Jimmy Kimmel just announced that Rosie O’Donnell is going to fill in for him on his ABC show this summer, and that tracks. Because Rosie is channeling the same conspiracy theories about Trump stealing the 2024 election and canceling the 2026 election that The View specializes in – as she uncorked on former CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s show this week. O’Donnell, who fled to Ireland, told the old story that people buy here a pint in the pub because they hate Trump, too. "I mean, part of the reason that I left is I never in a million years thought we would put a convicted felon, who tried to start an insurrection, back in office. How did that happen? I don't think it happened. I think Kamala won. I do.” All Acosta could must in response was “Interesting.” Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs -- Rosie O'Donnell claims Trump stole the 2024 election (with Elon Musk) and will cancel the 2026 election with a conjured assassination attempt or something because that's the "fascist playbook." Jim Acosta cares about the Truth about as much as Dan… pic.twitter.com/zp8cXJTzKU — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) June 21, 2026   The Rosie rant continued: "And I think that we're going to find all this out, it’s going to come out. I'm not the first person to say this. There are all these researchers who are saying it. I read it online again today.” Some “researchers” said something on the internet. Acosta didn’t ask her for evidence. Then, more conspiracy talk: “And you know, the Elon Musk of it all, what did he do for Donald that was able to give him back all that he gave him back is, what did he do, you think, for the Donald and that election? Acosta claimed he couldn’t really believe the election was stolen, because “I tend to, you know, maybe it's because I'm old-fashioned, you know, and patriotic and grew up in this country, you know, watching, you know, Tom Hanks and Saving Private Ryan, I would never think that something like that could happen. So I tend to trust it, but I do worry he’s going to try to steal the next one.” This set up O’Donnell to uncork more conspiracy theories: “Well, I don't think he's going to try to steal it. I think he's going to come up with some big tragedy. [Makes quote marks with her fingers.] We're going to have an event here in the United States and some capacity, maybe another assassination attempt. [Makes quote marks.] And he's going to declare that the elections are off. That's what I think is going to happen because that's in the fascist playbook. Yes. That's what they're doing by having that Blanche idiot say that they're going to send out ICE on election day, saying it blatantly in the broad daylight, yes, that's what we're doing. They're sending out ice out in force on election day. Yeah. And as if it was not the biggest story in America that they just threatened every person of color at the voting booth.” Acosta replied “It's so true,” and then they moved on to mourning for 60 Minutes. That might tell you something about the truthfulness of 60 Minutes.

Nothing says major self-unawareness quite like Amanda Seyfried choosing to double down on her distortion of Charlie Kirk’s character after his assassination (she called him “hateful”) and casting herself as the victim in a recent British GQ interview . Shortly after Kirk’s assassination, Seyfried commented on an Instagram post that featured clips from Charlie’s speeches purposefully taken out of context to make him appear racist and cruel. “He was hateful,” the Mamma Mia star wrote, which rightfully drew a lot of criticism. Seyfried tried to temper the flames with her own Instagram post that ironically stated: We’re forgetting the nuance of humanity. I can get angry about misogyny and racist rhetoric and ALSO very much agree that Charlie Kirk’s murder was absolutely disturbing and deplorable in every way imaginable. No one should have to experience this level of violence. This country is grieving too many senseless and violent deaths and shootings. Can we agree on that at least? Her caption was equally ironic: I don’t want to add fuel to a fire. I just want to be able to give clarity to something so irresponsibly (but understandably) taken out of context. Spirited discourse- isn’t that what we should be having? Yes, Amanda. Yes, it is. That’s exactly what Kirk stood for. He wanted everyone to see the humanity in each other no matter what their political beliefs were, which you would understand if you actually bothered to listen to him in full instead of failing to see his humanity because you doom scrolled through twisted distortions of his quotes designed to rage bait you. In a December interview with Who, What, Wear, Seyfried seemed less interested in spirited discourse and more into expressing anger and defensiveness with yet again, more irony: I'm not f*cking apologizing for that. I mean, for f*ck's sake, I commented on one thing. I said something that was based on actual reality and actual footage and actual quotes. What I said was pretty damn factual, and I'm free to have an opinion, of course," she says firmly. "Thank God for Instagram. I was able to give some clarity, and it was about getting my voice back because I felt like it had been stolen and recontextualized—which is what people do, of course." Thank God for Instagram? Too bad Charlie can’t defend himself against people like you on social media anymore. See, Amanda, that’s just it. What you said was not factual because Kirk’s voice was also “stolen and recontextualized.” In fact, you’d probably be able to commiserate with him on that if he were alive. But sadly, he’s not. That’s because he’s the real victim here, not you. He’s the one who paid the ultimate price for speaking his mind because so many people did what you did. They stole his words, recontextualized them, and then used all of it to dehumanize and vilify him. To the point an unhinged young man thought it would be a noble and valiant effort to put a bullet in his neck. Then, your side cheered. And you spit on his character before he was even in the grave. And because people held you accountable, you want to play the victim now? It doesn’t work that way. Maybe in Hollywood, but not in the real world. Unfortunately, all of that wasn’t enough for the star of The Housemaid. She recently received a glowing write up in British GQ that was heavy on the fan boy vibes, and the controversy was brought up yet again. This time, Seyfried whined harder because she had to… *gasp* …hire a bodyguard. Something completely unheard of for a Hollywood starlet: Talking about it today, Seyfried is still in disbelief: “A, I’m allowed to f*cking voice my feelings, and B, do it in a way that’s not unkind necessarily. But there’s just an outsized fear and hatred and impulse to bash and to tear down. And I experienced a very small fraction of that.” “I want my kids to be able to feel safe to voice their opinions as long as they’re not harmful,” she continues. “So I’m like, ‘What do I do? What do I say?’ And then all of a sudden I find myself with a fucking bodyguard at the airport and I’m like, ‘This is crazy.’” Cue the violins! Gee, Amanda, that must have been so hard for you, having to be alive and all, walking around with a bodyguard after sharing your (extremely misguided) opinion rather than being shot in cold blood over it for all to see like Kirk was. The only thing “crazy” is that you see yourself as the victim in this scenario and still haven’t grasped how dehumanization like yours is what led to his murder in the first place. Also, notice Seyfried’s qualifiers- “in a way that’s not unkind necessarily,“ and “as long as they’re not harmful.” The underlying implication being that no one should have a right to voice an opinion that someone might falsely interpret as unkind or harmful. Since Kirk is no longer here to defend himself against Seyfried’s mischaracterizations, we’ll speak up for him. Visit this site to see his quotes in context with explanations for his true intent, and/or check out the video beloe for an in-depth dive into each quote/accusation:

Co-host Jonathan Capehart opened Saturday's The Weekend on MS NOW show by branding Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon as a “roadblock to a permanent peace deal with Iran.” Capehart highlighted Lebanese casualties from strikes that came “just hours after a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Hezbollah.” MS NOW contributor Inzaman Rashid, reporting from Dubai, piled on. He declared that “on day one” of expected talks, “we failed at the first hurdle as a result of those Israeli strikes inside of Lebanon.” Rashid emphasized Iranian anger over the strikes — a supposed “red line” — and claimed they sent negotiations “back to square one.”  In all of the coverage of war between Israel and Lebanon, our media make it sound like it's incredibly one-sided, reporting on Israeli attacks and ignoring the attacks on Israelis. Rashid framed the situation entirely from Iran's perspective. He cited his Iranian sources saying "Iranians are angry as a result of those Israeli strikes" and it’s now “difficult to see how talks can get underway” while “Israeli hostilities continue in Lebanon.” MS NOW: Israeli Strikes = Roadblock to Peace. Hezbollah Killing IDF Soldiers? Crickets pic.twitter.com/jYjqAQkIOB — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) June 20, 2026 Rashid and Capehart said nothing about why Israel struck: Hezbollah reportedly hit an Israeli tank with an explosive, killing four IDF soldiers — a direct provocation by Hezbollah, Iran’s cat’s paw proxy that Tehran arms, funds, and controls.  If Iran wanted the fighting to stop, it could order its Lebanese proxy to cease attacks on Israel.  Instead, Hezbollah keeps launching, and MS NOW blames Israel for responding Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 6/20/26 7:01 am EDT JONATHAN CAPEHART: We begin this hour with a roadblock to a permanent peace deal with Iran. This morning, Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon killed at least five people, according to Lebanese state media, just hours after a ceasefire took effect between Israel and Hezbollah.  It comes a day after that conflict delayed an expected first day of talks to reach a final peace deal between the United States and Iran.  . . .  Joining us now, MS NOW contributor Inzamam Rashid in Dubai. Inzamam, the big question here is, one, what are you hearing there in the region, and two, the impact of the ongoing back and forth between Israel and Lebanon. How will that, might that derail what's, what the Trump administration is hoping will happen in terms of the memorandum of understanding? INZAMAM RASHID: Well, let's start with that point, guys, because it's crucial. Remember, point one of the memorandum of understanding is that fighting ends, including Lebanon. And so on day one, when peace talks were supposed to take place yesterday, these negotiations and all the technical issues in that agreement, we failed at the first hurdle as a result of those Israeli strikes inside of Lebanon.  Israel saying that they were targeting Hezbollah officials, and the Lebanese Health Ministry saying that innocent civilians were killed as a result of those strikes.  So now we're in a situation where the Iranians are angry as a result of those Israeli strikes inside of Lebanon. It's been their red line all along. They said that in order to get the MOU signed, the fighting had to end inside of Lebanon. It did for a few days. We got the MOU signed. There was this big fanfare from President Trump of signing it inside the Palace of Versailles. And then now we essentially go back to square one because of the fighting.  Now, my sources inside Iran have told me that they are incredibly angered. Yesterday, one senior official who is part of the talks, he said to me that it's difficult to see how talks can get underway around the MOU whilst Israeli hostilities continue in Lebanon.

