Hey Daniel Dale! Riddle us this: How in the world do you expect anybody to take you seriously as a fact-checker against President Trump’s supposed “falsehoods” when your own network commits the same offenses?  The bumbling CNN fact-checker burped out a long January 13 screed haranguing the president for economic statements he made during a Tuesday speech at the Detroit Economic Club. But the most gobsmackingly hilarious “fact-check” came when Dale threw a fit over Trump daring to say that “Inflation is stopped.” Dale snorted back: Uh-uh, “Inflation very much continues.” He proceeded to point out the recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report showing consumer prices hitting 2.7 percent year-over-year while core inflation came in less-than-expected at 2.6 percent on the same annualized basis. That was still a relatively good report overall.  Alrighty Dale! Do you really want to be totally technical and completely do away with the nuance? Two can play at this game. So what do you have to say about your colleagues at CNN who did the same thing to vindicate Bidenomics that you’re now nipping at Trump’s ankles over?  CNN Business Executive Editor David Goldman effectively penned what amounted to an October 2024 pre-election ad for President Joe Biden and the Harris campaign, where he exclaimed: “Inflation has been tamed. Consumers are spending like crazy. Companies have more jobs available than job seekers to fill them. What more could you want, America?” At that time, the consumer price inflation rate was nearly identical to December 2025 on an annualized basis at 2.6 percent. But core inflation, which excludes volatile prices in food and energy, was at 3.3 percent, literally 0.7 basis points higher than the current rate under Trump. But for Goldman, this meant “America won the war on inflation.” “Inflation is stopped,” or “Inflation has been tamed.” Tomayto, tomahto, eh Dale?   Oh, but we’re just getting started. CNN Senior Writer Allison Morrow  also tried to make it seem like Biden conquered the inflation dragon as early as August 2024 in a piece headlined, “The war on inflation has been won. It’s OK if you’re still angry.” At that time, headline inflation sat at 2.9 percent year-over-year, 0.2 points higher than the December 2025 reading Dale waved around to jab at Trump.  And how about this gem from logically inconsistent CNN Business Senior Economy Writer Alicia Wallace published December 27, 2023, where she claimed that “Inflation is nearly back to normal. But high prices have changed Americans’ lives.” To be clear, near “normal” for Wallace at that time was when prices were increasing at a 3.1 percent year-over-year rate in November, before ticking back up to 3.4 percent that December, 0.7 points higher than the current rate under Trump. So Dale, before you go making a big stink about what Trump says in his usual hyperbole, perhaps you should deal with the rhetorical compost you're making within your own network first. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “fixed” a biased and greatly misleading headline published by the BBC Thursday in its coverage of a shooting in Minneapolis during violent anti-ICE protests on Wednesday. In a X.com post, ICE provided a screenshot of a BBC headline declaring: “Federal agent shoots Minneapolis man in leg after shovel attack, officials say” ICE then notes a critical fact the BBC left out in its mischaracterization of the incident: “Your ‘Minneapolis man’ is a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela.” “Fixed your headline for you as well, @BBCWorld,” ICE writes, providing a graphic editing BBC’s headline by: Changing “Minneapolis man” to “Venezuelan criminal illegal alien.” Changing “after shovel attack” to “after three criminal illegal aliens ambush an ICE officer.” BBC eventually changed its headline, moving the word “Minneapolis” to indicate that the incident took place in Minneapolis and remove the insinuation that it was a “Minneapolis man” (instead of an illegal alien) who had been shot: “Federal agent shoots man in leg after Minneapolis shovel attack, officials say” Details in the BBC News (World) post on X.com linking to the same story were, and continue to be, even more sparse, insinuating that a legal citizen of Minneapolis was shot by the ICE officer without provocation: “ICE agent shoots Minneapolis man in the leg” “BBC’s ‘Minneapolis man’ is a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela who, along with 2 other perpetrators, mercilessly beat a federal law enforcement officer with snow shovels and broom handles,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin explained in a separate post shared by ICE. Your "Minneapolis man" is a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela. Fixed your headline for you as well, @BBCWorld. https://t.co/IblFCbDgmw pic.twitter.com/WtLsg2Dz5H — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (@ICEgov) January 15, 2026   The BBC has a legacy of exhibiting animus and bias regarding Donald Trump, going back to his first term in the White House when it maliciously edited video of comments he made during his January 6, 2021 speech delivered before the riot at the U.S. Capitol. As Fox News explains, President Trump sued the BBC last December for $10 billion for defamation and violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as a result of the edited video, which was part of a 2024 BBC documentary: “The documentary omitted Trump urging his supporters to protest ‘peacefully’ and instead spliced two separate comments made nearly an hour apart, making him appear he was calling for violence. "‘We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. And I'll be there with you. And we fight — we fight like hell,’ the documentary showed Trump saying. “In reality, Trump said, ‘We're gonna walk down to the Capitol. And we're gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.’  It wasn't until 54 minutes later that Trump called on his supporters to ‘fight like hell’ for election integrity.”    

