MS NOW's Deadline: White House, or the Nicolle Wallace show, is where Democrats go to hear other Democrats throw rhetorical bombs at the Republicans. No one is any good in the GOP. On Thursday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) greeted Attorney General Pam Bondi's dismissal with a“good riddance”—then dismissed every potential replacement, all while being encouraged by host Alicia Menendez. Lofgren didn’t limit herself to criticism of Bondi’s tenure: LOFGREN: Good riddance to Pam Bondi. But good luck to us for who might come next. She then turned her disdain on possible successors. Menendez named some rumored replacements -- "Lee Zeldin, Jeannine Pirro, Alina Habba" -- and asked if any of these people were “actually confirmable” or someone Republicans could “get behind,” Lofgren rejected them wholesale: LOFGREN: None. None. Not those names . . . These people are jokes. Lofgren went on to deride multiple figures as “an embarrassment,” claim another “got thrown out of court,” and suggest others were unfit for the role. Menendez added the name of Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah): "It was posited to me that his Republican colleagues just want him out of the Senate so badly that they saw an opening." Even then, Lofgren said Lee was someone she had worked with and could “talk to”—she remained dismissive: LOFGREN: No. I don’t think he would be a good AG. Rather than push back, Menendez repeatedly steered the conversation toward further criticism—first by inviting Lofgren to assess confirmability, then by introducing additional names only to have them dismissed. Dem on MS NOW: 'Good Riddance' To Pam Bondi pic.twitter.com/R1v4SgKJqP — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) April 2, 2026 Menendez went further still, raising the prospect of professional consequences and asking what “accountability” should look like for Bondi. Lofgren responded by suggesting Bondi’s conduct could raise questions about her ethics, floating the possibility she could be disbarred. Later, Menendez pressed Lofgren to elaborate on the “damage” Bondi had allegedly done to the Department of Justice, framing her tenure as harmful even apart from specific outcomes, citing "the time, the money, the pain, the damage to our democratic institutions." As usual, Democrats on either side of these interviews pretend that the Justice Department under Biden or Obama was so pristinely apolitical. The result was not simply criticism, but a sustained, host-enabled pile-on—beginning with “good riddance” and extending to blanket condemnation of any potential successor. The liberal media recently expressed outrage over Donald Trump’s rough remarks on the passing of Robert Mueller. On Deadline: White House, however, a Democratic lawmaker’s “good riddance” drew no pushback—and was instead followed by prompts to escalate the criticism. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Deadline White House 4/2/26 4:24 pm EDT ZOE LOFGREN: It's hard to know with this president what's motivating him. She completely embarrassed herself. But it could be that she's failed to convict people, without any cause, people who are his enemies.  Certainly, the Epstein files have not been handled well. People across the country now believe that there may be a reason why President Trump is trying to hide the files, when before people were giving him the benefit of the doubt.  So this has been a bad situation for her and for the president, but I don't assume that her replacement will be something we'll cheer.  I understand Todd Blanche is going to be filling in. He's the guy who went down and coddled Ghislaine Maxwell, who's serving time for child abuse, moved her to a country club prison after the interview.  So good riddance to Pam Bondi. But good luck to us for who might come next.  ALICIA MENENDEZ: Well, let's talk about some of the other names that are circulating. You referenced Todd Blanche. We've also heard from our colleagues Lee Zeldin, Alina Habba, Janine Pirro. The question, of course, who on that list is actually confirmable? Is there someone here Republicans can get behind? LOFGREN: None. None. Not those names. I mean, Zeldin is violating the law constantly in his current position. He's been called out on it by myself and others in the Science Committee. Pirro has been -- You can indict a ham sandwich, but not Trump's political enemies. She's been a failure and an embarrassment. Habba got thrown out of court.  I mean, these people are jokes. I mean, they cannot be confirmed, I would imagine.  MENENDEZ: Okay, let me throw one more name into the mix, because there's reporting today that some senators are trying to pitch Donald Trump on replacing Bondi with Senator Mike Lee. It was posited to me that his Republican colleagues just want him out of the Senate so badly that they saw an opening and thought they could -- LOFGREN: That could be. MENENDEZ: --  potentially position him. Do you think Mike Lee would make a good AG?  LOFGREN: No. I mean, I've worked with Mike, actually, on some FISA reforms. So, you know, he's not somebody I can't talk to. But I don't think he would be a good AG.  