress. Normally, when they actually go on break, they do something called a pro forma session. Part of that is because if you go to a recess, you actually have to have a vote in the House and the Senate, and Democrats, in this case, giving Republicans control of the Senate come next year, would be able to filibuster. But essentially, to get down to it, to really boil down to what this would mean, is that Donald Trump is trying to find a way and use whoever the next Senate leader — Republican leader — is to try and avoid the confirmation process for his top Cabinet officials. And I remind you, a lot of times when different presidential candidates or people are looking to make these hires and to appoint different people to these different Cabinet roles, a key thing that is always at the top of their minds is whether or not this person can get confirmed in the Senate, if they have a controversial background, if they are more conservative, in this case, if they were Democrats, they’d be maybe too liberal. But really, the Senate is kind of the last line of defense of who the president could put into office with him. And so this would be a huge change. And I will also argue that really this process that Congress has now about avoiding recess appointments in their entirety started back with George W. Bush and has continued since then under the different presidents with Obama and Trump and now Biden. And so, this again would be a huge break from the norms that we currently have. Fred. FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: And again, bucking norms. Jorge Bonilla, a news analyst at NewsBusters, explained our weekly pick: “The Biden administration shattered many norms, whether it was the weaponization of state and federal governments against President-elect Donald Trump, the suppression of President Joe Biden’s physical and mental decline, or the government’s cooking of all sorts of data. Any one of these incidents occurring under a Trump administration would’ve garnered wall-to-wall ‘shattered norms’ coverage. On the contrary, the Biden parade of horribles drew nary a peep. Now, the media go nuts about norms the second a just-reelected Trump talks about staffing his administration via recess appointments.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ November 4: Liberal Media Scream: Gaslighting Politico calls Obama, Harris, and Biden ‘centrists’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the claim by Politico that Democratic leaders considered the most liberal in history are “centrists.” In gaslighting voters, the outlet’s White House correspondent Eugene Daniels said President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and Vice President Kamala Harris aren’t liberals. Ditto for the Democratic Party and the party’s “base” of black voters, he added. “What it reminds us is that the Democratic Party continues to be a more centrist party, right? When you look at Obama, who, despite what people thought, kind of operated as a centrist, Biden, centrist, Kamala Harris, a centrist,” Daniels said on PBS. Daniels from Friday’s Washington Week with the Atlantic: “What it reminds us is that the Democratic Party continues to be a more centrist party, right? When you look at Obama, who, despite what people thought, kind of operated as a centrist, Biden, centrist, Kamala Harris, a centrist. The base of the Democratic Party continues to be black voters. They are still more centrist and more pragmatic as opposed to ideological. And so the takeover of the Democratic Party, as the Republican Party has found out, it hasn’t happened on the Democratic Party, the same with the Left.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “The party of letting high school boys play on girls sports teams and running an open border is ‘centrist’? Daniels needs to bring a little more skepticism to his journalism. Just because a politician spins themselves as ‘centrist’ does not make them one. Kamala Harris has a long record of far-left policy views that haven’t disappeared just because she is not touting them in this year’s campaign.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ October 28: Liberal Media Scream: CBS’s Brennan frets Cheney’s safety if Trump wins (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the Face the Nation host raising concerns that a Trump election will lead to violence against former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney for endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in her yearlong campaign to stop former President Donald Trump’s comeback. Though it’s Trump who has been the target of two assassination attempts, CBS’s Margaret Brennan asked Cheney on her show on Sunday, “Given how outspoken you have been, are you concerned about your personal security if Donald Trump wins this election, as he well may do?” Fed the softball pitch, Cheney hit it hard: “Trump has ushered violence into our politics in a way that we haven’t seen before.” It was just the latest example of the anti-Trump bias network TV has wallowed in this election year. Earlier on Monday, the Media Research Center, which helps with this weekly feature, issued a report that showed a historic level of bias by CBS, ABC, and NBC. From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: Given how outspoken you have been, are you concerned about your personal security if Donald Trump wins this election, as he well may do? LIZ CHENEY: Look, first of all, I am very confident that Vice President Harris is going to win this election. It’s what we’re seeing all across the country, the kind of absolutely unprecedented coalition that’s coming together to support her, you know, we’re going to run through the tape, and nobody is overconfident here, but I do believe she’s going to be the next president of the United States. And I think that Donald Trump has ushered violence into our politics in a way that we haven’t seen before. And any violence is unacceptable. Certainly, the assassination attempt on the former president was completely unacceptable and obviously should never have happened. But when you have a situation where, you know, Donald Trump suggests that people who disagree with him ought to be put before military tribunals, that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be hanged for treason, and his running mate doubles down on it, that tells you that you’re dealing with a man who doesn’t have any conscience, and the people who worked most closely with him know that. So, I’m confident that he’s going to be defeated next week. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “The reality of political violence in this year’s campaign came from the Left and opponents of Trump, not from him. Brennan seemed to have her own political agenda to try to generate an answer which would demonstrate another reason to vote for Harris: that a Trump win would physically endanger his critics. But not even Cheney, a Trump-hater, would go that far to presume Trump’s supporters are a bunch of violent fanatics who must be feared.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ October 21: Liberal Media Scream: ‘Swamp’ journalists admit cluelessness on Trump and MAGA (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features three of Washington’s prominent political correspondents finally admitting just how clueless they are about former President Donald Trump, whom at least half the nation sees as one of the easiest politicians to understand — and like. We feature the puzzlement of Washington Post journalists Max Boot and Jonathan Capehart and the Atlantic’s Mark Leibovich as they mull Trump’s comeback. “How can we have tens of millions of our fellow citizens think it’s OK to elect this delusional maniac as president of the United States? I, you know, I just don’t get it,” Boot told Capehart, who whined, “It is baffling to me as well.” Mark Leibovich on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday: “I think the larger stain on our history that we’re living through right now is Trump obviously and what he has stood for and what he has gotten away with.” “The idea that Donald Trump has operated within a permission structure of one of our two major parties to a point where there is just a consequence-free environment for him to operate in is one of the most appalling, I think, takeaways from this era. Obviously, one that portends very, very ominously in case he wins because there’s not going to be a check and balance from his own party. They’ll operate from a platform where he can do whatever he wants. But, essentially, I mean, these are people who I think will, hopefully, you know, live under a very, very damning verdict of history.” Max Boot during Friday’s “First Look” show for Washington Post Live “To me, what’s dismaying is not that Trump is denying reality, that he is depicting the rioters and insurrectionists of Jan. 6 as people engaged in a day of love. It’s not that Trump is denying the results of the 2020 election, as is his running mate, J.D. Vance. All of that we’ve come to expect by now. “What is dismaying to me, Jonathan, is that despite all of this, Trump is very close to winning the presidency again. It’s basically a coin-flip election. We don’t know how it’s going to go, but simply the fact that it’s as close as it is right now is, to me, a terrible commentary on America and a very dismaying, very dismaying augury of our future, that so many Americans seem to be so OK with this. I mean, how is this? How can we have tens of millions of our fellow citizens think it’s OK to elect this delusional maniac as president of the United States? I, you know, I just don’t get it.” Jonathan Capehart: “Yeah, it is baffling to me as well.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “What’s ‘dismaying,’ ‘appalling,’ and a ‘terrible commentary’ on the state of American journalism is that two veteran journalists with major media institutions have such disdain for half of their fellow citizens. It also portends a dangerous reaction from the media if Trump does indeed win. Instead of dispassionately reporting on how and why he won, they’ll be condemning as a ‘stain’ on the nation those who voted for him.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE Screams.   ■ October 14: Liberal Media Scream: Vance and Johnson hit media TDS nitpickers (Washington Examiner post) As former President Donald Trump picks up steam against challenger Vice President Kamala Harris, the media are throwing everything at the wall in hopes that something will stick to the Teflon Republican. Fortunately for Trump, there is running mate Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) knocking away all the charges, similar to what San Francisco offensive tackle Trent Williams does to passes from opposing quarterbacks. This week’s Liberal Media Scream features two Sunday show hosts suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, ABC’s Martha Raddatz of This Week and NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker. While Harris and running mate Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) have avoided the Sunday shows, Vance and Johnson are regulars who like swatting away charges from moderators. On Sunday, they had their hands full. Raddatz was obsessed with pressing Vance on Trump, questioning his statements, including claims that illegal immigrants had taken over apartment buildings in Aurora, Colorado. When she said it was just a “handful” of buildings, Vance signaled that he had enough. “You seem to be more focused with nitpicking everything that Donald Trump has said rather than