Social media often exposes leftists as hateful people who wish the worst on their enemies. That’s even true for the supposedly educational/inspirational stations of PBS. This week, Libs of TikTok exposed Bob Greene, who chairs the board of Rocky Mountain Public Media (the organization behind Rocky Mountain PBS), for some mean-spirited comments about President Trump. Republicans Against Trump  joke-tweeted: “Donald Trump turns 80 today. Any birthday wishes?” Greene shot back: “A nice stroke that turns him into a drooling, pooping blob in a wheelchair unable to speak.” Libs of TikTok asked PBS for comment.  UPDATE: @PBS Board Chair who wished for Trump to get a stroke leaving him permanently disabled deleted his account https://t.co/y74DRH5Npn pic.twitter.com/AH82hWH11w — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 15, 2026 Then LoTT added: “@PBS confirms to me that Board Chair Bob Greene violated their social media guidelines when he wished for Trump to get an illness with a permanent disability.” The message was signed by marketing executive Christina “Chris” Dayyani and included She/Her/Hers gender pronouns in the signature. The statement did not mention any disciplinary action. It further stated that “this level of discourse is never constructive to our collective efforts to strengthen the civic fabric of Colorado.” By Tuesday afternoon, Greene's “Big Vongo” X account had been deactivated. By Wednesday morning, Greene's personal page on Rocky Mountain PBS was gone. Visitors instead encountered the message "Oops.. it looks like you got lost" and that the page no longer existed or had been removed. 

The media’s attempts to suck the fun out of the World Cup are not confined to television. They extend to the local papers of the host cities as well. On Thursday, the day before the U.S. defeated Australia in Seattle, Seattle Times reporter Daniel Beekman took it upon himself to highlight certain locals who either refuse to root for Team USA or feel conflicted about the matter because of their dislike of President Trump or, in one case, the country more broadly. In a widely mocked X post, The Times wrote, “Some Seattle soccer fans have mixed feelings about patriotically backing the U.S. team during the FIFA Men's World Cup, given the actions of President Donald Trump.” As for the actual article, Beekman began by highlighting a conversation with Carey Lefkowitz, who “thinks Trump is tarnishing what it means to be American on the global stage.”   Meanwhile, Seattle…. Our media sucks. https://t.co/IeLYGGCs1i pic.twitter.com/MyEnLjpSxP — Buzz Patterson (@BuzzPatterson) June 19, 2026   Beekman then quotes Lefkowitz, “I still want the U.S. team to win, but everything that goes with that? I’m conflicted.” He then opined, “These are questions that many people are pondering in Seattle, an internationally oriented, soccer-impassioned city dominated by Democrats who vehemently disagree with how the Trump administration is running the U.S. and hosting the World Cup.” As it turned out, “many” was a vast overstatement. The crowds both inside and outside the stadium showed up in what colleague Mike Vorel was later forced to concede was a display of “pure, uncomplicated patriotism.” He even recalled how one fan gave him a yellow card for not wearing Team USA apparel. As for Beekman, he was also forced to concede that his efforts to make the World Cup about Trump were not so easy, “Some local soccer fans say current affairs actually won’t affect their approach to this summer’s tournament at all.”   Counterpoint: pic.twitter.com/PpOaWeQoOF https://t.co/dua6ELOD0n — Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) June 19, 2026   However, that did not stop him from continuing to try, “But it’s not surprising that many other fans are dealing with complex emotions around the World Cup, said Sebastian Mayer, a University of Washington politics lecturer who teaches a class on sports and politics.” Beekman continued to cite Mayer, who compared Trump’s America to previous World Cup hosts, “Since the World Cup began almost 100 years ago, many host-country leaders have used it to promote their political agendas and ‘sportswash’ their reputations, said Mayer, 33, mentioning tournaments hosted by Argentina’s brutal military junta in 1978 and Qatar’s repressive regime in 2022.”   THE GOAL IS GIVEN AND THE BUILDING SHAKES IN SEATTLE