So far, in 2026, ABC’s Sunny Hostin has shown America why she was no longer a federal prosecutor: claiming everything she didn’t like was “illegal” despite proper procedure being followed. After repeatedly claiming the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro was “100 percent illegal” (despite the warrant), on Friday’s episode, she insisted that the bipartisan congressional subpoena of the Clintons by the House Oversight Committee in their Epstein investigation was “illegal,” and defended the Democratic couple’s refusal to appear. Leading into their first “Hot Topic” discussion of the show, Friday moderator Joy Behar tried to make the Clintons’ contempt of Congress about President Trump, which got approval from Hostin: BEHAR: To be clear, Bill Clinton hasn't been accused of wrongdoing, and he denies having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes. Both the Clintons keep saying they have no information that's relevant to the investigation. But should they just testify to clear up any suspicions and get the last word in on this? You know, Bill should just say to Trump, ‘I'm more than happy to testify. You first.’ HOSTIN: Correct. Hostin picked it up from there, initially whining that the committee still wanted the Clintons to appear while others submitted affidavits. “There have been about nine people subpoenaed, and out of those nine people, eight people provided sworn affidavits and those subpoenas were released,” she huffed.   Sunny Hostin (former fed prosecutor) defends Clintons refusing a congressional subpoena: "I think that, you know, the Clintons have done as much as everyone else that has been subpoenaed. There have been about nine people subpoenaed, and out of those nine people, eight people… pic.twitter.com/dCjMBsk83F — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   Omitting the fact that the subpoena by the committee was unanimous, Hostin tried to frame situation as just the committee’s Republicans targeting them: “Now, of course, the Clintons are the Clintons and I think that they are -- because of their positions as former secretary of state and senator and president of the United States, the Republican Oversight Committee really wants them there.” Further in the segment, Hostin defended the Clintons’ contempt of Congress by claiming that the subpoena was somehow “illegal,” and dabbled in expert whataboutism: BEHAR: So why are they saying “no” do you think? HOSTIN: Their position is that the subpoena itself is illegal and is not valid because it doesn't have legislative purpose, a true legislative purpose. And that’s why generally, I would agree with you and I would agree with you, you do not defy a congressional subpoena. There are -- that's why Peter Navarro spent four months in prison. (…) Why aren't they subpoenaing the President of the United States Donald Trump? Although, he has denied any wrongdoing? Why not Melania Trump?   Hostin backs up the Clintons' suggestion that the congressional subpoena is "illegal" and suggests one against would be legal just because: "Generally, I would agree with you and I would agree with you, you do not defy a congressional subpoena. There are -- that's why Peter… pic.twitter.com/FpoASV6FTT — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   Hostin’s support for the Clintons to defy the congressional subpoena was a master example of her politically motived hypocrisy. The week prior, she had gotten into an intense argument with co-host Ana Navarro over the arrest of Maduro, with Hostin defending the dictator. She repeatedly yelled at her co-hosts about how the arrest supposedly broke “international law” (which didn’t exist) and decried how they didn’t care. Speaking of Navarro, she openly lamented how she had to put aside their decades of friendship and insist that the Clintons testify before Congress: You know, I have known Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They were very good friends of my ex, and they would come down to Miami and stay at his hotel all the time. So, it's very hard for me and, you know, it's not a comfortable place for me to say that I want them to show up and I want them to testify. But here's the thing, I want us as a society to hold the people that we like to the same standard that we hold the people that we don't like.   Ana Navarro admits to her personal relationship with the Clinton and she begrudgingly says they should testify before Congress: "You know, I have known Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They were very good friends of my ex, and they would come down to Miami and stay at… pic.twitter.com/cWmoSE9cxM — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   Navarro would later complain about the pictures of Clinton released from the Epstein files that showed him enjoying Jeffrey Epstein’s property: But let’s remember when the pictures came out in December, late December, Clinton, Bill Clinton asked that every item that involves him, that everything about him be released, because it feels like they cherry-picked what are the most salacious pictures. Right? There's pictures of Bill in a pool. It was because of that obviously cozy relationship between the Clinton and Epstein that had co-host Sara Haines demanding the Clintons testify (Click “expand”): I'm someone who wants to see everything in the Epstein files and want every single person held accountable. I think the Clintons should show up. It was a unanimous vote to subpoena them and regardless of these affidavits or anything else, I think when people don't show up, it makes them look guiltier than they are. Clinton -- President Clinton has showed up in tons of pictures with no wrongdoing but images that have been released in the files that - and we've known of the friendship for years. And two years after Epstein got his sweetheart deal, Ghislaine Maxwell was invited to Chelsea's wedding. So, there are some associations there that I think you put everything out there. Let it be public. Let people hear. Because otherwise, you give them the bait to say, well, you're not doing it, we're not doing it. This person is not doing it. No, if you want the Epstein files and you want every held accountable, they show up and they do it.   