As NewsBusters previously reported back in September, Judge William Scott Henry ordered CNN to comply with financial discovery in the $1 billion defamation suit against them and turn over documents related to net worth and cash flow, among others. The order was further supported in October when he cleared the way for CNN’s parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) to be subpoenaed for corroborating documents. But despite CNN’s promises to the court that those documents would be turned over, nothing of the sort has been provided; with CNN and WBD saying they don’t exist. In a Friday filings exclusively obtained by NewsBusters, U.S. Navy veteran and Plaintiff Zachary Young has now accused CNN of knowingly misleading the court on the existence of the documents and the ability to comply. And what he’s now asking for could take a chunk out of Warner Bros. Discovery. In a hearing in September, Judge Henry seemed under the impression that WBD would have access to a detailed breakdown of CNN’s finances. “So, I mean, if CNN did internal modeling or predictions and set that within the umbrella for Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers happens to have a copy of it. I think Warner Brothers can produce it,” he said. In the October hearing, Judge Henry told CNN what their corporate representatives should be prepared to hand over and talk about in deposition: The Corporative Representative shall be prepared to answer questions relating to CNN, Inc.’s relationship to any parent or subsidiary company and how those relationships impact the financial resources of CNN, Inc. and CNN Worldwide. But, the Corporate Representative is not otherwise required to answer questions relating to the financial resources of any parent or subsidiary of CNN, Inc. to the extent it does not concern monetary streams into or out of CNN, Inc. or CNN Worldwide within the corporate structure. And yet, according to the filing exclusively obtained by NewsBusters, the documents one would expect to contain CNN’s own financial information don’t exist. As explained by Young’s lead counsel Vel Freedman (Freedman Normand Friedland LLP) in the filing, CNN “did not have cash flow statements or balance sheets” because WBD “is a conglomerate that operates CNN and its other business segments like some kind of subsidiary slush fund, thus ensuring that CNN has virtually no control over or visibility in the cash generated by its business.” “WBD apparently manages all aspects of CNN’s cash flows,” Freedman adds. Perhaps shockingly, “It collects virtually all of CNN’s cash directly and immediately commingles it with cash generated by WBD’s other subsidiary business segments.” But according to WBD’s answers to the subpoena: “WBD does not maintain cash flow statements reflecting CNN, INC. or CNN Worldwide’s cash flows…nor does WBD have the ability to run a report of obtain complete and accurate information or data in order to create such a cash flows.” WBD provided a similar answer to a request for balance sheets.   Video from September 5 hearing.   The filing further notes that in the deposition, “Plaintiffs learned that CNN never intended to produce documents showing assets and liabilities (because they don’t exist)” as the way WBD conducts business. That’s despite CNN’s lawyers promising “at least 10 times” in the September hearing “that documents sufficient to show assets and liabilities were being provided” for the deposition. “Not only did CNN and WBD fail to provide any of this promised documents identifying assets and liabilities, but CNN’s representative also failed to supply an information about the net worth number CNN provided (but disclaimed) in its interrogatory response,” Freedman added. Because of this, Young and his team were accusing CNN of misleading the court and wanted action taken against taken against them for the “discovery abuses.” First, Young was requesting that in substitution of CNN’s own finances, “The Court should enter an order requiring WBD’s financial statements be used to determine CNN’s ability to pay, or, at a minimum, giving the jury the option to rely on them.” This comes into play heavily with the punitive damages Judge Henry had already approved of as an option if a jury found CNN liable. In the September hearing, Judge Henry explained why a jury would need to know financial network and financial resources of a defendant when issuing determinations for punitive damages, which are meant to deter future allegedly defamatory behavior: All right. So, with those guiding principles, nowhere in here does it say ‘the defendant’s net worth.’ The only thing that financial talks about are: motivation by unreasonable financial gain and the financial resources of the defendant. Resources, not financial net worth of the defendant. The financial resources of the defendant. And then, as I indicated, the note referenced two cases the deal with punitive damages being awarded in other cases. So, that is what the jury is instructed on to make a determination as to the proper amount of punitive damages. With WBD’s finances being used as the metric to determine a punitive damages figure, it could far exceed previous estimates. Young also wanted the court to “bar CNN from putting forward any evidence or argument about its net worth, either as a consequence of its own testimony or alternatively as a sanction,” and or “enter an adverse inference sanction against CNN.” With the start of the trial less than a month away, this latest development in the case could cost CNN and WBD big time.