And I imagine that some of his fellow Republican senators might want to get rid of him. Whether he would take that deal, turn in a Senate seat where he probably could serve for the foreseeable future for a job that, you know, he could get fired in a few months by Trump. He's so volatile. So would he even take it? I wouldn't if I were him. MENENDEZ:  I'm, I'm stuck on something that my colleague Michael Feinberg, who served as a special agent at the FBI, said in our previous block, which was, here you have a president who is frustrated that Pam Bondi has not succeeded sufficiently, in his view in bending the DoJ to his whims and to his will. Michael Feinberg's argument was that she didn't just bend it, she broke the institution that once was the Department of Justice.  In your mind, what does accountability look like for Pam Mondi, even as she returns to being a private citizen?  LOFGREN: Well, she has to come to Congress. She's been subpoenaed, and the fact that she's been fired doesn't excuse her from complying with that subpoena. She has information that the Congress needs to get about the Epstein files. Whether she will escape bar association accountability, it's hard to say.  A number of Trump defenders who are lawyers lost their bar licenses. I don't know if there's anything going on in that regard relative to her, but certainly some of her conduct as AG might lead to questions about her ethics and her ability to adequately serve as an officer of the court.  MENENDEZ: I'm just so struck that if you read the reporting, it seems as though the president's biggest critique or frustration was her inability to prosecute his perceived enemies.  But from your vantage point, how much damage did she actually do? Even if she didn't succeed, if there wasn't a home run, simply the time, the money, the pain, the damage to our democratic institutions that has been inflicted. How are you going to look back on her tenure?  LOFGREN: That was the point, I think, to try and harm people who the president doesn't like and who he considers his enemies, whether or not -- they hadn't committed crimes, any of them, which is why the effort to indict them failed miserably.  Obviously, if you are a defendant in a matter, it costs money, it's aggravating. I think in some cases, you know, it may end up helping people.  They're now going after my colleague, Eric Swalwell, who is running for governor of California. And I think, you know, since they've singled him out as the biggest enemy of Trump, that probably helps Eric in California. People are wondering who among the Democrats they should vote for. And I've heard a lot of people say, well, if Trump is against him that much, he must be our guy.  MENENDEZ: It's a truly remarkable day in a truly remarkable moment in American history. And Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, I am so grateful to you for making time today to be with us.   

The Washington Post thought it was a "national" story about what the Left calls "book bans." Reporter Daniel Wu began:  The top librarian in Rutherford County, Tennessee, was fired this week for refusing to move over 130 books with LGBTQ+ themes to the system’s adult section, capping months of tumult that made the suburban county the latest frontline in a national debate over access to books about queer and transgender people. The county board near Nashville voted 8-3 to fire library director Luanne James in a spirited meeting Monday in which supporters and detractors of James spoke on her stance to applause and jeers. “All I’m going to say is that I stand by my decision,” James said at the board meeting before her firing. “I will not change my mind.” Much of the audience at the board meeting broke into cheers and applause after her statement. Chants of “shame” were heard as board members voted to fire James. That refusal made James a "hero" to the Bluesky Brigade, and they're all raising funds to throw at her for her "courage."  Even that move of books to the adults section is conditional -- children can still access books in the adults section with parental approval. So if you're a liberal parent with a gender-bending child, the access remains. Wu was very generic about the content: The books flagged by the library board included children’s comics with transgender characters and books about trans activists, according to a list obtained by The Washington Post. Books were also flagged for containing “partially unclothed” people, “female empowerment discussions,” “social-justice concepts” and a “gay couple” among other topics, according to the list. Leif LeMahieu at the Daily Wire provided what Wu and the Post would not -- specifics on what books were moved. Books the board directed moved to the adult section included “The Gender Wheel,” “Who Are You? The Kids Guide to Gender Identity,” and “When Aidan Became A Brother” — a picture book about a gender-confused girl who started identifying as a boy. “Librarians should not be used as a filter for political agendas," James said. This can be a comical claim, since librarians are the ones who serve as the political and cultural filters for which books are placed on the shelves, and which books are excluded. So are "transphobic" books made available, like Abigail