Sara Haines says the Clintons should testify before Congress: "I'm someone who wants to see everything in the Epstein files and wants every single person held accountable. I think the Clintons should show up. It was a unanimous vote to subpoena them and regardless of affidavits… pic.twitter.com/sCp4gkVwMR — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 16, 2026   “And I just personally don't believe that congressional oversight is something that should be optional to people,” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin argued. “I've testified before Congress, never under subpoena. I was asked to and I showed up. And I never have seen a Congressional subpoena as optional.” She was the first to admit that Trump allies had been sent to prison for defying congressional subpoenas. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View January 16, 2026 11:02:42 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: To be clear, Bill Clinton hasn't been accused of wrongdoing, and he denies having any knowledge of Epstein's crimes. Both the Clintons keep saying they have no information that's relevant to the investigation. But should they just testify to clear up any suspicions and get the last word in on this? You know, Bill should just say to Trump, ‘I'm more than happy to testify. You first.’ SUNNY HOSTIN: Correct. [Cheers and applause] BEHAR: Okay. Go ahead. HOSTIN: You know, I agree with that. I think that, you know, the Clintons have done as much as everyone else that has been subpoenaed. There have been about nine people subpoenaed, and out of those nine people, eight people provided sworn affidavits and those subpoenas were released. Now, of course, the Clintons are the Clintons and I think that they are -- because of their positions as former secretary of state and senator and president of the United States, the Republican Oversight Committee really wants them there. They have also provided and what Comer is not saying, they've provided affidavits, sworn affidavits. So, this is the same or very close to the same as already having testified. They've also written him a four-page letter explaining their position. And so my question is, where is the energy for -- that same energy for the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who has not released, I think, 99 percent of the Epstein files? Why don't they call her and subpoena her and have her testify about what’s happening. [Cheers and applause] SARA HAINES: I'm someone who wants to see everything in the Epstein files and want every single person held accountable. I think the Clintons should show up. It was a unanimous vote to subpoena them and regardless of these affidavits or anything else, I think when people don't show up, it makes them look guiltier than they are. Clinton -- President Clinton has showed up in tons of pictures with no wrongdoing but images that have been released in the files that - and we've known of the friendship for years. And two years after Epstein got his sweetheart deal, Ghislaine Maxwell was invited to Chelsea's wedding. So, there are some associations there that I think you put everything out there. Let it be public. Let people hear. Because otherwise, you give them the bait to say, well, you're not doing it, we're not doing it. This person is not doing it. No, if you want the Epstein files and you want every held accountable, they show up and they do it. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: And I just personally don't believe that congressional oversight is something that should be optional to people. I've testified before Congress, never under subpoena. I was asked to and I showed up. And I never have seen a Congressional subpoena as optional. I would remind folks that Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon both defied congressional subpoenas and then did jail time for defying those congressional subpoenas during the January 6 investigation. (…) 11:06:28 a.m. Eastern ANA NAVARRO: You know, I have known Bill and Hillary Clinton for over 20 years. They were very good friends of my ex, and they would come down to Miami and stay at his hotel all the time. So, it's very hard for me and, you know, it's not a comfortable place for me to say that I want them to show up and I want them to testify. But here's the thing, I want us as a society to hold the people that we like to the same standard that we hold the people that we don't like. (…) 11:07:55 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: So why are they saying “no” do you think? HOSTIN: Their position is that the subpoena itself is illegal and is not valid because it doesn't have legislative purpose, a true legislative purpose. And that’s why generally, I would agree with you and I would agree with you, you do not defy a congressional subpoena. There are -- that's why Peter Navarro spent four months in prison. But in this case, it feels very political rather than legal. Why aren't they subpoenaing the President of the United States Donald Trump? Although, he has denied any wrongdoing? Why not Melania Trump? Why did they let eight people who were also subpoenaed provide the same kind of affidavits that the Clintons did, why did they then allow that to happen without them showing up? HOSITN: If it were purely legal, I would be – HAINES: But were the Clintons the biggest names of those affidavits? Cause I think Clinton being a former president, that it has more power to go in there and sit down and say -- HOSTIN: But it makes it more political. HAINES: Sadly this whole administration is political. NAVARRO: But let’s remember when the pictures came out in December, late December, Clinton, Bill Clinton asked that every item that involves him, that everything about him be released, because it feels like they cherry-picked what are the most salacious pictures. Right? There's pictures of Bill in a pool. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: Okay. So, then why are they now subpoenaing the Clintons? Is it to distract from something yet again? HOSTIN: Because they have not released the files! BEHAR: We'll be right back.