Thursday’s PBS News Hour welcomed back Brad Onishi (host of the podcast "Straight White American Jesus") to warn once again about scary Christian conservatism, this time encapsulated in Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, interviewed by the show’s most biased reporter, Laura Barron-Lopez. Onishi compared Hegseth to mass shooters and to white nationalists eager for a "holy war." Onishi smeared Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson as a Christian supremacist on the show back in February (also a Barron-Lopez interview) and PBS invited him back to do a similar hit job on Hegseth. Anchor Geoff Bennett set Hegseth up for the double battering. Geoff Bennett: Hegseth has faced allegations of sexual misconduct, excessive drinking, and financial mismanagement, which he denies. Laura Barron-Lopez is here now to discuss something else that's drawn scrutiny, the influence of Hegseth's religious beliefs. Laura Barron-Lopez: ….In his 2020 book, he wrote: "We don't want to fight, but like our fellow Christians 1,000 years ago, we must. Our American crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns yet." What does this kind of language, along with Hegseth's writings and other comments, tell you about his beliefs? Brad Onishi, Co-Host, "Straight White American Jesus": Hegseth puts himself in the category of an American crusader, drawing inspiration from the Crusades in the medieval period. But many Christians don't see the crusades as a high point in the Christian tradition. What we do know is that those who don the Crusader identity, those who use its symbology and its stories as inspiration, are often part of white nationalist and Christian nationalist movements and, in tragic cases, have waged holy war themselves. Anders Breivik referenced the Knights Templar in his act of terrorism. The Christchurch shooter emblazoned Crusader symbology on his weapons. So the use of these symbols from any Christians is alarming…. PBS paints itself as an oasis of civil discourse -- as its expert compares Hegseth to mass murderers Anders Breivik (77 dead) and Brenton Tarrant in Christchurch (51 dead). Onishi is the extremist here. The interviewer is pleased with all this. Barron-Lopez: Let's talk about some of those symbols. A lot of attention has been paid to Hegseth's tattoos, a Deus Vult one that has been adopted by white supremacists, a Jerusalem cross tattoo. And those were flagged by a fellow National Guardsman, which then led to Hegseth being pulled from protecting President Biden's inauguration in 2021. Tell us about those tattoos and what they symbolize. Onishi: Those tattoos are, again, symbols that are used by white Christian nationalists. Those who have adopted these Crusader images really see themselves as at war with those trying to take down American Christianity and Western civilization at large. That means members of the LGBTQ community. That means trans people…. Guilt by association rolled down like water. Even the “defense” portion of Barron-Lopez’s interview was an open-ended setup for Onishi to refute. Barron-Lopez: President-elect Trump's transition team did not respond to requests for comment about Hegseth and his beliefs, but Hegseth and others have said that those tattoos are ones that a number of veterans have. They have also argued that his Christian beliefs are not extremist. How do you respond to that? Onishi: What I would say is that the evidence shows us that those who don those tattoos are prone to take part in extremist communities... Barron-Lopez said Hegseth has "railed against diversity in the military, probably including  Hegseth’s supposed opposition to women in the military (false). Onishi went back to the "holy war" talk once more: Barron-Lopez: ….if Hegseth is ultimately confirmed to lead the Pentagon, he's railed against diversity in the military. But, taken all together, what do you think it means if he ultimately is atop the Department of Defense? Onishi: ….one thing we need to get straight is, our Armed Services are one of the most diverse institutions we have in the country. And so to rail against diversity is to enter a context in which we have one of the most diverse services our nation has to offer….Hegseth represents a U.S. military envisioned as a vehicle for holy war. He's claimed to be a Christian Crusader, and that seems to be the kind of mentality he wants to implement as a leader. I think, additionally, Hegseth is your pick if you want to radicalize our military. Hegseth has said in his writings that he believes there are enemies within our own country, those who are trying to destroy the country from within our borders. If you want to be the kind of president who uses the Insurrection Act, to call in the military against uprisings in American cities, to use military force against protesters, Hegseth is the man for the job. And he will do so believing that he's not waging some kind of brutal criminal act, but instead a holy war against the infidels within America's city gates. This segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 12/12/24 7:32:06 p.m. (ET) Geoff Bennett: President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, continued to press his case on Capitol Hill today, meeting with his first Democratic senator, Pennsylvania's John Fetterman. Geoff Bennett: Hegseth has faced allegations of sexual misconduct, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement, which he denies. Laura Barron-Lopez is here now to discuss something else that's drawn scrutiny, the influence of Hegseth's religious beliefs Laura Barron-Lopez: Pete Hegseth has said faith became real for him around 2018, years after his service in Iraq and Afghanistan. He went on to write a number of books and has made frequent appearances on conservative podcasts and shows, in which he discusses his Christian ideology. Those writings, comments, and even Hegseth's tattoos have gotten increased attention in the weeks since Trump's announcement. For more on what's known about Hegseth's beliefs and how they may influence his leadership at the Pentagon, we're joined by Brad Onishi, who studies religious extremism and co-hosts the podcast "Straight White American Jesus." Brad, thank you so much for joining the "News Hour." Let's start with