The “fact checkers” at PolitiFact barely touch the talking heads on cable television anymore. They used to have a serious tilt against the Fox News hosts in prime time. So it’s unsurprising that on July 9, they published their first attack on conservative CNN analyst Scott Jennings, who offered a few tough words about Medicaid beneficiaries. "There are like almost 5 million able-bodied people on Medicaid who simply choose not to work," Jennings said July 1 on CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip. "They spend six hours a day socializing and watching television. And if you can't get off grandma's couch and work, I don't want to pay for your welfare." Abby Phillip leapt on that immediately, questioning where Jennings found these numbers. Before we get into the “facts” at hand, let’s investigate PolitiFact’s target selection. There is no page on PolitiFact for Phillip. There is one other “fact check” on Phillip’s show, a “True” rating for liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow. There is no page on PolitiFact for former MSNBC weekend host Tiffany Cross, who smeared ICE on Phillip’s show on July 8: “We are normalizing a government agency disappearing people. We're talking about it like it's no big deal that they are kidnapping people and transporting them to concentration camps, both domestic and foreign.” She said “concentration camps” four times. New York Post writer Kelly Jane Torrance tried to interrupt her and tell her these terms were inaccurate and insensitive to Jews, but Cross just kept rolling – and Phillip said nothing, unlike when Scott Jennings makes a conservative point.   As usual, the PolitiFact scribe on the Jennings case, Loreben Turquero, rounded up a conga line of liberal experts – two from the Harvard T. H. Chan School for Public Health, as well as the Brookings Institution, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Urban Institute. None of them are assigned a label. But Jennings cited the “conservative” American Enterprise Institute. This is one of many ways PolitiFact reads exactly like every other liberal media outlet that pretends that liberals are the most nonpartisan, independent experts you can find. Turquero pointed out that the Harvard folks nitpicked Scott’s “almost five million” number, claiming the Congressional Budget Office didn’t say all of these people “chose not to work,” but that they would lose Medicaid coverage due to work requirements. This is a distinction without much of a difference, but liberal “fact checkers” pounce anyway.  What Jennings said that really offended the ears at PolitiFact was that Medicaid recipients are sitting around watching TV for six hours a day. Did he mean that as a statement of fact or was he making a rhetorical point? Because people make a lot of rhetorical points on CNN that don’t get “fact checked.” PolitiFact’s experts were aggressively utilized to dismiss the notion that there are actually many “able-bodied” Medicaid recipients. As Turquero concluded: “Studies of nonworking Medicaid recipients have found the majority are women and have a high school education or less. The average age is 41, and more than half have a work history in the past five years.” This doesn’t disprove “able-bodied,” yet they seem to be saying that women over 40 can’t be expected to meet work requirements? This article illustrates that these liberal outlets are often not “fact checkers” as much as they are “spin spoilers.”  They appear offended by the tone of conservative commentary, and they want to discredit it even if the points are rhetorical. The “fact checkers” have spoken: conservatives probably shouldn’t impose work requirements, or suggest people who don’t meet them are lazy. 

The anniversary of the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump is upon us and with it, news of the actions taken by the Secret Service after reviewing the many breakdowns that led to the current President of the United States almost getting gunned down in Butler, Pennsylvania. This is without a doubt a story of enormous national import, and yet, NBC News has not seen fit to cover it. For context, watch ABC’s report, which aired tonight (click “expand” to view transcript): ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 7/10/25 6:42 PM DAVID MUIR: Tonight, nearly one year after the assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump, we have learned that six Secret Service agents have now been suspended. Here's Pierre Thomas. PIERRE THOMAS: Tonight, for the first time, the Secret Service revealing that it suspended a half dozen agents for their role in the, quote, “operational failure” that led to a nearly successful assassination of then candidate Donald Trump. DONALD TRUMP: Take a look at what happened… THOMAS: Sources telling ABC News those disciplined included supervisory-level and line agents, with suspensions ranging from 10 to 42 days without pay. In the wake of the attack, which killed firefighter Cory Comperatore and nearly cost Trump his life, the Secret Service faced withering criticism on Capitol