acknowledging that apartment complexes in the United States of America are being taken over by violent gangs,” he said. Welker hit Trump for not revealing his health reports, even demanding his cholesterol report. That had Johnson suggesting that the public has bigger problems to consider. ABC’s This Week: J.D. VANCE: And, of course, President Trump was actually in Aurora, Colorado, talking to people on the ground, and what we’re hearing, of course, Martha, is that people are terrified by what has happened with some of these Venezuelan gangs. MARTHA RADDATZ: Sen. Vance, I’m going to stop you because I know exactly what happened. I’m going to stop you. The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment complexes, and the mayor said our dedicated police officers have acted on those concerns. A handful of problems. VANCE: Only — Martha, do you hear yourself? Only a handful of apartment complexes in America were taken over by Venezuelan gangs, and Donald Trump is the problem, and not Kamala Harris’s open border? Americans are so fed up with what’s going on, and they have every right to be, and I really find this exchange, Martha, sort of interesting because you seem to be more focused with nitpicking everything that Donald Trump has said rather than acknowledging that apartment complexes in the United States of America are being taken over by violent gangs. I worry so much more about that problem than anything else here. We’ve got to get American communities in a safe space again. NBC’s Meet the Press: KRISTEN WELKER: Should he release the results of the cognitive test that he said … MIKE JOHNSON: It’s unnecessary. He’s on display every minute. WELKER: So you concede he didn’t release his medical records? You don’t want to know things like his cholesterol level, whether he’s dealing with any issue that we may not know about, if he’s going to be commander in chief? And he also said he would release cognitive tests, which he aced. JOHNSON: Kristen, listen to your question. WELKER: Should he release that? JOHNSON: The American people — Kristen, the American people don’t care about the cholesterol level of Donald Trump. They care about the cost of living and the fact they cannot pay for groceries because Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s policies have put them in that situation. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “A wonderful display of why the press corps are held in such low regard. Journalists do indeed ‘nitpick’ Trump while missing the big picture of the border problem Trump is raising, which is a top concern of most Americans. And then they obsess over something that few care about that has nothing to do with the policies proposed by either presidential candidate.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE Screams.   ■ October 7: Liberal Media Scream: Andrea Mitchell whines men and business supporting Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the escalation of media whining and excuse-making for the problems Vice President Kamala Harris is encountering in her wobbly bid to become president. We feature MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who worried on Meet the Press about black and white men and businesses favoring former President Donald Trump, though she expressed no similar concerns about women favoring Harris in the gender gap. In one segment, she advised Harris to do more interviews to win over more men, though the vice president’s recent media blitz has brought mostly negative reviews. And she said Harris needs to push back on businesses’ view of her as a lightweight. “I think there’s misogynation in all of this, black and white men, big problem. But also, the business world, they don’t think she is serious,” Mitchell said. Mitchell’s comments came during a discussion on NBC’s Meet the Press about how Harris needs to do more media interviews to let people know about her economic policies: “They’ve got to double down on doing more interviews and serious interviews because what I’m hearing from Democratic and Republican businesspeople and a lot of men — and she’s got such a big problem with men. I think there’s an undercount of the Trump vote. I think there’s misogynation in all of this, black and white men, big problem. But also, the business world, they don’t think she is serious. They don’t think she’s a heavyweight. And a lot of this is gender, but she’s got to be more specific about her economic plans.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Of course, Andrea Mitchell attributes the worst of motives, misogyny, for why men favor Trump over Harris but expresses no concern for why women back Harris over Trump. Just like a partisan Democrat would see the world. Which is what the NBC News journalist is.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams   ■ September 30: Liberal Media Scream: Latinos like Trump because they ‘want to be white’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a key MSNBC Latina guest who smeared her fellow Latinos with a racist anti-Trump rant on Sunday. On The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart, NPR’s Maria Hinojosa ripped Latinos for abandoning the Democratic Party. Reacting to a new NBC News/Telemundo poll that found Vice President Kamala Harris losing support from Hispanic voters, Hinojosa said, “Latinos want to be white. They want to be with the cool kids.” The 63-year-old Hispanic journalist apparently isn’t up with what’s cool on social media. From The Sunday Show With Jonathan Capehart on Sunday: JONATHAN CAPEHART: So she has a 14-point lead, but it has been shrinking after each consecutive presidential election from 2016. Why is that? Why is the Democratic share of the Latino vote shrinking? MARIA HINOJOSA: And what I said to you when we asked the question was, Latinos want to be white. They want to be with the cool kids. They want to be — I’m asking Latinos all the time, and they just say, ‘Well … he’s such a good businessman.’ It’s, like, no, he’s not. He had bankruptcies. But they don’t want to be identified with all of those other immigrants that Donald Trump speaks so badly of, including me, as a Mexican immigrant. So they’re, like, ‘We’d rather, let’s be with him.’ But those numbers? They could cost Kamala Harris the election. Everything that I’ve been saying that Latinos could push her over the top, these are the numbers that could also take her down. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Hinojosa reflects the very worst of identity politics. Vote only for liberal Democrats — or you are a race traitor. The fact a solid majority of Hispanics support Kamala Harris isn’t good enough for Hinojosa. Every Latino who dares stray from the party line must be shunned because such betrayal could cost the Democrat the election.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE Screams   ■ September 23: Liberal Media Scream: PBS says Harris a ‘happy warrior’ ready to ‘slap’ Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest PBS effort to portray Vice President Kamala Harris as a joyful and happy warrior taking on evil in challenging former President Donald Trump for the presidency. On PBS NewsHour, MSNBC and Washington Post lefty pundit Jonathan Capehart declared Harris as a part of the “culture” willing to fight Trump. “She’s part of what’s driving this culture that I think you said will slap Donald Trump in the face. It’s slapping him in the face now,” Capehart said, adding, “She, in her entire career, has been the happy warrior about helping people and leaving aside the negativity. It just happens to hit at the right person at the right time.” From Friday’s PBS NewsHour, picking up after anchor Geoff Bennett cited David Brooks’s column, “How a Cultural Shift Favors Harris.” GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, that word joy, Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, when she sat down with the three reporters from the National Association of Black Journalists today [actually on Tuesday], one of them asked her about how she views attacks on her joyful warrior approach. And she defended it. And she said people will try to sometimes use your best asset against you. What do you make of that and this notion that she’s benefitting from a cultural wave? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I don’t think she’s benefitting from a cultural — yes, she is, and I read your column, David. It’s not so much that she’s riding — she’s — like see this wave coming and she’s riding. No, she is part of the culture. And that’s why I think when she became the top of the ticket, everyone marveled at how quickly the light switch flipped. That can — and it happened so organically in a very dramatic fashion. That, to me, says you can’t manufacture that. And she was able to do that because she is the culture. She is part of the culture. She’s part of what’s driving this culture that I think you said will slap Donald Trump in the face. It’s slapping him in the face now, which is why I think he’s so discombobulated. He doesn’t know how to deal with her. I think it’s why the polls are — the momentum is moving in her direction. And to your point about happy warrior, and David is right, this is the way the vice president has always been, which sort of reinforces what you’re saying. It’s not that she has met up with the culture. She, in her entire career, has been the happy warrior about helping people and leaving aside the negativity. It just happens to hit at the right person, at the right time. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “What a joke. Harris ‘is the culture’ and has been the embodiment of ‘the happy warrior about helping people’ for her ‘entire career’? She changes her culture and accent with every crowd she addresses. It must be nice to be a liberal Democrat, where supposed journalists not only endorse the glowingly upbeat imagery you want but celebrate it without any critical thinking over whether it is phony and then promote it as a genuine compelling life story.” Rating: Five out of FIVE screams   ■ September 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ September 9: Liberal Media Scream: Team Harris calls US ‘incredibly backwards’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a key Team Harris supporter decrying America as “incredibly backwards” for electing only men as president. Trump traitor Alyssa Farah Griffin, the “conservative” on The View, was discussing the debate between her ex-boss, former President Donald Trump, and Vice President Kamala Harris on CNN’s State of the Union when she blasted America. “We’re incredibly backwards as a country that we’ve never had a female president,” she said. The comment clashed with one of the key themes of the Harris campaign: criticizing Trump for claiming that America is in a shambles and spinning backward under the leadership of Harris and President Joe Biden. From Sunday’s State of the Union: ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And the reality is, you shouldn’t underestimate Donald Trump. He has now done more presidential race — debates, I should say — than anyone in history, and he’s somebody who came up on television. He’s a communicator. He’s somebody who is used to speaking to a mass audience. If he can stay focused and he stays to the core issues: economy, border, it’s a good night for him. But we’ve also seen the world in which he shouts out the Proud Boys, or he talks about Hannibal Lecter, or he gets into name calling. That could go against him. To Kamala Harris, she needs to look presidential. We’re incredibly backwards as a country that we’ve never had a female president. So, for a lot of people seeing somebody up there who’s a woman who might be our first female president, she needs to seem commanding. She cannot get too in the weeds on policy. She needs to talk about it but can’t get sidetracked. Big picture. How will you demonstrably make people’s lives better? How will you turn the economy around? If she can do that