what Hegseth has said explicitly. In his 2020 book, he wrote: "We don't want to fight, but like our fellow Christians 1,000 years ago, we must. Our American crusade is not about literal swords, and our fight is not with guns yet." What does this kind of language, along with Hegseth's writings and other comments, tell you about his beliefs? Brad Onishi, Co-Host, "Straight White American Jesus": Well, Hegseth puts himself in the category of an American crusader, drawing inspiration from the Crusades in the medieval period. But many Christians don't see the crusades as a high point in the Christian tradition. What we do know is that those who don the crusader identity, those who use its symbology and its stories as inspiration, are often part of white nationalist and Christian nationalist movements and, in tragic cases, have waged holy war themselves. Anders Breivik referenced the Knights Templar in his act of terrorism. The Christchurch shooter emblazoned Crusader symbology on his weapons. So the use of these symbols from any Christians is alarming, and yet these are the ones that Hegseth has chosen as his understanding of where Christians stand today. Laura Barron-Lopez: Let's talk about some of those symbols. A lot of attention has been paid to Hegseth's tattoos, a Deus Vult one that has been adopted by white supremacists, a Jerusalem cross tattoo. And those were flagged by a fellow National Guardsman, which then led to Hegseth being pulled from protecting President Biden's inauguration in 2021. Tell us about those tattoos and what they symbolize. Brad Onishi: Well, those tattoos are, again, symbols that are used by white Christian nationalists. Those who have adopted these Crusader images really see themselves as at war with those trying to take down American Christianity and Western civilization at large. That means members of the LGBTQ community. That means trans people. That means those who don't see themselves as part of a Christian society. There's a temptation, I think, to write off Hegseth's tattoos as just an expression of his faith or to say they're no big deal. But we just talked about him as donning in a Crusader identity. And as somebody who's a former minister, somebody who has been studying Christianity for two decades now as a scholar, I can tell you there are thousands of symbols and sayings and icons that Christian people use to express their spirituality on their bodies and their homes and in public. There are expressions of faith and peace, of love and forgiveness, but those are clearly not the ones Hegseth has chosen. Laura Barron-Lopez: President-elect Trump's transition team did not respond to requests for comment about Hegseth and his beliefs, but Hegseth and others have said that those tattoos are ones that a number of veterans have. They have also argued that his Christian beliefs are not extremist. How do you respond to that? Brad Onishi: Well, what I would say is that the evidence shows us that those who don those tattoos are prone to take part in extremist communities. It can be hard to pin intentionality on people, but when somebody says that they think we should fight like we're in a modern-day Crusade and then they Don the symbols of that Crusade, I think we should take them seriously. Laura Barron-Lopez: I also want to ask you about the specific church that Hegseth has attended in Tennessee. It's part of a denomination founded by Doug Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho. What beliefs does that denomination promote and why are they significant? Brad Onishi: Doug Wilson is a firebrand pastor and theologian. He is somebody who reaches millions of people through his podcast, through his writings, through the schools that he's founded and the denomination of which Pete Hegseth's church is a part. Wilson is known for radical beliefs about gender. He doesn't believe that women should have any authority in the home or in society, much less the church. He has said that the time of enslavement in this country was the time of harmony between the races. If you don't share the same hymn book as Wilson, then you can't be mayor. If you're a Hindu or Muslim, you simply can't hold any kind of authority in our public square. Hegseth not only attends a church that is part of Wilson's denomination, but he's claimed Wilson as a kind of spiritual mentor. So, if we have Wilson saying that non-Christians shouldn't hold positions of leadership, and Hegseth claiming him as a spiritual mentor, it makes me wonder that, if Hegseth is secretary of defense, can the non-Christian, the Muslim, the Hindu, the agnostic or the atheist in our armed services rise the ranks to positions of authority? Can they be captain? Can they be sergeant? How will they be understood in the context of service under Hegseth's leadership? Laura Barron-Lopez: On that big picture, if Hegseth is ultimately confirmed to lead the Pentagon, he's railed against diversity in the military. But, taken all together, what do you think it means if he ultimately is atop the Department of Defense Brad Onishi: I think it means a lot. I think that one thing we need to get straight is, our Armed Services are one of the most diverse institutions we have in the country. And so to rail against diversity is to enter a context in which we have one of the most diverse services our nation has to offer. But I think, additionally, Hegseth is symbolic. Hegseth represents a U.S. military envisioned as a vehicle for holy war. He's claimed to be a Christian Crusader, and that seems to be the kind of mentality he wants to implement as a leader. I think, additionally, Hegseth is your pick if you want to radicalize our military. Hegseth has said in his writings that he believes there are enemies within our own country, those who are trying to destroy the country from within our borders. If you want to be the kind of president who uses the Insurrection Act, to call in the military against uprisings in American cities, to use military force against protesters, Hegseth is the man for the job. And he will do so believing that he's not waging some kind of brutal criminal act, but instead a holy war against the infidels within America's city gates. Laura Barron-Lopez: Brad Onishi, thank you for your time. Brad Onishi: Thank you.