Over the past year and a half, public broadcasting and the late night comedy shows have formed an alliance. Some comedians hold fundraisers or advocate for public media on their shows. Public media then in turn hosts the comedians on their own shows and honors them by giving them awards. The latest development in this exercise in mutual liberal back-patting came on Thursday as ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel gave PBS an idea for a new tote bag. On his Wednesday show, Kimmel reported how PBS’s Threads account has had to inform people that just because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has shut down does not mean that PBS has ceased to exist. To that end, he played a satirical ad from PBS: Masterpiece Theater, Sesame Street, News Hour, Austin City Limits, 22,000 hours and counting of Ken Burns footage. The show with people bringing [bleep] from their garage, and the one where white people find out they're black. PBS. Check your local listings. We're still here, bitch! News Hour anchor Amna Nawaz approved and replied with “Nailed it” and a bullseye emoji, but the main PBS account suggested there could be new merchandise to be sold, “Shout out to @jimmykimmel for our new tote bag design,” followed by a picture of the PBS logo and the tagline “we’re still here, bitch.” Of course, the tote bag is not real, but for a supposed news organization, PBS’s Threads account is devoid of any news content and instead full of various memes about how they are still here or what day of the week it is. Meanwhile, PBS’s X account has not tweeted since April 8, 2023, after their feud with Elon Musk. Now that PBS has lost its taxpayer money, if it wants to post silly memes on its social media accounts or partner with liberal comedians, that is its prerogative, but it should not expect to get that money back.

Renee Good should be alive. The activist, killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, met her end in tragedy. What has happened since, predictably, saw people rush to their tribal corners. ICE “murdered” Good. Good was the villain. Your politics positioned your stance. What got left behind were the facts and a press corps that proved again it cannot be trusted. On the day of Good’s death, those who took ICE’s side claimed Good hit the ICE agent with her car. Others denied it. Some insisted ICE agents were sending mixed signals, some telling her to drive off and others telling her to get out of her car. Democrat politicians insisted Good had just been dropping her son off at school. The New York Times compiled a compilation of the videos from the scene and concluded that Good had not hit the ICE officer. Here is what we now know. Good had been harassing ICE agents much of the day. In one video filmed from a cell phone, Good continuously blared her car’s horn for more than three minutes as she attempted to block ICE agents. Good had been involved in a progressive activist group called ICE Watch that encouraged not just obstruction of ICE, but also something they call “de-arrest,” which means helping detained illegal immigrants escape. We also know ICE agents did not send mixed signals. The person yelling for Good to drive off was her lesbian partner, who participated in the effort to stymie ICE. As ICE agents at Good’s car told her to park and get out, her partner yelled, “Drive, baby, drive.” Good turned her wheel to avoid the ICE agent who had walked around her car and, at that point, was in front of her. She accelerated on an icy road and did, in fact, hit the ICE agent. We now have his medical records. He was injured. The New York Times and other media outlets seeded lots of conjecture claiming Good was an innocent bystander and also that the agent was not hit. The initial press coverage turned out to be wrong. The New York Times was wrong, but it was relied on by numerous people to claim ICE was lying.      Now, with the agent’s medical records public, the goal posts have moved from “he was not hit” to “it is just a bruise” and also, “well, the president said he was run over.” The president also says he wants to invade Greenland. He says things. Many more said the agent was hit by the car and The New York Times insisted it was not so. None of this is to say Good deserved this. It was a tragedy, but the agent does have a plausible claim of self-defense. Beyond the tragedy of a press we can no longer trust for truth, there is another tragedy. A large portion of the nation would rather protect illegal aliens from deportation than cooperate with the federal government. ICE agents are swarming Minneapolis because the local and state governments have not just refused to cooperate with federal deportation efforts, but have provided safe havens for illegal aliens. According to the federal government, over 75% of those deported have existing criminal records. In Minneapolis alone, the federal government has rounded up illegal aliens from Mexico, Laos, Burma, Somalia and elsewhere who were charged with rape, child abuse, manslaughter, murder and other crimes. The local government refused to hand over even those people. These scenes are not happening in Texas, Georgia, Florida and other red states. ICE is in those states and deporting people, but those states are cooperating with ICE. Partisans in blue states have decided it is virtuous to protect illegal aliens, regardless of the length of their rap sheets. Believing the cause righteous and herself virtuous, Renee Good entered the fight to stymie ICE. After her death, her partner screamed out, “You used real bullets?” The answer is because the deportations are not a game or virtue signaling. ICE has detained and deported dangerous criminals who shoot guns at law enforcement agents and, tragically, because President Donald Trump is president, Renee Good decided to defend those illegal aliens against her own government and died. To find out more about Erick Erickson and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM