In a major setback for President Joe Biden’s Justice Department, the federal judge overseeing the criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump for willful and unlawful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice threw out the superseding indictment and dismissed all of the 42 charges against Trump and two other defendants.  U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump’s motion to dismiss the case, concluding that Smith’s appointment as a special counsel violated the Appointments Clause, and that the funds his office has spent to pursue Trump violated the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the expenditure of federal monies without an express  appropriation by Congress. The Justice Department now must decide whether to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit or, as it tried to do with the D.C. case when Trump argued that he was immune from prosecution for actions undertaken as president, it might try to bypass the 11th Circuit and seek an immediate review by the Supreme Court. Either way, an appeal is likely. The Appointments Clause The backbone of Cannon’s 93-page opinion is the concept of—and historical underpinnings of—separation of powers principles. Early on in her opinion, Cannon wrote: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers.  The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers. At the outset, she makes clear that if Congress wanted to grant the attorney general the power to appoint a special counsel, “there is a valid means to do so.” “He can be appointed and confirmed through the default method prescribed in the Appointment Clause,” which requires nomination by a president and confirmation by the Senate. Cannon also noted that Attorney General Merrick Garland could have tasked any of the 93 current U.S. attorneys with handling the Trump classified documents case without violating the Appointments Clause since they were all confirmed by the Senate after having been nominated by Biden.  But instead, Cannon dryly noted, Garland selected a “private citizen” who was given the “full power of a United States Attorney, and with very little oversight or supervision.” Cannon concluded that Smith’s appointment definitively violated the Appointments Clause in one way, and likely violated it in a second way.  This argument had previously been rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, but that opinion is not binding on Cannon, who went to great pains to explain why she thinks that opinion was wrongly decided. The Appointments Clause (Article II, §2, Clause 2) provides, in pertinent part that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” The key to Cannon’s ruling are in the words “established by Law.”  While there used to be a law—albeit a controversial one—that expressly authorized the appointment of independent counsels, that law expired in 1999 and was not renewed. Congress, Cannon concluded, has not passed any law creating an Office of Special Counsel, and therefore any such appointment was not to an office that has been “established by Law,” nor has Congress “by Law” vested the attorney general with authority to appoint a special counsel. Therefore, she concluded, because Congress has not established an Office of Special Counsel “by Law,” Smith’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause. In the recent presidential immunity case, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion also raised this issue.  He noted that the appointment of special prosecutors vested with almost unlimited authority and without any input from the legislature was one of the grievances cited against King George III in the Declaration of Independence—“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”—and is the reason why the Constitution’s Appointments Clause was crafted to give Congress a role in the appointment of special prosecutors.    Cannon outlined a second reason why she thinks Smith’s appointment likely violated the Appointments Clause, although she acknowledged that this was a closer question.  In an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed by two former attorneys general, Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, and others, they argued that Smith is a principal officer, citing his virtually unlimited power to pursue Trump, limitations on how he could be removed, and the fact that Smith’s actions were not subject to any meaningful supervision by the attorney general. As such, they argue, Smith would have to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Neither happened with respect to Smith. Prior to his appointment to serve as special counsel on Nov. 18, 2022, Smith was a private attorney and a former, not a current, DOJ lawyer. And regarding Garland’s supervision of Smith’s activities, Cannon noted that the special counsel regulations issued by the Justice Department “impose virtually no mechanism for supervision or control by the Attorney General.” She found that the special counsel was under no obligation to consult with the attorney general about the conduct of his duties or responsibilities; that he merely needed to “consult” with appropriate officers within the Justice Department,  but he alone gets to decide whether to consult with the attorney general; and is required to “notify” the attorney general of events in the course of his investigation, yet nothing in the rules gives the attorney general the authority to “countermand, direct, or supervise those significant decisions.” In the appointment order, Garland claimed he was “vested” with appointment authority pursuant to four sections of a federal statute, namely, 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533. That order directed Smith to conduct two specified investigations and prosecute federal crimes arising from: (1) “efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election” and (2) willful retention of national defense information at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. Cannon’s decision related only to the latter case, but could influence the former case being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  The bulk of Cannon’s opinion involved a painstaking review of each of the authorities relied upon by the Justice Department for the appointment. Cannon concluded that, when considered in context, none of those authorities supports the delegation of such vast power in a special counsel. Quoting from an opinion by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Cannon stated that Congress “does not … hide elephants in mouseholes.”  Smith’s arguments, she continued, were unsupported by the text of the applicable laws, “were inconsistent with Congress’s usual legislative practices,” and would threaten “to undermine the basic separation-of-powers principles that give life and content to the Appointments Clause.”   Appropriation Clause In the last part of her opinion, Cannon held that the funding mechanism for Smith’s investigation against Trump likely violated the Appropriation Clause, which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”   The parties agreed that Smith’s office has been funded since its inception using a “permanent indefinite appropriation … established within the Department of Justice to pay all necessary expenses.”  Here, however, the law provides that indefinite appropriations are available only to an “independent counsel” appointed pursuant to the now-expired Independent Counsel Act “or other law.”  Having already determined that no such law exists, Cannon concluded that Smith has “unlawfully” drawn “tens of millions of dollars” to pursue Trump since his appointment in violation of the Appropriations Clause. Why This Is Important Near the end of her opinion, Cannon stated: The Framers gave Congress a pivotal role in the appointment of principal and inferior officers. That role cannot be usurped by the Executive Branch or diffused elsewhere—whether in this case or in another case, whether in times of heightened national need or not. In the case of inferior officers, that means that Congress is empowered to decide if it wishes to vest appointment power in a Head of Department, and indeed, Congress has proven itself quite capable of doing so in many other statutory contexts. But it plainly did not do so here, despite the Special Counsel’s strained statutory readings. Nor does his appeal to inconsistent “historical practice” supplant the absence of textual authorization for his appointment. The same structural emphases resonate in the context of the Appropriation Clause, which “embodies a fundamental separation of powers principle—subjugating the executive branch to the legislatures power of the purse.” Although liberals and Never-Trumpers will, as they have in the past, be quick to label Cannon as a “legal laughingstock” and a “hack,” this is a grossly unfair characterization. Cannon’s opinion is a serious and thorough analysis of important constitutional issues pertaining to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and Appropriations Clause.  Her opinion should be judged on its merits, not on whether someone likes or dislikes the outcome of this particular case.  As Scalia once noted, without robust and enforceable separation of powers, the remaining provisions of the Constitution would just be “parchment guarantees.” While it’s perhaps unfortunate that these issues have arisen within the context of such a politically charged case, those issues involve separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, which serve as a bulwark to protect all of our civil liberties. Yes, even those of Donald Trump.  The post Federal Judge’s Dismissal of Trump Classified Documents Case Firmly Grounded in Constitution appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Secret Service Director: 'I Will Not Resign'