The people who watch CNN know why they are watching CNN. They hate Donald Trump, and they love to hear him compared to Hitler, or perhaps murderous dinosaurs. On Thursday's The Lead, host Jake Tapper fed the CNN base by bringing up a recent "progressive" Trump insult, comparing his second term to the velociraptors in Jurassic Park figuring out how to terrify the humans.  New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman was discussing how Trump is coming into a second term after all the lessons learned in his first, he's gained a better understanding of how Washington works. "He did come in last time, actually, with a policy agenda that he wanted to enact, and he got totally stymied by, you know, someone in his own administration and flummoxed by the various investigations into him. He’s not facing any of that right now. So it’ll be interesting to see what it looks like." Then came the dino-bite, or as Jesse Watters put it on Fox, "Trumposaurus Rex":  Giggles! Jake Tapper enjoys the metaphor that Trump is coming back to a second term like the velociraptors in "Jurassic Park" learning how to wreak havoc. From the people who think you shouldn't compare MS-13 gangsters to animals.... pic.twitter.com/mOmpvwlC4Q — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) December 14, 2024 TAPPER: Well, the question then becomes, does this knowledge that he has, does that mean that he will be more Reaganesque in his delivery? Or is it like the velociraptor who tests — tests the door in Jurassic Park and then is now figuring out how he can more successfully wreak havoc? HABERMAN: Right. Several people who have worked for him over the years have used the Jurassic Park analogy, so I think that seems. TAPPER: [Laughs] Yes. I didn’t make it up. HABERMAN: Right. It seems like. Well, I’m just saying, if you have to pick which one you think it’s going to be. I don’t think it’s going to be Reaganesque delivery. I think he is going to say things like, "I’ll be fair to you, as long as you’re fair to me, which we have heard him and his version of fairness is not necessarily everybody else’s. TAPPER: That means no criticism at all. HABERMAN: Right. It means — it means doing what he wants or saying what he wants and not opposing him. It's a little puzzling how refusing to speak optimistically or idealistically like Ronald Reagan somehow makes you a vicious dinosaur. In his day, Reagan was painted as the dangerous dinosaur. Liberal journalists routinely smear whoever the Republican president is -- even the George Bushes. 

The cast of Friday’s PBS News Hour was displeased with FBI Director Christopher Wray for resigning before Donald Trump could fire him because “he allowed Donald Trump to shatter yet another norm without imposing any cost.” Throughout the entire discussion, there was no thought given to the idea that there is something about the FBI that needs fixing. Host Amna Nawaz was among those not happy with Wray. After playing a clip of his speech where he claimed resigning was the best thing for the bureau, Nawaz asked New York Times columnist David Brooks, “David, how does leaving early in a 10-year term to avoid the incoming president firing you, how does that keep the bureau out of the political fray?” Brooks replied, “Beats me. Somebody said he had — Wray had no good options and he happened to choose the wrong one, the worst of all the options.”     Brooks continued, “And so people have worked hard over decades to make the FBI reasonably nonpolitical. And that's important, because the FBI is this tremendously powerful organization, which is easily abused, as we saw in the era of J. Edgar Hoover. And so that we have these 10-year terms.” Other equivalent law enforcement and intelligence positions in the government are political appointees that come and go with the president, but Brooks never explained what makes the FBI so special that it deserves an exemption. Still, Brooks claimed Wray should have stayed, “And the idea is that an FBI director does not turn over with the president, because we are building safeguards to depoliticize the agency. And if Donald Trump wants to ruin that, then he should aggressively have to fire Wray, and we should have that fight. And to basically open the door to what Donald Trump wants to do seems to me not the right way to keep our institutions normal.” Nawaz then turned to pinch hitter for Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, and recalled, “Veteran reporter Jim Fallows, who writes a Substack on journalism and democracy, had this to say. He wrote, ‘Eventually, Trump would have found a way to fire Wray. OK. Wray should have made him do so rather than removing himself.’ He said, ‘Wray has done great damage with his decision and deserves to be scorned.’” She then read part of Marcus’s column back to her, ‘“Protecting the bureau and protecting the country would be better achieved by standing up to Trump, not enabling him.’ It seems like you agree with what David is saying.” Marcus claimed that “I 100 percent agree with David,” adding, “This is, should be, and has been an apolitical job. No one was fired, except for one person who was scorned by the Bush administration and then fired by the Clinton administration after an extensive finding of wrongdoing that might now look minor in comparison to some of the things that we have seen, until Donald Trump came along. Now he has done it twice, but he hasn't had — but Wray capitulated in advance.” She further condemned him for having “obeyed in advance. And he allowed Donald Trump to shatter yet another norm without imposing any cost on him. And that's separate and apart from the caliber of the person that Donald Trump wants to replace him with. He could want to replace him with Bob — bring Bob Mueller back, and I think both of us would have the same attitude, which is this is not an ordinary political appointment, and it should not be transformed into one. But here we are.” A useful addendum to this segment would have been the 11-page letter incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley sent Wray endorsing Trump’s decision to remove him. That letter detailed everything from several examples of political bias, “mishandling of sexual harassment claims,” including