Republican holdout Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Monday that she would vote to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. Gabbard's nomination appeared to be on the ropes after some Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee grilled her over her support for whistleblower Edward Snowden and questionable comments about the intelligence community. 'Ms. Gabbard shares my vision of returning the agency to its intended size.' Among the swing votes were Collins, who said her concerns were satisfied after she personally spoke with Gabbard and heard that she planned to reduce the size and scale of the DNI office. “After extensive consideration of her nomination, I will support Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence,” said Collins in a statement. “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence … has become far larger than it was designed to be, and Ms. Gabbard shares my vision of returning the agency to its intended size.”Gabbard's nomination may come down to Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, who grilled her about Snowden during the hearing. She said unequivocally that she believed Snowden broke the law but would not say whether she still believed he deserved a pardon. Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said afterward that he was surprised by her response to the line of questioning. "I was surprised because that doesn't seem like a hard question on that," Lankford said Thursday. "It wasn't intended to be a trick question by any means."The committee will likely vote on Gabbard's confirmation on Tuesday. If the committee approves, the entire Senate will vote on the confirmation. "I look forward to working with Ms. Gabbard to strengthen our national security," Collins concluded. Collins came out against the nomination of Pete Hegseth to head the Department of Defense, but he was confirmed in a tie vote that was decided by Vice President JD Vance. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

One of President Trump’s first actions as president was withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization, and Dr. Peter McCullough thinks it was a great idea. “The WHO is a global money pit, is what it is. We have plenty of capabilities at the CDC. Our health care is not influenced at all by the WHO in the United States,” McCullough told Laura Ingraham in a recent interview. Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight,” while excited by Trump’s action, are curious as to why McCullough believes what he does. “It’s going to liberate us,” McCullough explains. “The WHO was advancing what’s called a Pandemic Treaty Alliance, international health regulations, that would have constrained us and bound us to what the WHO wants to do with respect to plants, animals, humans.” “This involved farming, future pandemic response, and it was going to be binding by international law,” he continues. “And as I mentioned, the WHO is expensive. Billions of our taxpayer dollars went into this, and we weren’t seeing the return.” While McCullough also believes this will help hold those responsible for the devastation to American lives during the pandemic response, one major player has been pre-emptively pardoned: Dr. Anthony Fauci. “I would love to dive into this with you, because one, the timing of everything, of the pardon, was interesting and of note,” Savage tells McCullough. “Keep in mind it was a pre-emptive pardon. Pre-emptive meaning that, well, you know, a crime hasn’t been uncovered yet, but there is an intent from the Biden administration to provide this blanket coverage, essentially like what we consider a tail coverage, and it goes back 10 years,” McCullough explains. “Ten years is almost the exact time when Obama put into place the ban on gain-of-function research, and I think this is going to be the big issue,” he continues, noting that the gain-of-function research began before the ban and was believed to be “grandfathered in.” While there was never any discord between Fauci and Trump while Trump was in office, recent exposure of Fauci in books like “The Real Anthony Fauci” by RFK Jr. might change Trump’s tune on the scientist. “So it’s well-delineated. I think the mechanism would be a special prosecutor to investigate Fauci as a target, meaning that, you know, as someone who’s a perpetrator for two major crimes: fraud, that he misled the country intentionally on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, attempted to cover up the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and his role in the creation of SARS-CoV-2,” McCullough explains. “The next big one was mass negligent homicide,” he continues. “Now, that’s a big one, but by the mechanisms that Fauci worked to suppress all our efforts on treating people early, in preventing hospitalizations and deaths early in the pandemic, and then he relentlessly promoted only one solution: mass vaccination.” Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Just over 8,000 years ago, a region called Doggerland that was covered in verdant forests and marshy landscapes stretched from Great Britain to Germany and the Netherlands — but it was submerged as the North Sea rose at the end of the last Ice Age. The post Doggerland: The Landmass That Connected Britain To Mainland Europe Before Sinking Into The North Sea appeared first on All That's Interesting.