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 July 15: Liberal Media Scream: Anger over blood-splattered ‘fight, fight, fight’ 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.   ■ July 8: Liberal Media Scream: Welker pushes Meet the Press even further left (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest demonstration that NBC Meet the Press host Kristen Welker, in the anchor seat for less than a year, has pushed the show further left than Chuck Todd left it. This Sunday, it was Welker using her trademark practice of beating her point into the ground in demanding another Republican to “accept the election results,” which she obviously believes will show President Joe Biden reelected. Her target was Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), on former President Donald Trump’s short list of running mates. “Can you say unequivocally, unequivocally here and now, that you will accept the results of the 2024 election no matter what they are?” she asked, ignoring warnings from the FBI about election hanky panky and some of the problems found in the 2020 ballot casting. When Vance said he’s hoping for a clean election, Welker said he was signaling that the election won’t be fair. He fired back that it is the media’s blindness to problems that is the threat to the election outcome, not a candidate’s hope for problem-free elections. “What I think actually undermines people’s confidence in the electoral system is when the media is incurious about obvious examples of problems in our electoral system,” Vance said. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: KRISTEN WELKER: Well, here we are about a week before the Republican convention. Before I let you go, can you say unequivocally, unequivocally here and now, that you will accept the results of the 2024 election no matter what they are? SEN. J.D. VANCE [R-OH]: So long as it’s a free and fair election, Kristen, of course we will. We will use constitutional processes to challenge issues if we think there are issues. But if it’s a free and fair election, we will do what the Constitution requires. We will respect the results. And I expect those results are going to be to reelect Donald Trump. WELKER: It was a free and fair election in 2020. Donald Trump took his concerns to court. He lost in court. But he still has not conceded. Do you understand that when you refuse to commit unequivocally, that feeds into people’s concerns, skepticism about the nation’s electoral process? VANCE: Well, Kristen, I don’t agree with that actually. I think that feeding into people’s concerns about our electoral process is that one-half of America’s political segment, they won’t support legislation that makes it harder for illegal aliens to vote. They won’t support universal voter ID in our elections even though you have to present ID to do almost anything in this country. I think taking people’s concerns seriously about election fraud is the way to reinforce security and confidence in our elections. WELKER: Yes, senator, it’s already against the law for noncitizens to vote. But just on that very point, when you, when others refuse to say, “Yes, we will accept the election results,” do you understand how that undermines people’s confidence in the electoral system? VANCE: But, Kristen, what I just said is I don’t agree with that. What I think actually undermines people’s confidence in the electoral system is when the media is incurious about obvious examples of problems in our electoral system. I think we’ve got great elections, but a lot of things could be better in certain states. I want to work to make that happen so the American people have greater confidence in their elections. That’s what I’ll keep doing. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Welker has managed to make Meet the Press more of a vehicle for the agenda of liberals than it was under Chuck Todd. Every week, it seems, she acts as a thought police operative, demanding Republican guests pay fealty to the Democratic media party line on how elections cannot be questioned, trying to undermine their very legitimacy as elected officials. In Vance’s case, she distorted his answer to appear the opposite of what it was so she could lecture him about his improper thinking.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ July 1: Liberal Media Scream: NBC’s Welker lies about ‘lies,’ can’t stand truthful Republicans (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features President Joe Biden’s media cheerleading squad trying to find some way to divert the public’s attention away from the fact that the president was out of it during last week’s debate with former President Donald Trump. The top tactic of the liberal press was to say that Trump told more “lies” than the comatose president. And when Republicans pushed back, the media just ignored and pressed on. Case in point was NBC’s Kristen Welker, the Meet the Press anchor. One of her featured guests was Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND), who is on Trump’s short list of running mate candidates. Not only did she press him on whether he was a liar, she told lies about debate statements Trump made that have been fact-checked as truthful. “As someone who is on Donald Trump’s short list to be his vice presidential nominee, do you think he should stop saying things that are not true?” She then recited his supposed lies: “Just to say a few: He said that Democrats want to kill infants after birth. That’s not true. He again lied about widespread fraud. Not true. He lied about his comments after Charlottesville. Should he be truthful with the American people if he wants to lead this country? Especially given what you just said that you never lie. That’s your standard, governor.” But Democrats certainly do support allowing abortion up until birth and even death to newborns. That was clearly stated by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, himself a pediatric neurologist. And liberal reporters love misquoting Trump’s “good people on both sides” comment about the demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, but it has been debunked, and he was not referring to Nazis as one of the “both” sides. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: GOV. DOUG BURGUM: Four years ago, when we ended up with the current ticket on the Democrat side, that was this grand devil’s bargain of “everybody drop out, we’re going with these two.” Then, the biggest lie that has been foisted on the American public was seen on Thursday night. People can’t un-see what they saw. What they saw was, we’ve been told by the White House, two weeks ago, the White House was attacking journalists, including your friends, saying that no, you can’t say these stories about that Joe Biden isn’t capable of serving right now. And then, all of America saw it. And you know who else saw it? Our adversaries saw it. Putin saw it. Xi saw it. The ayatollah saw it. I mean, the nation — we keep talking about elections. We are at a greater national security risk today than we were on Thursday because the commander in chief showed that he’s not capable of serving. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, there’s not proof of that, but governor, let me just ask you about the debate and a little bit more of what we saw. By one count, Donald Trump made more than 30 false claims during that debate. I want to play something you told my colleague Chuck Todd on this broadcast last year. Take a look. CHUCK TODD: You ever lied in politics? BURGUM: No. TODD: That you know of? You don’t believe you’ve ever lied? BURGUM: No. TODD: You feel like you’ve always told the truth as you understood it? BURGUM: Absolutely. That’s how I was raised and how I’ve gone forward. WELKER: As someone who is on Donald Trump’s short list to be his vice presidential nominee, do you think he should stop saying things that are not true? BURGUM: I think the whole manufactured thing this morning of, that Donald Trump has said something that he hasn’t said before, I mean, everything that he said on Thursday night he’s been saying before. I mean, so this isn’t, this is not news. WELKER: This is not manufactured. But this is not manufactured, governor. I mean, just to say a few: He said that Democrats want to kill infants after birth. That’s not true. He again lied about widespread fraud. Not true. He lied about his comments after Charlottesville. Should he be truthful with the American people if he wants to lead this country? Especially given what you just said that you never lie. That’s your standard, governor. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Welker is so sure of herself, so smugly superior that she can rattle off a list of supposed lies from Donald Trump without any self-awareness that she is passing on distortions of what Trump said while she demands Gov. Burgum criticize Trump for not being truthful. And then, when Burgum makes a perfectly reasonable observation, she corrects him with the ‘there’s not proof of that’ bromide. Pot, meet kettle.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 24: Liberal Media Scream: CNN proves anti-Trump bias days before debate (Washington Examiner post) And just like that, CNN showed its anti-Trump bias on Monday, just three days before hosting the first debate between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, proving Republicans correct in complaining that the debate would be an ambush. It came early Monday morning when anchor Kasie Hunt was hosting Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. At the time, Secrets was considering the week’s choices for the Liberal Media Scream feature with Brent Baker of the Media Research Center. Stories about the strong anti-Trump bias of co-debate moderators Dana Bash and Jake Tapper started to appear over the weekend, so it wasn’t unexpected that Leavitt would criticize them. Readers may recall that CNN and Trump have an antagonistic relationship, highlighted when CNN host Jim Acosta tussled with Trump during a press conference five years ago. When Leavitt hit CNN’s bias, Hunt, who often includes Republicans on her show, wouldn’t hear of it, shut off her guest’s microphone, and kicked Trump’s spokeswoman off the air. The two traded tweets afterward, but the damage was done and led to a piling on by those upset with Hunt’s liberal bias, including Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) wife, who noted that Hunt called the story about an attack on the senator one of her “favorite stories.” So, for her actions, Hunt wins our Liberal Media Scream of the week with a rating of five out of five screams. From Monday’s CNN This Morning: KAROLINE LEAVITT: Well, President Trump is well prepared ahead of Thursday’s debates. Unlike Joe Biden, he doesn’t have to hide away and have his advisers tell him what to say. President Trump knows what he wants to say, and he’s going to relay his vision to the American people to make this country strong, safe, secure, and wealthy again. He’s been doing that across this great nation, to all corners of this country. That’s why he was in Detroit, Michigan, last week. He was in Philadelphia for a big rally on Saturday night, and that’s why President Trump is knowingly going into a hostile environment on this very network, on CNN, with debate moderators who have made their opinions about him very well known over the past eight years in their biased coverage of him. So President Trump is willing to bring his message to every corner of this country, to voters, to ensure that he wins this election in November. He looks forward to doing that, and I know the American public looks forward to hearing from him. KASIE HUNT: So, I’ll just say my colleagues, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, have acquitted themselves as professional as they have covered campaigns and interviewed candidates from all sides of the aisle. I’ll also say that if you talk to analysts at debates previous, that if you’re attacking the moderators, you’re usually losing. So, I really want to focus on what these two men are going to do and say when they stand on the stage. Now, we have a little bit of what Donald Trump, your boss, has said in trying to set expectations for this debate. I want to play some of a series of his comments, and then we’ll talk about it. Watch. DONALD TRUMP CLIPS: Maybe I’m better off losing the debate. I’ll make sure he says I lose the debate on purpose. Maybe I’ll do something like that. … I assume he’s gonna be somebody that will be a worthy debater. … Should I be tough and nasty and just say you’re the worst president in history, or should I be nice and calm and let him speak? HUNT: So he’s basically saying there, well, will I let Joe Biden win? It does seem as though many Republicans have set the bar very low in terms of arguing that Joe Biden is basically senile. Now, you have people like Doug Burgum coming out and saying, well, President Biden’s very accomplished, trying to set expectations in a different place. What do you expect from Joe Biden? LEAVITT: Well, first of all, it takes someone five minutes to Google Jake Tapper, Donald Trump to see that Jake Tapper has consistently, frequently likened President Trump to Adolf Hitler — HUNT: Ma’am, I’m going to stop this interview if you continue to attack my colleagues. I would like to talk about Joe Biden and Donald Trump, who you work for. If you are here to speak on his behalf, I am willing to have this conversation. LEAVITT: I am stating facts that your colleagues have stated in the past. Now, as for this debate, the expectations for, the expectations for — HUNT: Now, I’m sorry, guys. We’re going to come back out to the panel. Karoline, thank you very much for your time. You are welcome to come back at any point. She is welcome to come back and speak about Donald Trump, and Donald Trump will have equal time to Joe Biden when they both join us … later this week in Atlanta for this debate. Our thanks to Karoline. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Not a good sign for Donald Trump and his supporters ahead of CNN’s debate. If Hunt’s aggressiveness is any guide, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash won’t be reluctant to use their power to kill the podium microphones to silence the candidate who says things they have a long record of denouncing and condemning. Trump may well regret agreeing to allow CNN to host a debate.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 17: Liberal Media Scream: ‘What the f***?’: Celebrities baffled voters like Trump for sounding ‘normal’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features world-class comics expressing shock that the public connects with former President Donald Trump because he sounds normal and even funny. “What the f***?” yelped Charlamagne tha God, appearing on Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher’s “Overtime” with liberal talker Ana Navarro. The trio were talking about Trump and answering questions when Maher said, “Is Trump dangerous because he’s funny?” When Maher said the fact is that people respond to Trump’s commoner way of talking, the black comic said, “Republicans are more sincere about their lies than Democrats are about their truth. Like when you listen to Donald Trump talk, you listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene, that’s what Waffle House sounds like at three in the morning. And sadly, people relate to that.” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher’s “Overtime” show posted on YouTube after the regular program aired on HBO, picking up as Maher posed questions from viewers: BILL MAHER: Charlamagne, this is for you. “Is Trump dangerous because he’s funny?” CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD [CTG]: What the f***? No, Trump is dangerous because at one point he was president of the United States of America and he’s running to be president of the United States of America again. If he wasn’t, you know, running to be in that position, he’d be the most hilarious person on the planet. ANA NAVARRO: But, I mean, do you, do you actually — you’re a comedian — do you actually find him funny because people are laughing at him? MAHER: Yes, unintentionally? CTG: Yes. MAHER: He’s a scream? Oh, he’s so funny, but he doesn’t know it. No, really. I mean, there are people like that. He has no— NAVARRO: When I, when I listen to him, when he’s talking in those rallies about the sharks and the batteries, I’m waiting for the men in white jackets to show up. CTG: But it’s only because he’s running for president. If he wasn’t running for president, you’d be like, “This stand-up is amazing.” MAHER: But he sounds — and I’ve heard you talk about this subject before — he sounds like more of a normal person. CTG: Yes. MAHER: And that you, I know you said that the Republicans have a big advantage because they communicate better. CTG: Yeah, Republicans are more sincere about their lies than Democrats are about their truth. Like when you listen to Donald Trump talk, you listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene, that’s what Waffle House sounds like at three in the morning. And sadly, people relate to that. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Charlamagne tha God seemingly reflects much of the bafflement of those on the Left as to why average, not-so-political people would be attracted by the messages delivered by Trump and other Republicans. So, aghast at the phenomenon, he must attribute it to how Trump and conservatives are better talkers and liars, not that their policy views better address the problems facing the country.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 10: Liberal Media Scream: ‘The View’ says black people not allowed to leave the Democratic plantation (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features The View engaging in racial politics and suggesting that minority viewers should stay in their Democratic lane. On the show, Sunny Hostin was discussing Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) giving his support to former President Donald Trump. He is one of Trump’s potential picks for a running mate. Hostin, whose roots are Puerto Rican, accused Donalds of pandering to Trump, though several polls show black voters like the ex-president, especially men, and are moving to the Republican Party after decades of pandering by the Democratic Party. She said that such black voters are ultra-rare. “These black men that he was speaking with, I’d love to see them. It would be like looking at unicorns,” Hostin said on Friday’s show. From Friday’s The View, a show produced by ABC News: JOY BEHAR: Florida congressman Byron Donalds hit a new low when he told a room full of black Republicans that he misses the quote, unquote, good old days. Watch. BYRON DONALDS, on June 4: During Jim Crow, the black family was together. During Jim Crow, more black people were not just conservative — black people have always been conservative-minded — but more black people voted conservatively. And then, H.E.W., Lyndon Johnson, and then you go down that road, and now we are where