double standards in punishing offenders, and withholding requested information from Congress. Here is a transcript for the December 13 show: PBS News Hour 12/13/2024 7:36 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: David, how does leaving early in a 10-year term to avoid the incoming president firing you, how does that keep the bureau out of the political fray? DAVID BROOKS: Beats me. Somebody said he had — Wray had no good options and he happened to choose the wrong one, the worst of all the options. And so people have worked hard over decades to make the FBI reasonably nonpolitical. And that's important, because the FBI is this tremendously powerful organization, which is easily abused, as we saw in the era of J. Edgar Hoover. And so that we have these 10-year terms. And the idea is that an FBI director does not turn over with the president, because we are building safeguards to depoliticize the agency. And if Donald Trump wants to ruin that, then he should aggressively have to fire Wray, and we should have that fight. And to basically open the door to what Donald Trump wants to do seems to me not the right way to keep our institutions normal. NAWAZ: Ruth, as you probably saw, veteran reporter Jim Fallows, who writes a Substack on journalism and democracy, had this to say. He wrote, "Eventually, Trump would have found a way to fire Wray. OK. Wray should have made him do so rather than removing himself." He said, "Wray has done great damage with his decision and deserves to be scorned." In your column, you wrote this: "Protecting the bureau and protecting the country would be better achieved by standing up to Trump, not enabling him." It seems like you agree with what David is saying. RUTH MARCUS: I 100 percent agree with David on this one. This is, should be, and has been an apolitical job. No one was fired, except for one person who was scorned by the Bush administration and then fired by the Clinton administration after an extensive finding of wrongdoing that might now look minor in comparison to some of the things that we have seen, until Donald Trump came along. Now he has done it twice, but he hasn't had — but Wray capitulated in advance. He obeyed in advance. And he allowed Donald Trump to shatter yet another norm without imposing any cost on him. And that's separate and apart from the caliber of the person that Donald Trump wants to replace him with. He could want to replace him with Bob — bring Bob Mueller back, and I think both of us would have the same attitude, which is this is not an ordinary political appointment ,and it should not be transformed into one. But here we are.

By her own admission, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle was making a bad analogy on Friday’s edition of The 11th Hour when she tried to compare the reaction to the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson to the reaction to Daniel Penny’s acquittal of manslaughter after he subdued a threat to fellow New York City subway riders. However, Ruhle still tried to make the analogy work as she wondered, “How concerned should we be” about Americans who “are celebrating violence?” Ruhle began, “We saw Daniel Penny, his acquittal, and at the same time in a very, very, very different situation, but Luigi Mangione, the man who's now accused of the murder of the United Healthcare CEO. Two very different situations, but in both situations there's a person dead, and reactions that we are seeing are hugely celebratory in some circles, right?”     Yes, one is celebrating a cold-blooded assassination while the other is celebrating that a partisan D.A.’s attempt to criminalize defending others failed. If Ruhle wanted to discuss why people on the left can’t see these differences, that would have been worthwhile, but instead she attacked Vice President-elect JD Vance’s decision to take “Daniel Penny to the Army-Navy football game tomorrow.” With no sense of irony or self-reflection, Ruhle continued, “What we've seen in the last few years, right, we see the media divide us, we see that, you know, sex sells, but anger and hate sells even more. How concerned should we be, though, that the American people, groups of the American people, are celebrating violence? Like, ‘Violence, that's the solution, that's what everyone should be doing these days.’ How concerned are you that this is where we are in this celebratory moment?” Actor and musician Stevie Van Zandt replied, “Very concerned. And of course our hearts go out to the family, the Neely family. Nobody should die in these situations. But I hope it starts to emphasize the trouble we’re having with the mental health, ignoring the mental health problems, not only in our city, but which is considerable, but in our country.” If MSNBC can’t appreciate the difference between self-defense and assassinations, then it needs to listen to Ruhle’s own advice and dial down the anger. Here is a transcript for the December 13 show: MSNBC The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 12/13/2024 11:13 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: We saw Daniel Penny, his acquittal, and at the same time in a very, very, very different situation, but Luigi Mangione, the man who's now accused of the murder of the United Healthcare CEO. Two very different situations, but in both situations there's a person dead, and reactions that we are seeing are hugely celebratory in some circles, right?  JD Vance is taking Daniel Penny to the Army-Navy football game tomorrow and what we've seen in the last few years, right, we see the media divide us, we see that, you know, sex sells, but anger and hate sells even more. How concerned should we be, though, that the American people, groups of the American people, are celebrating violence?  Like “violence, that's the solution, that's what everyone should be doing these days.” How concerned are you that this is where we are in this celebratory moment? STEVIE VAN ZANDT: Very concerned. And of course our hearts go out to the family, the Neely family. Nobody should die in these situations. But I hope it starts to emphasize the trouble we’re having with the mental health, ignoring the mental health problems, not only in our city, but which is considerable, but in our country.

