During Wednesday night’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, panelist Dan Koh, a former Biden staff member and current congressional candidate in Massachusetts, spent the show not answering direct questions and instead positioning himself for social media clips. So much so that Ruhle had to point it out at the end of the show. He also faced pushback from Republican panelist Marc Short about the national debt and congressional spending, something he should have known about as a wannabe representative. As the panel discussed Iran, Koh made his allotted panelist time of the segment with attacks on Vice President J.D. Vance’s previous comments about President Trump, along with more and more about Vance, even a quick sneak of a “couch” comment.   At the end of the 11th Hour on Wednesday, MS NOW's Stephanie Ruhle had enough of Dan Koh, now a candidate for U.S. House in Massachusetts, not answering her questions directly last night RUHLE: I just want to be clear, you don’t answer any of my questions. [Laughter] pic.twitter.com/Ee8pWwUxTZ — Nick (@nspin310) April 16, 2026   It was so off base that, just about seven minutes into the show, Ruhle had to tell him to focus on the actual important matters of the world: KOH: (...) Now, he's literally standing by while Trump is making genocidal statements about Iran, basically fulfilling what old JD prophesied. He said he'd support a classmate. He did support a classmate who was transitioning. Now he's calling gender transition surgery mutilation - RUHLE: Yes. But let's focus on Iran. Later in the show, Koh visited some talking points about cuts to the budgets, as he listed apparent cuts from things like housing and the National Science Foundation.  After his talking points, Ruhle, once again, had to try and redirect the conversation, but Short had a question for Koh, the wannabe congressman: SHORT: We’re $39 trillion in debt. Are there any programs people running for congress will actually cut? Koh tried to ask Short a question back, before Ruhle again directed him, “Hold on, answer his question.” The congressional candidate shifted to a return on investment of congressional funds, before Short and Koh got into some crosstalk as Koh attempted to interrupt.  Short kept on going and explained how cuts may be necessary: There's a lot of programs that sound good, Dan. Then there's a lot of programs you say, “hey, boy, it hurts to take that away from people,” but nobody's actually saying, what are we going to do to actually bring down the deficits? What are we going to actually control debt?   At the end of the 11th Hour on Wednesday, MS NOW's Stephanie Ruhle had enough of Dan Koh, now a candidate for U.S. House in Massachusetts, not answering her questions directly last night RUHLE: I just want to be clear, you don’t answer any of my questions. [Laughter] pic.twitter.com/Ee8pWwUxTZ — Nick (@nspin310) April 16, 2026   Finally, at the end of the show, Ruhle had enough of Koh. After she asked about possible reforms to primary elections, Koh talked about religion. She responded: You don’t answer - I just want to be clear, you don’t answer any of my questions. We're now in like the fourth block of the show. It doesn't matter what I ask you, you answer something else. How do we get you guys paying attention to this? Because I noticed it now, the whole show. Koh represented the modern Democrat: Talking only about how evil Trump and his allies were, with no sense of reality when it came to issues like the national debt.  The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle April 16, 2026 11:06:28 PM Eastern (...) DAN KOH: There's a political subtext here, which is how stupid JD Vance looks in all this. Let's play a little game here, which is old JD versus new JD, okay? Old JD claimed that Trump might be America's Hitler. Now, he's literally standing by while Trump is making genocidal statements about Iran, basically fulfilling what old JD prophesied. He said he'd support a classmate. He did support a classmate who was transitioning. Now he's calling gender transition surgery mutilation - RUHLE: Yes. But let's focus on Iran. KOH: But, but what I'm saying is, in this whole point, if we're looking at the subtext of what could happen in 2028, jd Vance is looking increasingly impotent, powerless to control Donald Trump. He continuously tries to reinvent himself, and he will once again, no matter how you couch it, he's going to find a way to try to reinvent himself. He's going to continue to look like an idiot in front of American people. And Trump is not helping him in that regard. (...) 11:12:21 PM Eastern RUHLE: Well, all right, I do want to share. One expert told The Wall Street Journal the war changed the regime, and not in a good way. We created a reality that is worse than what the Iranians were facing before the war. Whether regime, whether regime change was the goal or not, did it backfire? KOH: Look, I think there's a lot of concern here to the point of whether Republicans will stick with it. I think Republicans are pretty concerned about the fact that this president has the lowest approval rating in modern history, worse than Joe Biden's was at this time. And I think people need to save their own skin. At the end of the day, this is a president who, presumably, if he doesn't run for a third term, is going to be a lame duck. And at the end of the day, this is a town about power. So, I'm not convinced that Republicans are going to stick with them all the way through here. RUHLE: Here we are saying - MARC SHORT: It’s nice of you to be concerned about Republicans' prospects. [Laughter] (...) 11:24:52 PM Eastern RUHLE: And people will forget the tax relief if your life costs a whole lot more and there's no relief felt. KOH: If you want to talk about the disconnect, there's a huge disconnect with what trump is saying. I'm going to lower prices and make your life easier, foster innovation and what his budget is saying.  