Hill. Today, the agency again admitting to a stunning list of mistakes including a failure to coordinate with local authorities, a failure to secure the rooftop with a direct line of sight to Trump's podium. And anti-drone technology that malfunctioned. RONALD ROWE: We could have maybe stopped him. THOMAS: Tonight the agency announcing a number of reforms ranging from improved information sharing with local authorities, to better training and deployment of technology, David. MUIR: Pierre Thomas live in Washington. Pierre, thank you. This was a perfectly serviceable albeit brief report. The Secret Service conducted a review after Butler, found glaring deficiencies, and these are the things they did to correct them: from disciplinary action to the acquisition of new equipment. Good form. The CBS Evening News ran a similarly-formatted report last night which ran a bit longer because it was a bit more detailed and included portions of an interview with Deputy Director Matt Quinn. A followup was teased for tonight’s Evening News but did not run. Again, a perfectly serviceable update. NBC, though, found no time on the Nightly News for such reporting. There was simply no time over the past couple of days to run such a report. NBC could simply not bump more important matters such as the Cincinnati boy rescued from a claw machine, the introduction of Diabetes Barbie, Paul McCartney’s new tour, and anchor Tom Llamas chowing down on a Chicago Italian beef sandwich.  There’s still time for NBC to come out with this reporting ahead of the actual anniversary of the shooting at Butler (7/13). The very least that any self-respecting media outlet can do is to lay out the reforms and changes implemented so that Butler happens again. Click “expand” to view the transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Wednesday, July 9th, 2025: CBS EVENING NEWS 7/9/25 6:45 PM MAURICE DuBOIS: It has been nearly a year since then-candidate Donald Trump was shot at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Now, Matt Quinn has given our Nicole Sganga his first interview since he was named Deputy Director of the Secret Service in May. Quinn talked about accountability and moving forward. Nicole? NICOLE SGANGA: Maurice, CBS News has learned six U.S. Secret Service personnel were suspended without pay for up to six weeks, then placed into restricted duty roles with less operational responsibility. It's the first we’re learning of suspensions since the agency launched its internal investigation. Quinn told me that the Secret Service won’t be terminating employees. Instead, he says the agency is laser focused on addressing operational failures that played out last July 13th. To do that, they've introduced a new fleet of military-grade drones. There were notably no drones at that July 13th campaign rally last year. The agency is also rolling out new mobile command posts that allow agents to communicate over radio directly with local law enforcement. That capability didn't exist last year, and it prevented the Secret Service from learning about Thomas Crooks' whereabouts until shots were fired.  And so, for the average American who remembers what happened on July 13th, if they are asking has the Secret Service done enough, what's the answer? MATT QUINN: The answer is that Secret Service is totally accountable for Butler. Butler was an operational failure. And we are focused today on ensuring that it never happens again and executing our strategic plan to increase technology, to improve communications, to make sure our personnel are well trained, equipped, and deployed. SGANGA: And Maurice, all of the agency's radio communications will now be recorded, and we will have an inside look at new technology deployed by the U.S. Secret Service tomorrow on CBS Mornings and right here on the CBS Evening News. DuBOIS: Looking forward to that. Nicole Sganga, thanks so much.  

For its longform Eye on America  segment, the CBS Evening News delivered a visually beautiful report on President Trump’s executive order on logging- backdropped by lush Oregon forests. The report featured a heavy dose of advocacy against logging in national forests. But the report was undercut by an earlier item that underscores why such forest clearing is needed in the first place. Watch the report close out with a heavy tilt towards the anti-logging position (click “expand” to view transcript): DAVID SCHECTER: Quinn Reed is the executive director of the nonprofit Oregon Wild. QUINN REED: These trees have seen a lot. SCHECTER: She doesn't dispute the importance of careful thinning, but says the size and speed of Trump's plan will destroy the forest. REED: I think the justifications, if they were true, are certainly worthy, but if you look at what’s actually called for, it doesn't meet any of those goals. This is the kind of logging that’s simply for profit. SCHECTER: And now that the Trump administration has fired 10% of the U.S. Forest Service workforce, Reed says there are not enough people to enforce careful cutting. REED: This used to be a forest much like we just saw just