Hunter Biden is a gift late-night comedians refuse to open. The bedraggled First Son’s life could fuel endless monologues. Consider the accusations lobbed against him in recent years: Addiction Sex trafficking Tax evasion Funneling millions to “The Big Guy” Heck, he even allegedly peddled poop paintings to balance his wobbly budget. What more could late-night satirists want? Had the 50-something Biden had an “R” next to his name Colbert and co. would spend countless hours mocking him. Instead, they mostly ignore him … except when they’re excusing his pappy’s pardon that covered far more than the crimes he’s accused of committing.   Stephen Colbert and his audience celebrate Joe Biden pardoning Hunter Biden. “One family opened their gifts a little early this year, because yesterday Joe Biden gave a full pardon to his son, Hunter. You go, Joe.” “I don't know if it was the right thing to do but you certainly… pic.twitter.com/jJBBNInqO0 — End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) December 3, 2024   Enter New Media. Comedian Remy uncorked a funny song parody tied to President Joe Biden’s ill-received pardon for his troubled son. Sung to the tune of Sheryl Crow’s “Soak Up the Son,” “Pardon My Son” blends quirky laughs with real elements of the Hunter Biden saga.     This isn’t the only case of new media platforms doing the job “Saturday Night Live” and friends won’t. Comedian Kyle Dunnigan has been torching Hunter Biden for some time. The comic is neither conservative nor liberal, but he uses his video perch to mock the powerful and poke fun at both parties.     Michael Loftus and the folks at “That Show Tonight” also have satirical fun at Hunter Biden’s expense.     It’s why late-night institutions no longer hold sway over the American public – even The Hollywood Reporter is mocking their hard-Left propaganda. Corporate media outlets like CNN and MSNBC are struggling to survive amidst cratering ratings. The former can’t find much funny to say about the First Son. The latter have done all they could to ignore and downplay the allegations against him. Remember how NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story initially? It’s hard to forget. New media platforms happily tell the jokes and break the stories, that their mainstream peers won’t.  

Well isn’t this interesting. A headline this week:  The Victim Involved in the Infamous Duke Lacrosse Players Sexual Assault Case Admits She Lied For those who came in late, back there in the Stone Age of 2006, three Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper, a stripper who happened to be black. Her name: Crystal Magnum. The players denied the allegations.  And then. And then the media went out of the way to believe the players were lying. Not to mention going ballistic when the three young men were acquitted. Eight years later, Vanity Fair profiled the story, writing this:  “When three Duke University lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape, in 2006, the media descended on Durham, North Carolina, quickly turning the case into a story of race and privilege.” Today, over here at the university’s communications site, is a considerable “Archive of Sample Media Coverage.”  The sample includes such headlines as these: The Washington Post via the Associated Press: “Prosecutor Expresses Confidence in Duke Case.”  The New York Times: “Indulging Athletes Isn't Class Matter.” The Times made a point of playing up the twin devils of race and class, writing:  If financial means is the common denominator for those who refuse to surmount the unholy team code of silence and can still count on unfailing support from clueless community officials and university administrators who ignore early behavioral warning signs, to what do we attribute the long list of athletic department lockdowns that have typically followed the sexual assaults that are as endemic to the big-time college sports machine as the recruiting rat race? The New York Times: Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details but No Answers  By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. On and on went media stories, making the case a kind of national obsession. Another story, this one in the Washington Post, noted: “President Obama this year formed a task force that aims to prevent sexual assault on campus.” And now? This week comes this story appearing on Fox News: Crystal Mangum confesses to lying about being raped by Duke lacrosse players in 2006 The story reports:  “Former stripper and current murder convict Crystal Mangum confessed to lying about being raped by Duke Lacrosse players in an interview on the independent media outlet "Let's Talk With Kat" on Thursday. 'I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn't and that was wrong, and I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me,' Mangum said. '[I] made up a story that wasn't true because I wanted validation from people and not from God.' Mangum, who is serving a prison sentence for murdering her boyfriend, falsely accused three Duke players of raping her while she was performing at a team party in March 2006. The players she accused were arrested, igniting a national controversy and conversations about racism.” In other words?  