we are. …. SARA HAINES: What’s scary is when you hear the audio, there are a lot of people going, uh-huh, uh-huh. So it feels like a class needs to be taught to everyone in that room because segregation left you with no choice. Like, you weren’t picking the family. They were literally making you go to different places. They didn’t allow for — so, talking about a black person choosing to be with your family and then looking at the greater social scheme and the injustice of that, he must not know what it is? I mean, that seems like a far leap not to understand Jim Crow, segregation, and the separation of the race. I don’t understand. ANA NAVARRO: If he doesn’t know, shame on him, because there is nothing worse, I think, than when people achieve certain status and certain rights and don’t appreciate, take for granted, the struggles, the deaths, the fights, the marches, everything it took to be able to give Byron Donalds the opportunity he has now because, under Jim Crow, he couldn’t vote. He wouldn’t have been in Congress. He couldn’t have married his wife. He’s married to a lovely woman named Erika, who’s white. Interracial marriage was illegal in Florida until 1969. He could have not gone to Florida State University — for over 100 years, black students were not admitted to that university. Over 250 blacks were lynched in Florida under Jim Crow. For him to be waxing nostalgic about that era that elicits so much pain — that was such a dark period in the history of the United States — is offensive. And for him to be doing it as a black man, as a person of color, is even more offensive. What really drives me crazy, though, is that it’s, like, every three months, a Republican says something more stupid about black history and slavery, right? I mean, last year, we had Ron DeSantis saying — defending that there were good things about slavery, skills that were learned that could be put to good use. Then we had Nikki Haley, who couldn’t admit that slavery was the cause for the Civil War. JOY BEHAR: So, my question to you, Sunny: Is it stupidity, like she says, or is it something else? HAINES: I think it’s pandering. I don’t think it’s stupidity. BEHAR: To whom? HOSTIN: It’s pandering to Donald Trump. I thought it was interesting that the framing was a room of black Republicans. Where are they? Where are they? Because if you look at the stats, 77% of — 81%, I’m sorry, of black men are part of the Democratic Party. Black voters consistently align with the Democratic Party. Ninety, over 95% of black women are part of the Democratic Party. So these black men that he was speaking with, I’d love to see them. It would be like looking at unicorns. And so, I think that the sad thing is, you know, I agree with you, Ana, is that this came from the mouth of a black man, right? And so, if you’re pandering yourself and your community and your history to a man like Donald Trump, who is a disgraced, one-term, twice impeached, convicted felon, we get to say now, is even more despicable in this country. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “What a disgusting display of left-wing elitism. To think that, in the name of calling out racism, you think it’s your place as white people to lecture a black man about his views of the status of the black family and how it has fared over the decades. Liberals just can’t allow anyone to deviate from the approved liberal perspective and, if they do, they must be ‘shamed’ and corrected so they get in line.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ June 3: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos anti-Trump spin, condescendingly Clintonesque (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream highlights the model of the media’s bias in the legal cases against former President Donald Trump — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. The former Clinton White House communications boss opened his Sunday show, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, with a lecture against Trump and then brought on Trump lawyer Will Scharf to face left-wing talking points. Scharf didn’t take it and challenged the Democratic talker, especially when Stephanopoulos tried to silence him for making points he didn’t like. The actions by Stephanopoulos were reminiscent of the way he used to try to shut down reporters during the 1992 presidential campaign when numerous Clinton scandals were raised, a practice he and other aides continued while in the White House when facing troublesome stories, especially the Travelgate affair. From Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, and welcome to This Week. In 1774, John Adams said representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Two hundred and fifty years later, the heart and lungs of liberty are facing what may be the ultimate stress test. Twelve anonymous jurors rendered their verdict on Thursday, finding Donald Trump guilty on all counts. It’s the third time in the last two years that jurors have rendered verdicts against Trump. Jurors have yet to consider charges against Trump for even more serious crimes: blocking the peaceful transfer of power, concealing classified documents, encouraging the filing of false electors. But for now, the New York jurors have already presented their fellow citizens with a choice: Do we want to be represented, to be led, for the first time in history by a convicted felon? That answer will come in November…. STEPHANOPOULOS: The ethics panel for the state of New York said the judge was not required to recuse….   STEPHANOPOULOS: If appearance of impropriety is the standard for recusal, then why shouldn’t Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have to recuse from the cases before the Supreme Court?…. WILL SCHARF: The weaponization of our legal system, the politicization of prosecution, these are all things that President Trump absolutely has to comment on. I think the fact that he labored under a gag order for as long as he did was manifestly unjust. So, yes, absolutely, President Trump needs to be carrying his message to the American people. And I don’t see how anyone can really poke holes at that. STEPHANOPOULOS: You talked about the weaponization of the legal system. Of course, it was former President Trump who threw out the 2016 campaign, led chants of “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton. But what do you expect from the sentencing process? SCHARF: Well, but hold on a second, George, President Trump may have said that, but after he entered office, he certainly didn’t weaponize the Department of Justice to pursue his political opponents the way that we’ve seen … in the last couple years. Remember, this case in New York, it was called the zombie case. It sat and sat and sat. It could have been brought at any point after 2020. And then suddenly, when President Trump announced his campaign for president, it was dusted off, rushed in front of a grand jury, and then rushed into court. You want to talk about the politicization of the legal system, I mean, this is Exhibit A. It’s absolutely unprecedented in American history. It’s not the way that our campaigns are supposed to be run. We contest elections at the ballot box, not in the courts, in this country. STEPHANOPOULOS: That is true. But, of course, we’ve never had a former president or presidential candidate facing the kind of charges that the president faced because of his own activities. And, of course, the attorney general in Manhattan has nothing to do with the Department of Justice. Finally, what do you expect from the sentencing process? SCHARF: I vehemently disagree that the district attorney in New York was not politically motivated here, and I vehemently disagree that President Biden and his political allies aren’t up their necks in this prosecution. I think the fact that the Biden campaign — STEPHANOPOULOS: There’s no evidence here of that. Sir, there’s no — there’s not — I’m not going to let you continue to say that. There’s just zero evidence of that. SCHARF: Well, how about the fact that Matthew Colangelo was standing over Alvin Bragg’s shoulder when he announced this verdict? I mean, Colangelo was the No. 3 official in the Biden Department of Justice who suddenly disappears and shows up as an assistant district attorney, right as Trump’s case in New York starts to proceed. You want to talk about political — STEPHANOPOULOS: After the decision was made there — SCHARF: You want to talk about political coordination, George, it’s right there in front of you. STEPHANOPOULOS: This has nothing to do — this has nothing to do — no, it’s not. This has nothing to do with President Biden. Do you want to answer the question about the sentencing process or not? SCHARF: I completely disagree that this has nothing to do with President Biden. With respect to sentencing, as I said before, we’re going to vigorously challenge this case on appeal. I don’t think President Trump is going to end up being subject to any sentence whatsoever. And we look forward to getting this case into the next court and taking this again all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to vindicate President Trump’s rights. STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks for your time this morning. SCHARF: Appreciate it, George. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “A Sunday sermon followed by aggressive left-wing talking points aimed at not allowing legitimacy for views which do not comport with ‘the facts’ as the very liberal and very partisan Stephanopoulos sees them. We’re in for five more months of this from the media and left-wing activists in it like Stephanopoulos: aggressive disdain for anyone making a point on behalf of Trump, imbued with condescending sneering about how there’s ‘no evidence’ for that point when there’s plenty of evidence for it.