a few moments ago. SCHECTER: So some of this is acceptable, or none of this is acceptable? REED: You know, none of this is acceptable. They had a quota to meet, and so they came and they clear-cut it. This isn't what I want to see on the landscape. This isn't what I want to see on lands that we all collectively as Americans own. SCHECTER: Do you see a possible risk that those clearcuts- what happened in the forests? With fewer staffers and fewer regulations? JEFF BRINK: I certainly don't want to see it, and every stakeholder here that I've talked to doesn't want it, either. SCHECTER: For some, the president's order is a long-overdue push toward responsible logging and fire reduction. Others would argue you can't save the forest by cutting it down. The “both sides” presented in this item were “a little clearing” and “no clearing”, with lip service paid to the pro-logging position. And just for flair, you get a little of DOGE- the mention of the firing of Forest Service employees. Hardly a model for balance. But the weather report that aired a few minutes prior was framed with the following: MAURICE DuBOIS: Firefighters are battling dozens of wildfires in Oregon. They were started by lightning strikes. Wildfires in Oregon, you say? Destroying potential American timber, you say? If only there were some way to manage the forest so that it is saved from devastation by wildfires AND wean us off of having to import timber from Canada.  These reports aired minutes apart, proving It’s almost as if the left hand doesn’t know what the far left hand is doing over at CBS. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, July 10th, 2025: MAURICE DuBOIS: Firefighters in Southern California are making progress against the largest wildfire the state has seen this year. The Madre, in San Luis Obispo, has burned more than 80,000 acres. It is now about two-thirds contained. Very large fires are happening more often in the West. The Trump administration believes more logging is the answer, but not everyone agrees. David Schechter has tonight's Eye on America. DAVID SCHECTER: We are in the emerald mountains of Oregon's Willamette National Forest. JEFF BRINK: This is my backyard and my home, and I don't want to see it burn. SCHECTER: It’s where Jeff Brink, on the left, works the same land his father used to. Brink's job is to reopen roads by removing trees burned in mega forest fires. BRINK: Those are hazards to the public. SCHECTER: The larger hazard he'd like the country to address is not just the roads, but the fires themselves. Doing that, he says, requires the regular thinning out of green healthy trees so there's less fuel to burn. BRINK: We're not talking about “yeah, logging, let's get some wood moving.” We’re talking about proactive fuels management, and that can be done in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way. SCHECTER: Tree thinning, though, rarely happens here- in part, because of legal protections for endangered species and habitats. That was swept away in March by the Trump administration. It ordered an immediate expansion of American timber production, instructing federal agencies to disregard regulations where possible. The goal is to increase logging by 25% on federal lands. LOGGER: So we've got somewhere around 40 loads out today. SCHECTER: The policy would cut America's reliance on imported timber, generating new work and higher profits for people such as Brink and the rest of the struggling timber industry. It would also reduce fire risk by removing more trees. Incredible. Enormous trees. QUINN REED: The scale is remarkable. SCHECTER: Quinn Reed is the executive director of the nonprofit Oregon Wild. REED: These trees have seen a lot. SCHECTER: She doesn't dispute the importance of careful thinning, but says the size and speed of Trump's plan will destroy the forest. REED: I think the justifications, if they were true, are certainly worthy, but if you look at what’s actually called for, it doesn't meet any of those goals. This is the kind of logging that’s simply for profit. SCHECTER: And now that the Trump administration has fired 10% of the U.S. Forest Service workforce, Reed says there are not enough people to enforce careful cutting. REED: This used to be a forest much like we just saw just a few moments ago. SCHECTER: So some of this is acceptable, or none of this is acceptable? REED: You know, none of this is acceptable. They had a quota to meet, and so they came and they clear-cut it. This isn't what I want to see on the landscape. This isn't what I want to see on lands that we all collectively as Americans own. SCHECTER: Do you see a possible risk that those clearcuts- what happened in the forests? With fewer staffers and fewer regulations? BRINK: I certainly don't want to see it, and every stakeholder here that I've talked to doesn't want it, either. SCHECTER: For some, the president's order is a long-overdue push toward responsible logging and fire reduction. Others would argue you can't save the forest by cutting it down. For Eye on America, I’m David Schecter in Oakridge, Oregon.