In other words the massive media coverage of the case, coverage that set up the theme of rich, arrogant white guys raping a poor black woman was all a massive untruth. The jury believed the boys - who told the truth. But the boys were subjected to massive negative media coverage. Why?  It’s hard to escape the idea that the real privilege in all of this coverage was coming from left-wing “journalists” who deliberately ignored the truth coming from the Duke players because it ran up against the left-wing stereotypes of race and class that the journos apply to all of their coverage of issues involving race and class. Now, 18 years later, the alleged “victim” of the rape by the Duke lacrosse guys comes forth to confess that she, in fact, made up the entire story, from start to finish. Her reason for making the rape story up?  “[I] made up a story that wasn't true because I wanted validation from people and not from God.”  Sad to say, in a disturbing fashion, in the day she was given that “validation from people” - those people being the liberal media of the day that wanted to insist on validating her because of their own biases on issues of race and class. You can’t make it up. Unless, of course, you are the liberal media.

As first reported by Fox News Digital, ABC News and President-elect Donald Trump reached a $15 million settlement on Saturday after This Week host George Stephanopoulos falsely accused Trump of being found "liable for rape" in the E. Jean Carroll case.  The incident in question occurred on March 10 when Stephanopoulos was interviewing GOP Rep. Nancy Mace and asked, “You’ve endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?”     After Mace, a rape survivor herself, accused Stephanopoulos of trying to rape shame her, Stephanopoulos doubled down, “Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape by a jury. It's been affirmed by a judge.” Now, ABC will have to donate $15 million to the future Trump Presidential Library and add an editor’s note to the March 10 article that reads, “ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Rep. Nancy Mace on ABC’s This Week on March 10, 2024.” The move comes as Trump and Stephanopoulos were ordered to sit down for four-hour depositions next week.

Having antipathy towards Donald Trump seems to be almost  a job requirement at Politico. However, even among the TDS crowd their senior staff writer Ankush Khardori seems to be an extreme standout. As has already been revealed at NewsBusters, Khardori absolutely despises Trump to the extent that last July, he urged that  the J6 trial be dramatically sped up in order to convict him before election day.  Therefore you have to wonder what is going on in the eyes of Politico management that Khardori was allowed to make the case against choosing Patel as the next FBI director? They have a blind eye that prevents them from seeing that extreme hatred openly for Trump is not a good look for an organization that at least pretends to be even handed.  In any event, Khardori has white hot hatred for Trump so expansive as to include Patel as we can see on Saturday in "You Should Worry About Kash Patel Running the FBI." A few samples of Khardori's Patel Derangement Syndrome: Trump’s decision to nominate Patel has proven particularly controversial, since his principal qualification appears to be his sycophancy toward Trump. ...Patel calls to mind the specter of J. Edgar Hoover, the infamous FBI director whose nearly 50-year stint running the agency until 1972 was marked by egregious abuses of power — including illegal surveillance, blackmail and the harassment of political dissidents. Psst! Ankush, I hate to break it to you but it was revealed on Friday that the FBI spied on Patel by surveilling his phone and email records back in 2017 when he led the House Intelligence Committee investigation of the FBI relying on Hillary Clinton's false opposition research that resulted in the Trump-Russian collusion hoax. Not exactly great timing for hinting that Patel would abuse his power as FBI Director. On paper, there is no way to justify Patel’s ascension. He spent a few years as a federal prosecutor focused on national security and was an aide in Congress and the first Trump administration on intelligence and national security issues. Khardori conveniently skips Patel's key role in writing the Nunes memo which exposed the FBI abuse of the FISA court system, such as lying in order to spy on Carter Page. No wonder the FBI (and Khardori) want to keep him from becoming its Director. ...the legal and bureaucratic dynamics surrounding the FBI’s work are very different today than they were during the Hoover era, and there are limits to what the FBI can do on its own without drawing serious scrutiny. Such as lying on FISA warrants, which Patel helped expose? The Trump haters never see how ironic it is for them to evoke "the fear that Patel would use the FBI to go after Trump’s political opponents." As if the Comey-McCabe FBI didn't go after their political opponents. To read Khardori's screed against Patel you have to be convinced that the FBI is innocent of all the many abuses that have already come to light in large part due to work of Kash Patel as well as multiple whistleblowers. It would be refreshing to have an FBI Director that can provide answers for many of the highly questionable questionable FBI activities of the past few years. No wonder they want to characterize exposing abusive behavior as an abuse of power.

Democrats got drubbed in November for their liberal positions on issues like immigration and transgender.  So naturally, you'd want to promote as one of the party's most prominent voices someone from... the far left of the party? Someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, leading light of the hard-left Squad? That might not make sense to you. But you're not MSNBC. The Saturday edition of The Weekend devoted a segment to the Dems' intraparty squabble over House committee positions, and in particular to AOC's attempt to supplant Gerry Connolly as the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. The co-hosts and guests all expressed support for AOC. Former Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro: "I think it's inevitable, though, after an election where you had voters send a strong message, that Democrats need to adjust their message. And they need, I think, more of a fighting spirit, and a focus like I think AOC and others have had. So I'm hopeful that you're going to see some turnover here." Going further left seems like a recipe for more Democrat pain at the polls, but this is MSNBC. For that matter, you might say that Castro sees AOC not just as a model leader, but as a Modelo one, praising her "fighting spirit." Boston Globe opinion writer Kimberly Atkins Stohr agreed: [AOC's] a very, very smart person. And so I think her leadership, particularly on a committee like Oversight, which honestly has sort of lost some of its power, I think, recently and doesn't have quite the push that it used to, but it's so important in a Trump administration especially to have someone smart and fiery at the helm to do what is necessary to push back at overreach from the incoming administration. So I think she would do a great job, with absolutely no disrespect to Congressman Connolly.  Co-host Michael Steele elicited gasps from the panel and pushback from Castro, when he said that unless Dems get their act together, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won't become Speaker until he's as old as Nancy Pelosi! Two of the hosts took unsubtle shots at Pelosi. Steele sardonically noted that Pelosi's support for Connolly came from "behind the scenes—yet again." That was presumably a snide reference to her clandestine efforts to force Joe Biden to walk the plank. And the ever-animated Symone Sanders-Townsend, speaking of Pelosi, said: "I don't like to speak ill of folks while they're sick . . . But she's not here for this generational shift." Which brings to mind an aphorism I read earlier this week: "Everything before the word 'but' is horses---.” Note: Earlier, the panel attacked several Trump nominees as unqualified. Speaking of qualifications, Symone might have hurt her chances of being named Secretary of State in a future Democrat administration after she described Nancy Pelosi as having been hospitalized in "Luxembourg, Germany."  Autsch! Here's the transcript. MSNBC The Weekend 12/14/24 8:16 am ET MICHAEL STEELE: A new generation of House democrats wants to hold the line against incoming Trump administration. But change in Washington, folks, yeah it just doesn't come without a fight. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Congressman Gerry connolly are battling it out to serve as the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee. It's a very important committee. Politico reports that both are projecting confidence about their chances. AOC has the backing of the Progressive Caucus, while former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly behind the scenes—yet again—to boost Connolly. A vote is expected next week. . . .  JULIAN CASTRO: The Democratic Caucus, basically people are able to sit there for a long time. And so I think it's inevitable, though, after an election where you had voters send a strong message, that Democrats need to adjust their message.  And they need, I think, more of a fighting spirit, and a focus like I think AOC and others have had. So I'm hopeful that you're going to see some turnover here. As much respect as I have for Congressman Connolly and others, I think it's time in many of these instances to see that turnover.  . . .  KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR: [AOC's] a very, very smart person. And so I think her leadership, particularly on a committee like Oversight, which honestly has sort of lost some of its power, I think, recently and doesn't have quite the push that it used to, but it's so important in a Trump administration especially to have someone smart and fiery at the helm to do what is necessary to push back at overreach from the incoming administration. So I think she would do a great job, with absolutely no disrespect to Congressman Connolly.  . . .  STEELE: Julian, all of that is very good, but the brutal reality is that Hakeem Jeffries will be as old as Nancy Pelosi is before he becomes Speaker if they don't get their act together.  SYMONE SANDERS: I was like, what?  STEELE: That's just the truth of it, right?  CASTRO: Hakeem Jeffries will be the Speaker well before he's 80 years old! SANDERS: Michael trying to put that bad juju on the Democratic leader.  STEELE: I'm just trying to acknowledge that the juju exists!  . . .  SANDERS: Speaker Emerita Pelosi is not supportive of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I don't like to speak ill of folks while they're sick. She was hospitalized, Speaker Pelosi was, during her congressional visit to Luxembourg, Germany this year. But her staff says, earlier this week, her staff says she's working from the hospital.  But you know, two things can be true. I'm glad she's all right. But also, she's not here for this generational shift.