Shrier's Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters? Liberal reporters don't ask. They presume such "harmful" material is left out. Conservative opinion was barely included in this story. It was limited to little bites:  One commenter supporting the library board called James “evil” and said reclassifying the books was needed to “protect children.” Predictably, the left wasn't identified by ideology, and their lobbies are just "free expression advocates." Kasey Meehan, the Freedom to Read director at free-expression advocacy group PEN America, said James “really stood very principled for intellectual freedom, for ensuring young people have the right to see themselves, for ensuring access to LGBT+ books.” “[It’s] truly emblematic of both how censorship battles are showing up across the country in public schools and public libraries,” she added. “And also how people are risking jobs and their own financial security to hold the line.” The "Democracy Dies in Darkness" newspaper doesn't really want to feature a debate on so-called "book bans" when someone wants to criticize content selections at publicly funded libraries, any more than you can protest "Drag Queen Story Hours" they host.

During Wednesday’s Katy Tur Reports, the eponymous MS NOW host Katy Tur and her panel defended Europe amid President Trump’s attacks due to their lack of assistance in the Iran war. They instead wanted Trump to attack Gulf allies, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, for not helping enough, even though they have pledged to do that exact thing, even though they do not have the same robust military power of some European countries. The discussion about the war in Iran got to the question of what will happen to the Strait of Hormuz. Tur posed a question about how the closure of Hormuz had and would affect our relationship with the Gulf countries and Israel. Rick Stengel, MS NOW political analyst and former Under Secretary of State for Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Obama Administration, had the first complaints of Trump’s words toward Europe and wanted them shifted to the Gulf: What's interesting and kind of frustrating about Trump attacking our allies for not being courageous enough to help open the strait is, what about our gulf allies who stand to actually benefit, to benefit or be hurt from this? They're the true free riders in the sense that they're not involved in helping keep the strait open. UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, they are right there. And they -   On Tuesday, MS NOW host Katy Tur and her panel defended Europe amid Presidents Trump’s attacks due to their lack of assistance in the Iran war. They instead wanted Trump to attack Gulf allies, like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, for not helping enough. pic.twitter.com/VRsdXlON9H — Nick (@nspin310) April 2, 2026   Stengel would be surprised to know that Middle Eastern countries, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia, have reportedly pushed for more operations in Iran. Even the UAE reportedly pledged to assist in opening straits. Their efforts had been stymied by the fact that their militaries were essentially glorified palace guards. Tur followed up and Stengel decided to bring up the old Qatar airplane story: TUR: So, you're saying he should be leaning on them more to participate? STENGEL: 100 percent. 100 percent. TUR: Why do you think he’s not?” STENGEL: I don't know because Qatar gave him an airplane. I don't really know why. I mean, I don't know why he's so resolute about attacking our allies, where we have so much in common. And not asking people who depend on us in the Middle East, who, who we give money to, who we do business with to help keep the strait open. It could also be as simple as the many in the Gulf have pledged to help open the strait, something that Stengel, the paid political analyst, and maybe even Tur seem not to know. Ashley Parker of The Atlantic implied Trump only likes the Middle East countries because they “have proven themselves far more willing to transact with him in sort of more crude brass tacks ways like, as Rick mentioned, the airplane from Qatar.” Max Boot, whose wife was charged for being an unregistered foreign agent, connected the situation back to Putin, and said he’s giving Putin a pass due to his "bizarre affection” for him. Tur ended by echoing her panelists' points about business deals with the Gulf to “make him rich that he can’t do to the same degree from other western democracies,” while she accused him of having a “man crush” on Putin. Or it might just be that, as former Rep. Peter Meijer tweeted from a quote in a Politico article, NATO had clearly not tried much to help the U.S. in its military and defense ambitions, and in some cases hindered, something the European lovers at MS NOW want omitted. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Katy Tur Reports April 1, 2026 3:09:32 PM Eastern (...) KATY TUR: What would it do to our relationships, both in the region with UAE, Qatar, Israel even? And what would it also do to our relationship with our other allies who rely on the oil that comes out of that strait? RICK STENGEL: Yes. By the way, the Europeans used to buy most of their oil from Russia, but at our behest - we asked them to start boycotting Russian oil. They now buy most of their oil from us. We're the largest oil producer that goes to Europe.  