The left-wing media’s hysteria revolving around the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s arrests and deportations nationwide had cranked up to the next level. On Thursday's edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host of MSNBC’s The Weekend Symone Sanders-Townsend claimed people will see “racial profiling” as ICE continued to uphold the law. Meanwhile, another claimed ICE was “kidnapping” people.  Co-anchor Jonathan Lemire framed the segment around fear of “high profile clashes” in “Democratic controlled cities” in the country, where ICE was focusing their efforts.  It’s worth noting that cities like Los Angeles, with Democrat leadership, were places that supported illegal immigration via their so-called sanctuary city polices. It’s no wonder why ICE was in those places.      As the former Senior Advisor and Chief Spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris, Sander-Townsend made statements regarding ICE’s motivation for the arrests that boiled down them just being racist:   Yeah, this is about to be very clear. It's about race. It's not necessarily about risk because we have seen ICE go into disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately Latino and Hispanic. And I would also argue I would also note black and brown, black communities and go to courthouses... This is about, at this point, meeting a particular arbitrary quota, frankly, that the White House care of Stephen Miller has set forward. And we are going to continue as we get closer and deeper and deeper into the summer, as we go into the fall to see racial profiling.   The facts were that it’s easier for people who lived in Latin America and South America to travel north, which was why Latinos and Hispanics contribute to a major population of illegal immigrants. That fact was completely taken out of context for the purpose of what ICE was for. ICE was not arresting people based on their race, but rather if they were in the country illegally.    The liberal media have shown support and sympathy towards illegal immigrants receiving the same privileges as American citizens, and they have forgotten that ICE was established to uphold the law and protect the country.  Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki contributed to the conversation by suggesting that ICE was “kidnapping” people. She also whined about them arresting people who lost the cases in immigration court:  They are going into communities where people don't have criminal records or people are law-abiding, even people who are going to their court hearings and they're targeting people...So when they say they're going after the worst of the worst and the hardest of the hardest, what they're actually doing to meet that, try to meet that 3000 number that Stephen Miller and others have set is they're going after what they consider low hanging fruit. People who are law-abiding, some who pay taxes, who are going to courtrooms to meet that number, and they're going into cities like L.A. to create a vision of chaos as if they are there to calm things, when really they are the ones who are creating the chaos. So this is quite performative.   Jen, they broke the law if they were here illegally. Defending illegal immigrants as “law-abiding” is hypocritical.    Between “racial profiling,” “kidnapping,” and not getting the concept of the word illegal, the liberal media pushed the agenda that ICE was the villain for keeping America safe and upholding the law. Meanwhile, they promoted those who were here illegally.   Click here for the transcript. MSNBC’s Morning Joe 7/10/25 9:24 a.m. Eastern JONATHAN LEMIRE: And Jen Psaki, a Trump official yesterday telling me that because the border is basically been closed, you know, that the heat, this this official suggests they're victim of their own success. Therefore it's not easy to find these deportations. You know, that's because they have to therefore go into the cities to make their numbers. And that's what I think is being telegraphed here is those, as Julia mentioned, those high profile clashes in Los Angeles, those ICE agents there leading to protests. President Trump has all but telegraphed that this summer we should expect a lot more of that in cities, particularly Democratic controlled cities across the country. JEN PSAKI: Well, I also think it's quite performative, Jonathan. I mean, they are – they have National Guard troops they shouldn't be using in this way. They are going into communities where people don't have criminal records or people are law abiding, even people who are going to their court hearings and they're targeting people. A lot of the reporting I've seen lately has been about 50 percent. I don't know what the exact latest numbers, but about 50 percent of the people who they are arresting, some of them kidnaping, some of them deporting are not, don't have any record at all. So when they say they're going after the worst of the worst and the hardest of the hardest, what they're actually doing to meet that – try to meet that 3,000 number that Stephen Miller and others have set, is they're going after what they consider low hanging fruit. People who are law abiding, some who pay taxes, who are going to courtrooms to meet that number. And they're going into cities like L.A. to create a vision of chaos as if they are there to calm things, when really they are the ones who are creating the chaos. So this is quite performative. It's also about trying to hit these numbers and not going after people who are doing anything in society aside from being law abiding. SYMONE SANDERS-TOWNSEND: Yeah, this is about – to be very clear. It's about race. It's not necessarily about risk because we have seen ICE go into disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately Latino and Hispanic. And I would also argue – I would also note black and brown –black communities and go to courthouses. We've seen them target traffic stops. We have seen viral videos of ICE approaching people in their yards. This is about, at this point, meeting a particular arbitrary quota, frankly, that the White House care of Stephen Miller has set forward. And we are going to continue as we get closer and deeper and deeper into the summer, as we go into the fall to see racial profiling. And we're going to see these stories come out more and more. And I have to wonder what local municipalities, but also Congress and just law abiding citizens think about this? Are we a country where we are comfortable, where we are going to racially profile people who are here based on the color of their skin, because Stephen Miller and the President wanted me to quota? That's the question we have to ask ourselves. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Symone Sanders-Townsend, thank you. We'll be watching The Weeknight at 7 P.M. Eastern right here on MSNBC. And Jen Psaki, thank you as well. We’ll, of course, be watching The Briefing Tuesdays through Fridays at 9 P.M. Eastern. 

A panel at the American Enterprise Institute turned into a Big Tech lovefest, with the panelists advocating that social media companies have the right to censor Americans. Kate Ruane, a director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Corbin Barthold, a TikTok U.S. Content Advisory Council member, expressed their disdain for free speech in response to an audience question about whether Big Tech platforms should be considered "common carriers." This classification would require social media platforms to host all users' content to receive liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.  [Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America]