He proposed cutting $11 billion to the housing budget, including the block grants that fund things like domestic violence shelters for women. He's proposing cutting 70 percent of food assistance for breastfeeding mothers as well as children. And he's also proposing cutting 50 percent of the National Science Foundation budget, which fueled the creation of the internet and predicting the weather. He's literally enabling the very things that he claims that he's fighting against. And that's the crazy part about this. This disconnect could not be greater. RUHLE: Okay, here’s - yes -  SHORT: We’re $39 trillion in debt. Are there any programs people running for congress will actually cut? KOH: Do you - do you believe that the -  RUHLE: Hold on, answer his question. KOH: I believe that you have to have a return on your investment. And I don't think there is anything that people would doubt about the fact that our investment in the internet and predicting the weather to prevent disasters is a good use of our money.  Do you disagree? SHORT: Nobody is proposing anything that actually we're going to cut. We're 39 trillion dollars -  [CROSSTALK] KOH: 50 - 50 percent of - SHORT: - and we're growing more rapidly than ever before.  KOH: Do you agree with -  SHORT: There's a lot - everything - There's a lot of programs that sound good, Dan. Then there's a lot of programs you say, “hey, boy, it hurts to take that away from people,” but nobody's actually saying, what are we going to do to actually bring down the deficits? What are we going to actually control debt? [CROSSTALK: KOH: I think -  [CROSSTALK} SHORT: $39 trillion in debt. KOH: I think that's a load of crap. When he's giving the biggest tax cuts in the history of the United States to the richest people and allowing people to write off their private jets. RUHLE: All right. We're going to move on from this. (...) (...) 11:52:45 PM Eastern NAYYERA HAQ: And this is where I love mentioning the fact that the majority of American voters are not MAGA, they're not lefty. They are not part of any political party. They will not show up for a primary, but they'll show up for a general election. And this is the type of rhetoric when we speak so far to the extremes. No one is speaking to that vast majority of Americans who still have some kind of faith. RUHLE: Then is there a strategic plan among either either parties, I mentioned it kind of tongue in cheek before, but seriously, to get more people to vote in primaries because that's why we're here. KOH: Well, look, I think people see their religion as incredibly personal. RUHLE: You don’t answer - I just want to be clear, you don’t answer any of my questions. We're now in like the fourth block of the show. It doesn't matter what I ask you, you answer something else. How do we get you guys paying attention to this? Because I noticed it now, the whole show. [Laughter] KOH: How do we get people more involved in primaries? RUHLE: Like, I just feel like we keep coming to things and the answer is, how do we end up here? It's primaries and now you're just dead. Nobody shows up in the primaries. They're unhappy with how our government works. That's how you solve it boys and girls, show up every time. KOH: I was answering your question then - RUHLE: No he wasn’t (...)

The same "experts" who will support ripping pre-born babies limb by limb want you to know that it's unjust to boil shellfish, because they apparently deserve to be treated more humanely than actual humans.  The same people who support ripping babies limb by limb want you to know this… pic.twitter.com/8k4NZ1YRs3 — Justine Brooke Murray (@Justine_Brooke) April 16, 2026 According to a new study conducted by social justice oriented "scientists," lobsters actually feel pain! (Babies somehow don't?) That's why they demand an "immediate" ban on boiling them, while killing the pre-born is still fully legal in 25 states, plus Washington D.C.  

POLL: What was the worst media quote of the week? (Vote below)   Watch the takes presented by @Schineman

When then-Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) announced his candidacy for governor of California, I was beyond surprised. Rumors of sexual misconduct, including allegations of blatant and serial infidelity, had been circulating for years. Having run for this very office, I experienced firsthand the intense level of local, state and national scrutiny one receives when seeking the top job in the biggest state in the country. The left-wing media treats liberal Democrat candidates different from how it treats conservative Republican candidates, but the media are not the problem if one’s candidacy starts to resonate. The heat comes from the same-party campaign rivals. When I decided to run for governor of California, I sought the advice of several experienced strategists, politicians, pundits and some professors. They all said the same thing, only worded differently: “Is there anything in your background that would be a problem?” These questions, they advised, include but are not limited to: Skeletons in your closet? What about your friends, associates and family members? Taxes? Sexual harassment or misconduct or assaults? Any present or past behavior that could be deemed scandalous? Dating history, marriage or divorce? Outstanding warrants? Traffic tickets? Unpaid traffic tickets? DUIs? Automobile accidents you caused or were involved in? Arrests? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Unpaid bills? Credit card debt? Lawsuits filed by or lawsuits against you? Drug use and drug abuse? Alcoholism? Abuse of prescription drugs? Sketchy business dealings? Bankruptcy? Inappropriate internet activity, including porn sites, other illicit sites or sending “compromising pictures”? Social media posts that could come back to haunt you? 911 calls from your home? Your work history? To what church do you belong? Who is your pastor? Ever been fired? If so, why? Is your campaign biography accurate, with no exaggerations or embellishments? Do your neighbors like you? And, for good measure, I was advised to hire a private detective to investigate myself. My experienced campaign manager took me on only after I addressed all those questions — and others — and obtained a report from a well-regarded private investigator. My campaign manager cautioned, “If you are accused of picking your feet in Poughkeepsie — especially if you DID pick your feet in Poughkeepsie — it will come out.”      This brings us to Swalwell, who, according to a University of California, Berkeley poll conducted in March, was the leading Democrat in the primary. He was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, like Swalwell, served as a prosecutor in an impeachment trial against President Donald Trump. According to Reuters, “... a fifth woman came forward to accuse Swalwell of unwanted sexual contact, saying the Democratic lawmaker drugged and raped her during an encounter in 2018.” Swalwell first denied the accusations. He then dropped out of the race for governor, followed by his resignation from Congress. Former House Speaker and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) claimed she knew nothing about the rumors against Swalwell. But Willie Brown, once a mentor to former Vice President Kamala Harris and a former mayor of San Francisco, and who for 15 years served as speaker of the California Assembly, said: “No, I’m not surprised frankly because there have been rumors after rumors after rumors, his colleagues in Washington pretty much said that. That’s what Adam Schiff said, that’s what Nancy Pelosi said.” But Swalwell’s problems are just beginning. The sheriff of Los Angeles County has launched a criminal probe, as has the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits may follow. Then there are Swalwell’s financial issues. Despite a combined income with his wife of over $400,000, he is deeply in debt. He owes $100,000 in student loans, borrowed against his retirement account to help fund his campaign and deferred paying income taxes to conserve cash flow. This is not exactly a good look for someone vying to be the chief executive of a state with a budget deficit and massive unfunded pension liabilities. On top of everything, these scandals could cost the father of three children his marriage. After all, Swalwell set the standard. During the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Swalwell considered Kavanaugh unfit due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Swalwell tweeted: “Support survivors. Believe survivors. We are with you.” All of this raises a question. When Swalwell decided to run for governor, “What was he thinking?” Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

It has become the trademark of many in the liberal media to publicize any Democrat plot against the Trump administration, and it doesn't matter whether it passes legal muster. Tuesday on CNN's The Situation Room, what started out as a story that didn't look good for DHS and ICE, was wrecked when they turned to CNN legal analyst Elle Honig for how this would turn out for Democrats.  The story involves the wrongful arrest of a U.S. citizen in Minnesota back in January, and the intentions of state authorities to pursue criminal charges against the agents responsible for the mistake. Wolf Blitzer kicked off the segment by talking over a short clip of the arrest being made, and introducing CNN Law Enforcement Correspondent Whitney Wild. WILD: The County Attorney in Ramsey County, John Choi, says that they are investigating this as criminal actions by these federal immigration agents who went into the home of a man named Scott Thao, and they say it was without a warrant, without any legal justification. And they're describing it as these agents breaking into the home, arresting Tao, taking him away from his home.... Again, it bears repeating that Thao is a U.S. Citizen. She then played a clip of Choi who claimed that the case involves felonious allegation of kidnaping, illegal detainment, and false imprisonment. Wild did not explain that the Ramsey County Attorney is an elected Democrat. The elitist media routinely hides the party label when Democrats are going after Trump or his appointees. Take NBC's version of the John Choi stunt: "Minnesota investigates the arrest by ICE of a Hmong American man as a possible kidnapping." Wild at least gave a brief presentation of the DHS side of the story. WILD: The Department of Homeland Security had previously said in this incident, immigration agents were executing a search for two sex offenders. One of those sex offenders, it should be noted, was already in custody at the time of that attempted search. DHS is now saying this, "This is nothing but a political stunt to demonize ICE law enforcement, who are facing a 1300% increase in assaults against them as they arrest for the worst of the worst." CNN will offer generous and positive coverage to "demonizing" ICE. Co-host Pamela Brown asked CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig about this stunt: "So what are the chances that this becomes a successful prosecution?" Honig proceeded to pour cold water on the whole story. HONIG: I think the chances of a successful prosecution are near zero here. There's two big problems. First of all, this was a mistake. All parties seem to agree. The ICE agents intended to arrest one person. They arrested the wrong person. Now that's bad. And there should be consequences. But it's not a crime. There's no such thing as accidental kidnaping. The law in Minnesota and elsewhere require specific intentionality to support a criminal charge of kidnaping. And Honig's bucket still had plenty of water left in it. HONIG: The second problem is there's essentially no precedent for state level prosecutors to indict federal law enforcement agents for something they did in the course of their federal job....  So I don't give this case much of a chance of ultimately succeeding. That's probably not what Brown had wanted to hear. Blitzer then attempted to salvage anything that might make ICE look bad, by asking about the possibility of a successful civil suit against the feds: HONIG: Yes Wolf, they could sue civilly for damages. It's really hard to sue the individual ICE officers. They have broad civil immunity, but what they can do is file a claim against the federal government under something called the Federal Tort Claims Act.... So, if he can show that ICE was negligent here and caused damages, then yes, he might succeed on a civil lawsuit. Give CNN credit for bringing on Honig even though they were likely aware of his point of view. It's pretty obvious that this whole story turned into something that might very well have met the requirements to be a Seinfeld episode, a show about nothing.