What's interesting and kind of frustrating about Trump attacking our allies for not being courageous enough to help open the strait is, what about our gulf allies who stand to actually benefit, to benefit or be hurt from this? They're the true free riders in the sense that they're not involved in helping keep the strait open. UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, they are right there. And they -  TUR: So, you're saying he should be leaning on them more to participate? STENGEL: 100 percent. 100 percent. TUR: Why do you think he’s not? STENGEL: I don't know because Qatar gave him an airplane. I don't really know why. I mean, I don't know why he's so resolute about attacking our allies, where we have so much in common. And not asking people who depend on us in the Middle East, who, who we give money to, who we do business with to help keep the strait open. TUR: I think this is a good thing to linger on. Ashley, why is the president not harsher on Saudi Arabia, on Qatar, on the UAE, in the same way that he's so hard on France and the UK and all of our NATO allies? ASHLEY PARKER: It's a good question. I mean, I will say being harsh on NATO allies for President Trump in many ways is muscle memory. I can recall being on foreign trips with him showing up at NATO headquarters with true suspense of whether or not he was going to reaffirm Article Five or declare that he's withdrawing from the treaty.  He has long believed, even before he became president, that, as he would put it, America's getting ripped off, America is getting a bad deal. He views everything in transactional terms. I will say some of these countries in the Middle East have proven themselves far more willing to transact with him in sort of more crude brass tacks ways like, as Rick mentioned, the airplane from Qatar. TUR: Yeah. Max, you too on that. MAX BOOT: Yeah. No, it's baffling. And it's not just the fact that he's not calling on the gulf allies to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He's also not calling on our Asian allies, Japan and South Korea and others, which also rely on Persian gulf oil. And at the same time, he is giving Vladimir Putin a complete pass on the fact that Russia is reportedly providing drones and intelligence to Iran to help kill Americans.  Trump has not had one word to say about what Putin is doing, at the same time that he's excoriating our allies for not being helpful enough, Putin is going beyond being unhelpful. He's actively helping the other side, and Trump will not call him out. So, it's all baffling. And it really comes down to, you know, Trump's bizarre affection for Putin, which is one of the long standing -. TUR: The enduring questions. I wonder if it is just as simple as what Ashley and everybody has been laying out, you included. He thinks he can get money from Russia, he can get money from Saudi Arabia and get money from Qatar. He can get money from the UAE, he can do business deals with them that will make him richer that he can't do to the same degree from other western democracies.  Well, is that it? That he just believes that he's going to make money off of them? And that's why he's so nice to Vladimir Putin and is so obsequious and strange. Does he have a man crush? What is it? (...)

Two illegal aliens in Fairfax County, Virginia pleaded guilty to murder and could be back out on the street in three years, thanks to a sweetheart deal given them by a progressive prosecutor known for going easy of criminals who illegally enter the U.S. “The reason why the two men will be serving five years behind bars for murder is that Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano’s office offered them a generous plea deal. And both men took it,” WJLA’s Nick Minock reported Thursday: “Descano’s Office offered Maldin Anibal Guzman and Wis Alonso Sorto-Portillo a plea deal which included a 25-year sentence. But they will only be required to serve five of those years, including credit for time served. Meaning the men will be out in 2029.” The two, if convicted via a trial, could have been sentenced to as much as 40 years in prison. As the sanctuary state’s Commonwealth’s attorney, Descano has made national headlines by going soft on illegal alien criminals, such as in the case of the murder of Stephanie Minter, who was stabbed to death at a bus. Minter’s suspected killer, Abdul Jalloh, is an illegal alien with a long criminal history who was free at the time of the murder because Descano’s office ignored warnings from other law enforcement officials not to release him because he posed a danger to the community. “Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences,” Descano’s website vows. Descano’s website even declares it “a perversion of justice” if a criminal who’s an illegal alien is deported, but a criminal who’s a U.S. citizen gets to stay in the country: “If two people commit the same crime, but only one’s punishment includes deportation, that’s a perversion of justice and not a reflection of the values of Fairfax County.”  

The View has refused to have conservative activist Isabel Brown on the show after they smeared her earlier in the week for encouraging women to get married and have kids, but they still had her name in their mouths. On Wednesday’s episode of their Behind the Table podcast, Sara Haines said Brown, through "willful or ignorance," "misconstrued" The View's attacks on her. She went on to falsely claim Brown had no empathy for women who couldn't get pregnant or find a husband even if they really wanted to. Haines and executive producer Brian Teta jumped right into the controversy they stirred up at the top of the podcast by conceding a little ground to Brown on the fact that no parent was ever truly ready to have a child: HAINES: The main gist of her message was, you know, if you have - if you know people or you know, women your life or kids, you know, tell them to have babies, even - TETA: If they're not ready. HAINES: Even before they can afford them and even when they're not ready for them. I actually kind of understood what she was trying to say with the not ready for them. I don't think you're ever really ready for them. TETA: Correct. “But my issue was with the greater message,” Haines followed up. “I love babies. I love being married. I love all those things. But there is so much pressure in this world on women to define themselves by if they're married, and two, if they have babies.”   The View has refused to have @theisabelb on the show after they smeared her, but they still have her name in their mouths. On their Behind the Table podcast, Sara Haines says Isabel Brown through "willful or ignorance" "misconstrued" The View's attack on her. She went on to… pic.twitter.com/YvZMaOZOb4 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 3, 2026   Haines then proceeded to get a little ageist by knocking Brown for being Gen Z and then suggesting she had more empathy: “She's young. So I don't know. Mine comes from a place of empathy. My take comes from a place of empathy and life lived. I am older than her.” At one point, Haines echoed her argument on the show proper that had a tinge of eugenics in it: We ask women all the time about marriage and kids and that is seems to be all their worth. We're living on a planet that has over 8 billion people. There was a time where we needed people to procreate and make tons of babies. We have plenty of babies. Haines was apparently aware of Brown’s X posts reacting to The View’s attacks on her. But instead of inviting her on to have a two-sided discussion, they preferred Haines make a strawman out of Brown’s rebuttals. She proceeded to falsely suggest Brown’s position was that even if a woman tried to get married/have kids and couldn’t, they were a lesser being for it: HAINES: She was talking about it happening during Holy Week and how anti-Christian. And one, I won't do that to someone because if you're really faithful and spiritual, you know that that's not my place to judge her on that. So, I was surprised that she would. But, I definitely think she misconstrued in whether that was willful or ignorance. TETA: Right. HAINES: She's missing my whole point, which is I know too many women that, for whatever reason, aren't married, don't have kids, and they matter. And they should be involved in government and policies and not everything revolves around whether a woman has a partner and whether a woman has a child.   I’d like to thank the women of @TheView for showing their truest, darkest colors today: they’re literally shrieking like demons at the thought of encouraging young women to have children. PS - "stupidest" isn't a real word. pic.twitter.com/H7s3baQl95 — Isabel Brown (@theisabelb) March 30, 2026   “Sometimes it's a full blown choice and sometimes it's just the way life turned out. And I would never want to dim someone's light and life by saying they matter less because of that,” Haines declared before they hypocritically pivoted to talking about co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin’s new baby boy. The View refused to host Brown because they openly refuse to have a strong committed conservative woman on the program, especially after Meghan McCain left. On a previous episode of their podcast, they admitted they didn’t want to have anyone on the show who could generate viral clips embarrassing their cast. Further, their refusal to speak to Brown was hypocritical because, on yet another podcast episode, they defended their pickiness with inviting conservatives by saying they only wanted to talk to the people they discussed on the show.     In one of her recent podcast episodes reviewing the fall out of The View’s smears, Brown said she reached out to go on the show, but their producers said they were booked up for weeks. They lied to her. According to 1Iota, the website to formally request tickets to see The View, as of the publication of this piece, there were no guests booked for April 27 and four different days with only one guest booked (they have had upwards of 3-4 during a single show). When NewsBusters pointed this out to Teta on X, he untagged himself from the post.   