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ May 27: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC regular cites Clarence Thomas’s white wife in racist rant (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the latest example of the Left’s hysteria over conservative judges on the Supreme Court. MSNBC regular talker Elie Mystal said that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas not only wanted votes from black people to count less than white votes in elections, but he cited Thomas’s wife of 37 years, Virginia Thomas, who is white, as proof. “Yeah, the through line between the Alito flag story, the Clarence Thomas coup story, and their wives, and what we saw today from the Supreme Court in this gerrymandering decision, the through line is that they don’t want black people’s votes to count equally,” Mystal said on All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC Thursday. “I mean, he ain’t married to Ginni Thomas for nothing, all right — like, that’s what the man thinks,” the black pundit said. He was discussing a 6-3 Supreme Court decision last week to keep a South Carolina congressional map that a lower court had ruled included a racially drawn gerrymander. The court said the challengers had not proven their case. The decision was written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who has drawn fire for his wife’s flying of their American flag in the “distress” signal. From Thursday’s All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC: CHRIS HAYES: I want to start on what we got from the court today and the fact it was an Alito-authored decision. It was an Alito-authored decision from the Trump majority, 6-3 majority, liberals in dissent, holding up a Republican gerrymander. ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah, the through line between the Alito flag story, the Clarence Thomas coup story, and their wives and what we saw today from the Supreme Court in this gerrymandering decision, the through line between all of that is that they don’t want black people’s votes to count equally. HAYES: Do you think that is true of Clarence Thomas? MYSTAL: I know that it’s true of Clarence Thomas, all right. Their idea and Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence today, wrote straight up that he does not think the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause of that amendment can be used to protect the voting rights of black people. HAYES: Yes. MYSTAL: I mean, he ain’t married to Ginni Thomas for nothing, all right — like, that’s what the man thinks. He wrote it today. The through line — understand this, Chris, when these people like Alito and Thomas support the insurrection, right, what are they really saying? They’re saying that Trump won — lost the election but won the white vote, which is true, he did, he won the white vote by a lot, white people should probably do something about that, but he won the white vote by a lot. And what Alito and Thomas are saying is that it is that white vote that Trump won is that’s the only votes that matter. That we should do what the white voters want and when they write these decisions like they did in the gerrymandering case, what they are straight up saying is that black voters can be diluted, can have their voting rights taken away, simply because black voters happen to vote Democrat. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “How insidious an attitude to have toward an American institution when your ideological contention is that it’s Trump and MAGA who are destroying democracy. No, you’re doing that with such a disreputable, race-based attack on the court because you don’t agree with a ruling, compounded by a cheap shot at the first conservative African American on the Supreme Court as a self-hater because the race of his wife doesn’t match his. Can’t go much lower.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ May 20: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ May 13: Liberal Media Scream: Networks shamefully use Reagan to defend Biden (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features all three network Sunday public affairs shows going to bat for President Joe Biden’s betrayal of Israel for largely political reasons by suggesting he was just following a pattern set by former President Ronald Reagan. “Historians would say, ‘Why is it OK for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?'” NBC’s Kristen Welker said in a key example of the effort. At issue was Biden’s flip-flop to hold back weaponry Israel needs to push its effort to rid Hamas from Gaza after the terrorists shocked the world with brutal attacks on Israeli women, children, and troops last October. Biden’s move came in response to campus protests by pro-Hamas protesters. The network talk shows noted that Reagan also played hardball with Israel but typically for more diplomatic reasons than domestic politics. What’s more, as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) noted, nobody ever questioned whether Reagan had Israel’s back in facing down Arab enemies. From the May 12 ABC, NBC, and CBS Sunday morning interview shows: — ABC’s This Week host Martha Raddatz to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): You regularly invoke former President Ronald Reagan. You heard Sen. Coons bring up the fact he paused weapons to Israel as well. You constantly ask yourself, ‘What would Ronald Reagan do?’ That’s what Ronald Reagan did. — NBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): President Biden is not the first president to use arms shipments to try to influence Israeli policy. As you know, former President Ronald Reagan, on multiple occasions, withheld weapons to impact Israel’s military actions. Did President Reagan show that using U.S. military aid as leverage can actually be an effective way to rein in and impact Israel’s policy?… GRAHAM: The Republican Party is with Israel, without apology. WELKER: Well, historians would say, ‘Why is it OK for Reagan to do it and not President Biden?‘ — CBS’s Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): You know that past presidents have withheld military aid to Israel to force changes in behavior. President Reagan did that. President Bush did that. Why do you have a problem with President Biden doing it? COTTON: Ronald Reagan’s decision to pause the delivery of fighter jets in the 1980s was totally different from what’s happened here. Israel is fighting a war of survival against a terrorist group that committed the worst atrocity against Jews since World War II. In the 1980s, an Israeli ambassador had been targeted for assassination. Ronald Reagan knew the pause of fighter jets would not interfere with Israel’s fighting because they had plenty of fighters. He did not pause munitions. Joe Biden is not sending munitions in the middle of a shooting war that’s a war of survival. And look at the broader context. Israel knew that Ronald Reagan had its back in the region. He sank half of Iran’s navy. Joe Biden has consistently given Iran hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief that exactly funded groups like Hamas. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The sudden respect for the policies of Ronald Reagan from members of the Washington press corps, who are normally disdainful toward him, is remarkable. It makes one think they all got a talking points memo from Biden campaign allies and are repeating them to challenge their Republican guests.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ May 6: Liberal Media Scream: ABC’s Karl cries wolf with DEFCON 1 Trump warning (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features another breathless election warning from another ABC News Trump critic, Jonathan Karl. A week after This Week host George Stephanopoulos practically seized up over the possibility of former President Donald Trump returning to power, as many voters want, fill-in Karl spun the election as the most important ever on Sunday. “No more crying wolf. This is it,” he said. With six months before the election, let’s hope the New York City Fire Department starts parking an ambulance at ABC News headquarters in case one of the news readers passes out in warning America whom to vote for. Karl, at the top on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: “Good morning. Welcome to This Week. For as long as I’ve covered politics, politicians have said, ‘This will be the most important election of our lifetimes.’ They said that no matter how high or low the stakes actually were. Election Day 2024 is exactly six months from today, and this time, the divisions in our country are so vast and the choice so stark there’s little doubt this really is the most important election of our time. No more crying wolf. This is it.” Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “The election is six months away, and the top anchors for ABC News are already building themselves into a lather of outrage, lecturing their viewers on who they better not vote for — or else. One wonders how out of control they will become as the election grows closer, especially if polls continue to show Donald Trump in the lead. They’re passing DEFCON 2. Once they hit DEFCON 1, what’s next?” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 29: Liberal Media Scream: Could you cry more, George Stephanopoulos? (Washington Examiner post) For years, George Stephanopoulos ran block and worse for former President Bill Clinton. First, it was Gennifer Flowers, and then Travelgate and Whitewater. Multiple other scandals followed. His boss got away with most and didn’t face the music until he was finally impeached for lying about the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. But on Sunday, in an editorial to lead off his ABC Sunday talk show, the former Clinton spokesman ripped into former President Donald Trump, who is facing several court cases for what some legal analysts see as political attacks. That every move Trump makes is hit by the media or added to his legal troubles isn’t enough for Stephanopoulos. Instead, and the reason he’s our feature for this week’s Liberal Media Scream, he wants Trump treated differently, claiming that the former president has pushed the nation to the brink of civil war despite now being the candidate most people want to win in November, according to CNN. “It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power,” he lectured on Sunday. “But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens,” he added. From Sunday’s This Week on ABC: Good morning, and welcome to This Week. Until now, no American president had ever faced a criminal trial. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president ever faced hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse. Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined on what’s happening in courtrooms than what’s happening on the campaign trail — until now. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflective habits, to treat this as a normal campaign where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenets of our democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Speaking of tests, George Stephanopoulos has failed the journalism test. He seems quite proud of it and likely speaks for all too many in the news media who think they have the moral superiority to declare Trump voters not only misguided but guilty of putting the basic tenets of the country at risk. So, Stephanopoulos, a top Clinton spokesman in the 1990s who suppressed from voters information about his candidate’s misdeeds, will save us all by using those left-wing political instincts to decide which candidate voters should be allowed to pick.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 22: Liberal Media Scream: Historian Meacham says ‘patriotism’ demands Biden win (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare five-screamer featuring a liberal journalist turned “historian” and biographer claiming that voter patriotism demands reelecting President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump. Jon Meacham, the former top editor of Newsweek, said on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, “Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot.” Talking more like an East Coast elitist than a Tennessee native, the liberal analyst added with seriousness, “I’m lucky in that I don’t have particular policy passions, particular issues.” And he included a condescending little jab at his home state. “I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold, and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not. And I would say to my Republican friends — and I live in Tennessee, so that’s redundant — that it is, in fact, a moral question.” Here is Meacham, on Real Time with Bill Maher, reacting to the news that former Attorney General William Barr (a Trump critic) will vote for his former boss: JON MEACHAM: What Barr is doing, and what so many — I sometimes think of them as the Peter Millar Republicans, right, these are Republicans who are not full MAGA people, they’re men’s grill types who don’t want Democrats picking judges or setting tax rates. They talked themselves into this twice. In ’16 and in ’20. And then came December and January of 2020 and 2021, and, at that point, I believe, and I say this with care, that it is become evident, to me, anyway, that there is a patriotic duty to support President Biden against Donald Trump for this reason: Patriotism is allegiance to an idea. It’s not just an allegiance to your own kind. That’s nationalism. Trump is a nationalist. President Biden is a patriot, and I’m lucky in that I don’t have particular policy passions, particular issues. I want the constitutional order to continue to unfold, and President Biden is devoted to that constitutional order. Donald Trump is self-evidently not. And I would say to my Republican friends — and I live in Tennessee, so that’s redundant — that it is, in fact, a moral question…. To me, the interesting thing about the Republican Party is if you are, in fact, going to put partisanship as your central organizing principle, if reflexive partisanship is the most important thing — I would argue that you need to go back and read George Washington’s farewell address. You need to read the founders that otherwise, you know, they love. You know, they love the founders when they can move it around to agree with them. It’s very clear that if party spirit became the organizing principle, that, that was going to be fatal to the Constitution, and it’s very interesting when Barr said it’s “suicide.” The idea that President Biden is leading us to national suicide. I’m not sure what he’s talking about, but Lincoln used that image in his first major speech in the 1830s. He said if we ever fall, it’s not going to be from a foreign foe: It’s going to be from someone internally rising up and mastering those passions. And those passions about partisanship, that’s what’s ruining us. Brent Baker, the vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “Could Meacham be any more condescending and elitist? So much for the pretense of being a journalist and not a partisan activist. His take: I’ve decided which candidate is bad for America, so if you vote for that one, you are not only not a patriot, but you will bring about the destruction of the nation. And he wonders why his neighbors in Tennessee don’t appreciate him for denouncing them as on ‘the wrong side’ of ‘a moral question.’ I bet they have a lot more respect for his views than he does for theirs.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 15: No Liberal Media Scream this week.   ■ April 8: Liberal Media Scream: Joy Reid wants prison, not airport, named for Trump (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream revealed again just how easy it is to make cable TV hosts suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” go nuts. With Congress on Easter break, there wasn’t much Capitol Hill news last week. So when a report was posted about a GOP proposal to rename Dulles International Airport after former President Donald Trump, MSBNC turned all its guns on the idea. On the ReidOut, host Joy Reid said it was bad enough that the “worst” airport in America is named after Eisenhower-era Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. “Let’s make it worse” by naming it for Trump, she said. Instead, she suggested that Trump’s name be put on a Miami prison, a reference to the legal cases he faces, one in Florida. She and her guests, including Ali Velshi and Fordham University professor Christina Greer, piled on. Greer even bashed Washington’s national airport being renamed after former President Ronald Reagan. Reid said, “Yeah, I just call it ‘DCA.'” From Friday’s The ReidOut on MSNBC: JOY REID: Let’s talk a little about this idea of renaming Dulles. Now, Dulles is not the best airport — it might be the worst airport in America. The Republicans are like, “Let’s name it after Donald Trump.” I love the fact that it’s named after one of the most diabolical secretaries of state who destroyed Iran and a bunch of Central America. ALI VELSHI: But let’s make that worse. REID: Let’s make it worse. Also, the Democrats have said, “Instead, let’s name a prison after Trump.” Thoughts? Thoughts? Thoughts? Name a prison in Miami? VELSHI: That is a fantastic idea. … REID: I think this is a great opportunity for the nerds at the table just to talk about Allen Dulles and also his brother — it was John Foster Dulles, I think, and Allen Dulles, and both of them were involved in destroying Guatemala and Iran. VELSHI: Yeah. REID: So I feel like that’s important, and that’s given me the opportunity, so, thank you, Republicans. CHRISTINA GREER: Well, I mean, we’ve — they’ve already renamed National, Reagan, which I refuse to call it. REID: Yeah, I just call it “DCA.“ Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explained our weekly pick: “Glad something about Trump made them laugh, a brief break from the usual full hour of irrational anger at any mention of anything Trump. Naturally, Reid couldn’t hide how her contempt for Republicans goes way beyond just Trump. It’s a disdain so deep she’s still mad about Ronald Reagan getting an airport named for him and the foreign policy of a president who left office more than 60 years ago.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ April 1: Liberal Media Scream: Top editor joins CNN host in ripping MAGA with their ‘truth’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream is a rare but deserved five-screamer in which the editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer joins with a CNN host to condemn former President Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. Appearing on CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt, editor Chris Quinn explained why he wrote a weekend letter to readers about the paper’s anti-Trump coverage. He said, “These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you.” Quinn added, “This was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing.” Hunt said, “You said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, ‘Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.’ And just before that you write, ‘This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.'” “And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen.” From today’s CNN This Morning with Kasie Hunt: KASIE HUNT: How to cover former President Donald Trump is — quite literally — one of the hardest, thorniest questions facing us as journalists. It is something that I think about quite literally every single day when I wake up to join all of you. And it is especially true in the wake of Jan. 6, which affected me both personally and professionally in addition to, of course, having enormous implications for our democracy. This is why this all stood out to me. The Cleveland Plain Dealer decided they wanted to address this with their readers head-on over the weekend. The editor, Chris Quinn, writes this: “The north star here is truth. We tell the truth, even when it offends some of the people who pay us for information. The truth is that Donald Trump undermined faith in our elections in his false bid to retain the presidency. He sparked an insurrection intended to overthrow our government and keep himself in power. No president in our history has done worse.” And joining me now is Chris Quinn. He is the editor of the Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com. Chris, thank you so much for being here. It’s an honor to have you. CHRIS QUINN: Good morning. HUNT: So I loved how you approached this because you started with your readers — with the people who write to you about this. Many of them, of course, are supporters of Donald Trump. And you write some of them are more thoughtful than others, shall I say. But this is something that I have wrestled with because there are so many people in the country who support Donald Trump and many of them have reasons for doing that that have to do with the circumstances that they face. We don’t want to lose empathy for those people. We don’t want to not speak to those people. To be, you know, advocates and helpful in terms of providing those people with information. But you sat down and you grappled with this question, and you tried to explain why you’re doing what you’re doing in the way that you’re doing it. Can you explain a little bit more of that to all of us right now? QUINN: Yeah. This was a very challenging piece to write. It actually took me almost six months to get my thoughts together. I get two kinds of correspondence from Trump supporters and one is not nice. It’s very condescending and sneering. And I kind of chalk that up to people who had felt left out of society. Donald Trump gave them a club to participate in. And there’s nothing I can say or do to help them understand what we’re doing. But the other half write me with great courtesy and implore me for an explanation. They say, “You are dismissing a large segment of the country when you say that Donald Trump is the monster you describe him as and I don’t see him that way. What do you say to me?” These are people that watch Fox News or Newsmax and they believe it because they — it appears credible. Then they come to our platforms and see the opposite and they’re conflicted because they like us. They read us for the sports coverage or the local news, or what have you. So this was for them. I had to, I owed them some sort of an explanation. And the reason it was so difficult is I don’t want to demean them. I don’t want to criticize them. But I can’t stray from the truth. The truth is this guy is a monster. He’s the worst president in history and many people understand that. Those who get their news from not credible sources believe what they’re hearing. HUNT: Yeah. I will just say I think that the decline in our local media is a crisis for many, many reasons, but not least is that you, as a local paper, have a level of trust with people in your communities that is simply not possible to establish when you are a national news organization. And I think that really comes through in this piece that you wrote. And you said — another piece of this to your point of what the truth is, you said, “Trust your eyes. Trump, on Jan. 6, launched the most serious threat to our system of government since the Civil War. You know that. You saw it.” And just before that you write, “This is not subjective. We all saw it. Plenty of leaders today try to convince the masses we did not see what we saw but our eyes don’t deceive us.” And I think that this is the piece of it that gets me because I was there on that day and I looked out the window and I saw these people trying to attack the Capitol. And then, now, half of these political leaders are trying to say no, actually, that thing that you saw with your own eyes did not happen. Was it that that really was the thing that underscored this the most to you as well? QUINN: Yeah. And look, it’s heartbreaking what you’re seeing today. I come from a state where we’ve had senators like George Voinovich and John Glenn — people who would never have stood by during these recent years and allowed what’s happened to happen. And today, we have J.D. Vance and we might have Bernie Moreno, whose claim to fame is they want to be puppets for Donald Trump. And it’s not what we should be about. And that’s why I referenced that New Yorker piece in what I wrote because the New Yorker had a book review that looked back and said the reason Hitler came to the fore wasn’t because a bunch of people went and voted to have a fascist leader. It was because the people in government, in trying to get power for themselves, appeased him and that allowed him to rise. That’s what we have going on. Everybody knows what the truth is. The people in Congress were there. They were under threat from it. But for expedience, they’re denying it happened. HUNT: Do you think that those people who are looking to enable Donald Trump, as you say, what is the — their level of culpability here? I mean, obviously, you talk about Trump, himself, and his, the actions that he takes and his role in trying to hang on to power. But these enablers, I mean, what responsibility do they bear? QUINN: I think they have full responsibility. I think journalists who veer from the truth are going to end up having full responsibility. Look, we’re a regional newsroom and we’re doing well. We’re actually one of the local newsrooms that’s kind of figured it out and we’re thriving and we’re not in any danger of going away. But we have our limited influence. And so, we’re doing what we can. We’re, you know, we ask ourselves what’s the right thing to do here? The right thing to do is to call this out, not to say there’s two sides to Donald Trump. There aren’t two sides to Donald Trump. Anybody who has been watching and trying to discern what the truth is here knows that this guy tried to destroy our entire system of government and will do so again. Somebody has to say it. I wish people like Dave Joyce, a congressman from Ohio who’s a good guy, would stand up and just denounce it. Because if you started to have a few people of good conscience do that, maybe we could stop this wave, which is frightening beyond belief. HUNT: Well, I’m very grateful that you took the time to join us today, Chris, and I do commend reading this column. I will again say this is something I think about literally every single day because we do want to be a resource, a place for people who want to support Donald Trump or who feel dissatisfied with the system in their own lives. I just had to make sure that those ears are continuing to be open to us is a challenge that I grapple with every day. And I really appreciated reading this. Brent Baker, vice president of research and publications for the Media Research Center, explains our weekly pick: “With his smug moral superiority, Quinn encapsulates everything that’s wrong with modern journalism. He’s decided what ‘the truth’ is and his readers better get on board. No wonder fewer and fewer are buying local newspapers. They’ve become just as insulting to their readers as the national media have been for decades. Incredulous that anyone could see Trump as a better president than Biden.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE SCREAMS.   ■ March 25: Liberal Media Scream: Condescending ‘Really?’ to Rubio’s wish to be Trump VP (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream reveals just how deep the disrespect for former President Donald Trump goes in the press, especially with those who have created a profitable side gig writing and talking about him. In just one word, ABC’s Jonathan Karl heaved up a sanctimonious putdown of Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) when the topic of the likely 2024 GOP presidential nominee’s pick for running mate was raised. Rubio has said he would be honored to get the nod, as have about a dozen other leading Republicans. What’s more, Rubio would likely help Trump add to his coalition to create a potentially winning ticket. But all Karl had to say was, “Really?” It didn’t end there. As Rubio explained the problems President Joe Biden dumped on America, Karl couldn’t help but complain, “You’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden?” Rubio affirmed, “Absolutely I am.” Here’s the exchange on Sunday’s This Week on ABC: JON KARL: There was some reporting this week that you are possibly under consideration to be Donald Trump’s running mate. I don’t put a lot of stock in this reporting right now. We’re early. But you said it would be “an honor” to be offered a spot on his ticket. Really? SEN. MARCO RUBIO: Yeah, I think anyone who is offered the opportunity to serve this country as vice president should be honored by the opportunity to do it if you are in public service. I’m in the Senate because I want to serve the country. Being vice president is an important way to serve the country. But I’ve also been clear. I’ve never talked to Donald Trump. I’ve never talked to anybody on his team or family or inner circle about vice president. That’s a decision he’s going to make. He has plenty of really good people to pick from. KARL: I mean, the reason why I asked is, I mean, look what happened to the last guy. I mean, a mob stormed the Capitol, literally calling to hang Mike Pence, and Trump defended those chants of “hang Mike Pence.” RUBIO: I will tell you this, that when Donald Trump was president of the United States, this country was safer. It was more prosperous. We had relations, for example, in a part of the world that I care about called the Western Hemisphere that were very strong. We had a lot of good things done there. I think the country and the world was a better place when he was president, and I would love to see him return to the White House in comparison to the guy who’s there now, Joe Biden, who’s been a disaster economically. Look at the world. Every single day, we wake up to a new crisis, to a new conflict. Everything has gone on fire since the time Joe Biden took over. Afghanistan’s gone down. Ukraine has been invaded. Now the Philippines and the Chinese are on the verge of something bad happening every single day. Not to mention the threats to Taiwan. And we have this blowup in Haiti going on in our very own hemisphere. We wake up every single day, terrorist attacks, 9 million people across the border. That’s what matters to me. KARL: But, I mean, you’re not suggesting that’s all happening because of Biden? RUBIO: Absolutely I am. Absolutely I’m suggesting it’s happening because of Biden. He’s president and his weakness and his — KARL: It’s because of Biden that Russia invaded Ukraine? RUBIO: Absolutely. KARL: It’s because of Biden that Haiti? RUBIO: Absolutely. I mean Putin is sitting there, saying these guys can’t even stand up to the Taliban and they have to fly peop

Former President Donald Trump has had quite the year, and it just keeps getting crazier. The latest shock occurred at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania — which ended abruptly due to an assassination attempt. Though blood streamed down his face after a bullet grazed his ear, Trump made a point to swiftly rise to his feet and pump a defiant fist in the air while yelling “fight, fight, fight!” What was initially horrifying turned into the former president reassuring the crowd and the nation that this cowardly act would not deter him from his mission to lead America once again. Trump then made it to the Republican National Convention on Monday — despite literally being the victim of an assassination attempt not two days ago — where he announced that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) will be his vice presidential pick. While those who support him are shaken, they’re not shocked that something like this happened. “It’s shocking, but it’s not,” Keith Malinak of “Pat Gray Unleashed” comments to Pat Gray and Jeffy, adding, “You want to talk about violent rhetoric, you want to talk about people calling for the death of Donald Trump — we’ve got the evidence.” Gray is in agreement, noting that “there’s no responsibility or accountability on their part.” “If the shoe was on the other foot, that’s all they would be saying is that we’re responsible, we did this, we provoked it, but they will bear no responsibility or accountability for any of it,” he adds. “Anything they say or do is perfectly fine,” he continues. “Call him Hitler, say he should be killed, all of those things.” Want more from Pat Gray?To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The leftist claim to moral authority drew its last breath on Saturday night.As the country continues to process the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, the left loses the moral high ground from which it condemned Trump’s rhetoric. The image of President Trump’s blood-stained face with fist raised in defiance following the assassination attempt will be a historic image for generations to come.The progressive left has been an insurgent force in culture for decades and now dominates the realms of journalism, education, and law. But this power will not hold.After years of straining to connect Trump to the events of January 6, 2021, it will be impossible to convince the public that leftist rhetoric played no role in Saturday’s assassination attempt. Following the shots fired in Butler, Pennsylvania, the Democratic Party lost its argument alleging a commitment to “people over politics.”Cries of compassion ring hollowFor decades, those on the left have sold the public on an image of progressive politics and philosophy rooted in love and compassion. This has been juxtaposed against the supposed bigotry, hatred, and intolerance of their opposition.This messaging increased with the rise of Donald Trump, a man the left targeted as the epitome of hatred. In one of the most memorable tweets of the 2020 election cycle, Jill Biden tweeted “decency is on the ballot” as a succinct, pithy way of contrasting the character of the two candidates.Since the 2020 election, however, leftist rhetoric and discourse surrounding Trump has become increasingly unhinged. He has been the subject of endless, ill-conceived critiques portraying the 45th president as a wannabe dictator. Such libel has been a staple in media profiles from the New York Times to the Washington Post. Tenuous, often out-of-context connections between Trump and the Nazi Party have become so normalized that they no longer raise an eyebrow.Crying wolf will have consequencesHypocrisy has a way of killing power. The left is about to meet the consequences of its actions.The progressive left has been an insurgent force in culture for decades and now dominates the realms of journalism, education, and law. But this power will not hold. The homogeneous echo chambers, thoroughly controlled by various forms of left-wing thought, already appeared increasingly absurd in a world where politicized criminal charges are brought against the Democratic Party’s only serious political threat.The fact that the spiral of leftist hatred has culminated in an attempt on Trump’s life shatters whatever illusion of “decency” remained attached to the Democratic Party’s public brand. No one aside from the most zealous partisan can pretend as if the progressive left lives in a world where love is its highest value.Constant apocalyptic predictions and hysterical accusations of bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and misogyny come at a price. And today, the left’s bill came due. Gone are the days of calling for compassion over hatred. The hypocrisy can no longer hold.Neither angels nor demonsAs we collectively process the violence of the weekend, now, more than ever, it is essential to begin to understand hatred as a phenomenon from which no political party or philosophy is immune. The left is not a beacon of tolerance. Claiming compassion or love for the downtrodden means little if this belief is not paired with consistent behavior.For the sake of our country, Americans must demand the left live up to its ethic of compassion. The consequences of giving a free pass to progressives as “well-intentioned” are now abundantly clear.Hate knows no political party. It is high time we began to live out this truth. Our republic can rise above the ugliness of our historic moment, but only if we are able to view one another as neither angels nor demons but rather human beings.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is reportedly considering not endorsing President Joe Biden in a shocking development that would prove devastating to the Biden campaign. Reuters said the report was confirmed by two sources familiar with the matter. The union represents 1.2 million members and endorsed Biden in 2022, but questions about the president's mental and cognitive abilities have put into doubt an endorsement that in recent years would have been a lock for Democrats. Officially, a spokesperson for the union said only that no decision had been made yet. "No final decision has been made," said Kara Deniz. Cracks in the political relationship between the union and the Biden campaign appeared when the union president agreed to speak at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In January, Trump met with union leaders and tried to dissuade them from endorsing Biden. “Usually a Republican wouldn’t get that endorsement,” said Trump at the time. “But in my case it’s different because I’ve employed thousands of Teamsters and I thought we should come over and pay our respects.”The union has also donated $45,000 to each of the two parties for the first time in 24 years. Also on Monday, the union's president, Sean O’Brian, praised the news that former President Donald Trump had picked Ohio Sen. J. D. Vance (R) as his candidate for vice president. "For the short time we've worked together, he's been great on Teamster issues," said O'Brien on Fox News. "He's been right there on all our issues."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

James Woods Disappointed George Takei Won't Buy Into 'Unity' Talk

WATCH: Joe Biden Tries to Defend His ‘Bullseye’ Comment to Lester Holt: 'I Didn't Say Crosshairs’

Keith Olbermann Wants Judge Aileen Cannon Arrested, Even If They Have to Make Up the Charge

‘I’m Scared for Journalists’: Jen Psaki Schoolmarms Republicans About Rhetoric After Trump Shooting