NBC’s Today debased itself on Wednesday by sending former First Daughter and fourth-hour co-host Jenna Bush Hager to interview former President Barack Obama for a syrupy sit-down about the opening of his Obama Presidential Center next month. The whole segment was as wishy-washy as Obama’s biography and omitted the pesky facts about the hefty admission costs, budget overruns, laying waste to the community’s landscape, a lack of compliance with the norm of past presidential record-keeping, and years of delays. Unsurprisingly, there were a whopping four teases for this interview, starting off the top with co-host Savannah Guthrie stating they’d reveal “what he hopes it will inspire for generations to come” and adding in the second that Obama would tell Bush Hager “why the project is so personal to him.” When it finally came time to air it, Bush Hager explained she talked to Obama about the upcoming opening a few weeks ago when she “recently interview[ed] all the former president ahead of our country’s 250th anniversary” in Philadelphia. “A presidential library is meant to serve as a window to the past, but for former President Barack Obama, that was never the whole plan,” she gushed, then remarking to Obama that “I know that it’s, of course, a place for history, but more than that, I’ve read that you want it to be a place for community.” NBC’s ‘Today’ interviewed former President Obama ahead of the opening for his “Presidential Center.” Here’s the first two minutes. Of course, Jenn Bush Hager offered syrupy praise and nothing about the hefty admission costs, budget overruns, laying waste to the community’s… pic.twitter.com/b4OcIxR1Zz — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2026 Obama deflected any sort of concerns about the site: “Well, that’s how we’ve conceived it. This campus is going to be 19 acres and there will be a museum there that records the presidency and has some of Michelle’s dresses, which will be no doubt the most popular exhibit there. But that’s really just one part of it.” Sounding like an Obama press secretary, Bush Hager said that “[r]ather than simply paying tribute to his historic two terms, President Obama envisions the center will also shape our collective future.” The two sounded like a team of woke college administrators talking about a campus with Bush Hager even swooning their “greatest hope was to create a place to educate the next generation and inspire a sense of belonging” (click “expand”): NBC’s Jenna Bush Hager on the Obama Presidential Center: “President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama chose to build the center on Chicago’s South Side, where they both began their lives in public service. That dedication to giving back as strong as ever on the brand new… pic.twitter.com/gbaqzvj27A — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2026 OBAMA: The goal for me has been to create something that’s a living monument not to me, but to this idea of American citizenship. And if we can encourage that, then I’ll feel pretty good. And I think people will really enjoy being there. [CUT] We’ve got a campus that’s designed to model the space where communities come together to meet, to learn, to work with each other around projects that they care about. BUSH HAGER: President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama chose to build the center on Chicago’s South Side, where they both began their lives in public service. That dedication to giving back as strong as ever on the brand new campus. OBAMA: We’ve got a Chicago Public Library on site that’s an actual library, not just some academic library. We’ve got community spaces for people to meet, recording studios for young people to come and talk about their lives and create art and music that can be inspiring. BUSH HAGER: The Obamas greatest hope was to create a place to educate the next generation and inspire a sense of belonging. OBAMA: We’ve got that playground for kids to play in — [RIDING DOWN A SLIDE] — that was fantastic — a community garden following up on what Michelle did and a basketball court and a gym, because I think sports are central to who we are, and an auditorium where public speakers will come to it, and young people who are bringing about change in their communities can come together and convene and learn and practice civic leadership. Despite the main building being a hideous, gray, handle-less jug, Bush Hager boasted that “Obama was deeply involved in the design process” as “a lover of architecture,” yet “the most personal feature is what’s tucked away for children: A water terrace, named and his mother’s honor.” Bush Hager camped out on this fawning tribute amid soundbites of Obama discussing her: “Ann Dunham was a scholar with big dreams...Her determination and heart not lost on the little boy she helped raise...A legacy of steadfast hope and humanity...carried on through her son.” Back live in New York, the co-hosts were in awe and made sure to mention Bush Hager’s presidential father’s bond with Michelle Obama (click “expand”): BUSH HAGER: It’s pretty cool —  CARSON DALY: Wow. BUSH HAGER: — how, you know, so much is personal. MELVIN: Yeah. BUSH HAGER: I know Mrs. Obama wanted to put in a sledding hill because they grew up in Chicago —  MELVIN: Yeah. GUTHRIE: Yeah. BUSH HAGER: — and always wished there was a sledding hill —  GUTHRIE: Yeah. BUSH HAGER: — nearby and now there will be. They want it to be, you know, a place where kids come or families come and on June 18th when it opens — MELVIN: Yeah. BUSH HAGER: — it’ll be a rare moment where all the presidents come back together, the former presidents come back together. DALY: And you’ll be there. MELVIN: That’s pretty cool. BUSH HAGER: I won’t be there. MELVIN: It’s going to be cool. BUSH HAGER: No, I won’t be there. DALY: No more? No follow-up chats? GUTHRIE: Is that the one where your dad’s bringing a case of Altoids? BUSH HAGER: I did — yeah. He’s ordered a case of Altoid, and he will be bringing that —  GUTHRIE: Yes. BUSH HAGER: — to Mrs. Obama. MELVIN: I love the moment. GUTHRIE: After their famous moment, not because she needs a case of Altoid —  MELVIN: Oh, no. GUTHRIE: — so they have that cue. DALY: No, good. Good. BUSH HAGER: He loves — he sits next to her at all at the event funerals —  MELVIN: Yeah. BUSH HAGER: — and this will be a happier occasion. MELVIN: America has come to really enjoy that dynamic between the two of them. BUSH HAGER: Yeah, so he said he’s purchased a Altoid. After co-host Craig Melvin praised the Obama’s for taking up 19 and a half acres “to revitalize a part of Chicago that desperately needs revitalization,” Carson Daly inadvertently stepped on a thorny subject by wondering if it’s all free: “How does it work once it’s open? I mean, it’s just free and people go in there and use the gym and play hoops and kids with a playground?” Bush Hager demurred: Well, I’m sure they’re going to have partnerships with some, you know, with nonprofits and things like that because every single one operates differently, you know, their museums are testaments to history, but I think they really wanted this to be a community center as well. Left out was the fact that starting admission for the historical portion will be $30 for everyone 12 and over, $23 for children three to 11, and free for kids two and under. Also omitted was how it consumed Jackson Park. National Review wrote this in October 2021: “It’s trashing historic and lovely Jackson Park, too. Its famous Women’s Garden and May McAdams Garden, dating to the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, were both destroyed, and hundreds of mature trees got the chain-saw treatment to make way for the Obama complex.” Our friends at The Federalist went and spoke to Southside Chicagoans in April 2023 about the mess it created and how it will certainly drive up the cost of living (i.e. gentrification):     And that doesn’t even touch the widespread ridicule when construction really took shape this past October. Like most things with Obama, the liberal media are too busy amid their Obamagasms to care. To see the relevant NBC transcript from May 6, click here.

Infamous for his soft-on-illegal-immigrant-crime policies, Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano is now under federal investigation for suspected discriminatory treatment of cases, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday. “Today, the Justice Department notified the Fairfax County, Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano of the initiation of a federal investigation into the Commonwealth’s Attorney Plea Bargaining, Charging Decisions, and Sentencing Policy,” DOJ reported in a press release describing the reason the probe has been launched: “The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division will investigate whether the Office of the Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney discriminated against United States citizens by offering preferential treatment only to illegal alien criminal defendants.” The notification provided to Descano by Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division, cites the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Safe Streets Act, “both of which prohibit recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating based upon race, color, or national origin”: “Our investigation will also determine whether your office is engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601. “Our investigation is based on information that on or about December 15, 2020, OFCA adopted the Commonwealth's Attorney Plea Bargaining, Charging Decisions, and Sentencing Policy. That policy states in relevant part ‘ACAs [Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys] shall consider immigration consequences where possible’ and that ‘prosecutors shall consider ... the collateral immigration consequences of the specific crime(s) the defendant is charged with[.]’” Descano’s soft treatment of illegal alien criminals has made national news and drawn harsh criticism, especially in recent months. In March, for example, documents obtained through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) revealed that Fairfax County, Virginia police previously warned Descano’s office at least three times not to release an illegal alien later charged with stabbing to death a woman at a bus stop – but, Descano’s office released him, anyway. The illegal immigrant had been continually released back into the Northern Virginia community with charges dropped by Descano’s office. In another case this year, two illegal aliens in Fairfax County, Virginia pleaded guilty to murder, but could be back out on the street in three years, thanks to a sweetheart deal given them by Descano’s office. “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,” local station WJLA’s Nick Minock reported at the time. “Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences,” Descano’s website vows. Financial records and donation records tie Descano to far-left activist billionaire George Soros, according to a recap of news sources by The Daily Caller. Descano describes himself as a “progressive prosecutor” on his X.com account. There have been two recall efforts waged against Descano since he assumed office in 2019. “We are grateful to the Department of Justice for taking up the cause of victims, and investigating Commonwealth’s Attorney Descano’s leniency in criminal cases involving illegal immigrants,” Victims Rights Reform Council Executive Director Jennifer Harrison said in a statement Wednesday.  “This has been a long time in coming, and will be a great step in justice for victims.” Individuals with relevant information regarding the DOJ’s investigation of Descano are encouraged to contact the Department via civilrights.justice.gov/report/.

Abortion proponents love to claim abortion pills are "safe," but for whom? It's not "safe" for the baby being killed. One half of the humans involved in abortion are utterly dehumanized, not even considered in the safety equation. On the PBS show Amanpour & Co., guest host Bianna Golodryga and her abortion-lobbyist guest touted the pills as "safe" (and typically "safe and effective") 12 times in ten minutes.  These words did not cross anyone's lips in ten minutes, terms like "baby" or "infant" or even "fetus," not to mention words like "kill," "death," or "murder." The talk was incredibly clinical with Nancy Northup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. The host began the Tuesday segment:  GOLODRYGA: There's a new threat to reproductive rights in America. On Monday, the Supreme Court restored telehealth and mail access to the abortion pill Mifepristone, at least for now, putting on hold a ruling from the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which requires the medication to be obtained in person. Mifepristone is one of two drugs used in the medical abortion regimen. A CNN analysis shows that it's overwhelmingly safe.... In the leftist mindset, a "conservative" court limits "rights," and "abortion rights" are their favorite rights. The right to life of the unborn isn't considered. The conservative rebuttal gets aborted by CNN and PBS. In the midst of touting abortion pills as "safe" 12 TIMES, CNN/PBS 'Amanpour' guest host Bianna Golodryga urgently noted: "It's important to take a step back and remind our viewers that several decades ago, the FDA had ruled for Mifepristone to be safe and effective for women to… pic.twitter.com/Z1u2gYDTuv — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 6, 2026 NORTHUP: And we have a lot of states in the United States where millions and millions of people live where abortion is legal and those states follow what the FDA has said is safe and effective, which is that you can have a telehealth visit, get your abortion pills by mail or pick them up at a pharmacy.... The Supreme Court, in the end of the day, should make sure that the FDA's decision that you can get a telehealth visit and get your abortion pills by mail is safe and effective. That scientific decision, that decision based on studies should stand.... GOLODRYGA: Louisiana is arguing that mailing these pills deliberately circumvents the state's abortion ban. And they go on to say that dealing with potential complication from the drugs drives up health costs. What is your legal response to that claim? NORTHUP: Well, the response to that claim is number one, in terms of driving up costs, medication abortion has been established by many studies, safe and effective. After four invocations of safety and effectiveness, Golodryga sounded ridiculous when she circled back to restate the point:  GOLODRYGA: It's important to take a step back and remind our viewers that several decades ago, the FDA had ruled for Mifepristone to be safe and effective for women to use. And then we heard the arguments leading up to the 2024 case. The Supreme Court actually threw out a challenge because they said the physicians bringing the suit lack standing. Now, that you've got Louisiana, a state as the plaintiff, do you think that this gives the justices, the conservative justices at least, the legal opening that they perhaps have been waiting for to override the FDA once and for all? NORTHUP: Well, I certainly hope not, because Louisiana should not be able to be making policy for the FDA across the nation. That should be done by the FDA, which has said that it's safe and effective. You know, litigating that case, unfortunately, the Trump administration is trying to take a second look at that decision. But again, all of this, whether it's what Louisiana is doing or what the Trump administration is doing, is politics. The science, the research are clear. Medication abortion is safe and effective.... The whole segment was repetitive, like the talking point had to be delivered over and over again:  GOLODRYGA: The HHS is currently conducting, quote, "a complete review of Mifepristone." I'm just curious, what does a complete review at this point, so many decades later look like? Is it warranted? NORTHUP: It's certainly not warranted. You'll have to ask the Trump administration what is going on with that review. It is not warranted. It has been proven again and again to be safe and effective.... GOLODRYGA: If we see a nationwide surge in Misoprostol-only abortions, what is the medical reality going to look like in this country for women? NORTHUP: Well, look, there are safe protocols for using the other medication that is used in abortion pills, which is using Misoprostol. But that should be a decision that each provider is making based on the patient's circumstances, based on the experience of the evidence. So, there are other safe protocols. But the point is, you don't take a safe method away from providers to make a decision for political reasons, which is what Louisiana is up to here. Northup concluded that “it's really important that supporters of access to safe and legal abortion be aware” that the ban on medication abortion by mail could be banned nationwide.

The still far-left CBS Mornings began Wednesday with five minutes of fawning over soon-to-be-ex-colleague Stephen Colbert teaming up for Tuesday’s Late Show with former President Barack Obama ahead of the latter’s Presidential Center to attack President Trump through a series of serious projections about norms. In other words, they treated water being wet as breaking news. WATCH: Wednesday's 'CBS Mornings' opened with *FIVE* minutes on Stephen Colbert and Barack Obama trashing Trump at the Obama library pic.twitter.com/37MSIOxTUG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 6, 2026 It began with the end of the show’s “Eye Opener” as the two held a game of waste-basketball basketball as a follow-up to Colbert defeating Obama during a 2020 interview. Reacting to Colbert trouncing Obama, the CBS co-hosts were giggly over this supposedly amazing bit: GAYLE KING: Well, those two have a bond. VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: Hey, yeah, they’re clearly do. NATE BURLESON: That kind of spirit came out of Barack at the end. An Obama donor and family friend (who’s even vacationed with them and never faced public pushback from CBS), King gushed that they would “begin with what appeared to be some very pointed comments for President Trump from former President Barack Obama in an interview with Stephen Colbert,” “criticizing the expanding powers of the executive branch, including President Trump’s use of the Justice Department.” Nevermind how Obama’s first attorney general — Eric Holder — was dubbed his “wingman.” Sadly, CBS gave senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang the task of dressing up this blatant corporate synergy and partisan pandering as legitimate news. “[H]e had plenty to say about the presidency and how the Oval Office has changed since he was in charge...During a taped interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Colbert asked former President Barack Obama about the expanding powers of the executive branch, and what powers he believes whoever is the president should not have,” Jiang stated in part. Following a back-and-forth with Obama giving the liberal audience predictable yet fake slop about how an attorney general should be independent from the whims of a president and this “norm” should be respected, Jiang conceded: Obama did not mention President Trump by name, but he nodded to critics who say Trump has leaned on the role of Attorney General and the Justice Department to pursue investigations into his political adversaries, including former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leitia James. Obama also spoke about the President’s power as commander-in-chief. She was sent out to treat another portion of the interview about conflicts of interest as newsy: “Obama also seemed to criticize the President for using the office to advance business interests for his family and friends.” The third and final portion she highlighted was discussion of Colbert running for president (as a Democrat, but such a fact was left out). She tied it all together by citing a recent poll on Trump’s approval  A recent Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll on Trump’s approval rating found only 37 percent of Americans approve of his job performance. This interview dropped just six months before a contentious midterm election when the U.S. is wrapped up in a war with Iran and gas prices continue to climb. We have asked the White House for a response to Obama, but have not heard back this morning[.] The show shamelessly had a second segment about this interview with chief Washington analyst Robert Costa, who had the gall to tell featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers that former presidents “don’t always want to weigh in on current affairs,” but Obama chose to given the opening of this so-called “Presidential Center” (click “expand”): DUTHIERS: Bob, as Weijia outlined, this criticism comes as President Trump faces some very, very tough political headwinds. You frequently speak to President Trump, what do you make of this and how might President Trump respond? COSTA: Good morning. There’s always a political dance for former presidents. They don’t always want to weigh in on current affairs. But with the opening of the library, we see former President Obama doing just that, not using President Trump’s name. But his comments reflect a growing confidence among many Democrats nationally that ahead of these midterm elections. The headwinds are around the White House right now that the Democrats have a real shot of winning the majority. But we can expect, based on my conversations with White House officials and top advisors to President Trump, he is going to fight back. He believes he has executive authority blessed by the Supreme Court, and he has the political will to fight. First, Obama has made endorsements in nearly every election since leaving office. Secondly, he spent months appearing in ads for the Virginia Democrat move to gerrymander the state from a six Democrat-five Republican map to 10 Democrats to one Republican. And finally, this is not a library, thus breaking a norm set by every presidential center going back to Herbert Hoover. Unsurprisingly, CBS didn’t have a word about its controversial history that featured years of delays and a doubling of costs to build it on the South Side of Chicago. To see the relevant CBS transcript from May 6, click here.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied a last-ditch effort to stop Louisiana from immediately complying with the High Court’s ruling requiring redistricting to erase the state's race-based map, setting the stage for the redistricting effort to begin on Friday. “A Louisiana legislative committee that oversees redistricting will meet Friday to hear public comments on a new congressional district map after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to overturn the existing version,” Louisiana Illuminator reported Monday, citing State Senator Caleb Kleinpeter (R-Port Allen): “After public testimony Friday, Kleinpeter said his committee will meet again early next week to vote on a map.” On April 29, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s 2024 redistricting, which created an additional majority-Black district, is unconstitutional because its map was drawn based on race without meeting the extremely limited and strictly-defined legal justifications for race-based redistricting. Typically, the Clerk of the Court will not direct a copy of the Supreme Court’s opinion and certified copy of the judgment to the District Court for at least 32 days after entry of judgment - unless the High Court shortens the time for issuance. On Monday, the Supreme Court did just that, granting an “Application For Issuance Of A Copy Of The Opinion And Certified Copy Of The Judgment Forthwith,” concluding that “Those 32 days could matter” and time is of the essence. "The best way to end race-based discrimination is to stop making decisions based on race," Republican Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry said Thursday: "Here in Louisiana, we’re proud to lead the nation on this charge. Allowing elections to proceed under an unconstitutional map would undermine the integrity of our system and violate the rights of our voters.” The new redistricting is expected to restore Louisiana’s pre-2024 map by removing the one minority-Black district created based on race. On Tuesday, the Black voters who had defended the 2024 map asked the Supreme Court to reverse Monday’s order and reinstate the 32-day waiting period. By denying the request on Wednesday, the Supreme Court appears to have put an end to the dispute, SCOTUSblog reports: “In a brief, unsigned order on Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court turned down the request by the Black voters who had defended the 2024 map that the justices struck down in Louisiana v. Callais to roll back the court's order on Monday that immediately finalized its judgment – presumably ending the dispute at the Supreme Court, at least for the foreseeable future. As is often the case for orders on its emergency docket, the justices did not provide any explanation for their decision.”