Hey @Brianteta, you guys have no guests slated for April 27. How about you guys have Isabel on to defend herself? You said on your podcast you guys only want to talk with the conservative figures the cast talk about during the Hot Topics segment. Why not now? https://t.co/h5bXkiTEty pic.twitter.com/K5iDmMEiXM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 3, 2026   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Behind the Table April 1, 2026 00:18 BRIAN TETA: All right, let's dive right in with some hot topics. It's been an interesting week, I think. And on Monday, we had a conversation about something that happened at CPAC with a conservative influencer Isabel Brown. Not someone I was familiar with until seeing this video, but she had some kind of interesting things to say about motherhood in America in 2026. Tell me what you remember about this. SARA HAINES: The main gist of her message was, you know, if you have - if you know people or you know, women your life or kids, you know, tell them to have babies, even - TETA: If they're not ready. HAINES: Even before they can afford them and even when they're not ready for them. I actually kind of understood what she was trying to say with the not ready for them. I don't think you're ever really ready for them. TETA: Correct. HAINES: And I think she was also saying a lot of people say, I don't know if I can afford it. She was kind of making a catchy phrase, but my issue was with the greater message. I love babies. I love being married. I love all those things. But there is so much pressure in this world on women to define themselves by if they're married, and two, if they have babies. That is - and I would encourage - She's young. So I don't know. Mine comes from a place of empathy. My take comes from a place of empathy and life lived. I am older than her. TETA: Um hm. HAINES: Knowing so many women, having been single, like dating for years and not knowing if I was going to find my person to get married, they make it sound like this easy choice. Get married, have kids. There are so many amazing women I know that aren't meeting people. It's really hard to that you could get into the reasons why that's the case, but they're open to finding people and they're not. Having babies. Whole different can of worms. So many people I know, almost every person I know actually has struggled for some reason having babies, whether it was fertility. I'm friends with a lot of gay couples that have had to fight nontraditional, surrogates, all these things. We ask women all the time about marriage and kids and that is seems to be all their worth. We're living on a planet that has over 8 billion people. There was a time where we needed people to procreate and make tons of babies. We have plenty of babies. And if the point of feminism and women being equal was women having the choice, whether it was working in the home, or staying at home, or - And I don't even want to say staying at home because it's working in the home, working in the home, working out of the home, being married, not being married, having kids, not having kids. The beauty of progress and time is that we don't have to put that on people's shoulders. And yet I wouldn't change anything I've done. And what I'm saying is not to buck the trend, don't do it. It's more, you do what you can and what you want because you have a life beyond that. TETA: Well, it's not a surprising thing because this often happens, but conservative influencers like Isabel and others have kind of misconstrued what you guys were saying on the show. HAINES: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. TETA: What the point of it is. HAINES: I don't - I refuse to read it because right when I saw some of the headlines, I thought here we go again. You know. TETA: Yeah. HAINES: She was talking about it happening during Holy Week and how anti-Christian. And one, I won't do that to someone because if you're really faithful and spiritual, you know that that's not my place to judge her on that. So, I was surprised that she would. But, I definitely think she misconstrued in whether that was willful or ignorance. TETA: Right. HAINES: She's missing my whole point, which is I know too many women that, for whatever reason, aren't married, don't have kids, and they matter. And they should be involved in government and policies and not everything revolves around whether a woman has a partner and whether a woman has a child. And it's because I see those people and sometimes that's a painful place to be. Sometimes it's a full blown choice and sometimes it's just the way life turned out. And I would never want to dim someone's light and life by saying they matter less because of that. (…)