This past Tuesday, ten days after the December 13th shooting at Brown University, and on the same day that Brown placed its' Police Chief Rodney Chatman on administrative leave, and the U.S. Department of Education announced an investigation into safety procedures at Brown, Providence Mayor Brett Smiley was interviewed on CNN, and was tossed softballs on the latest developments. Smiley appeared on CNN News Central and could have been hit with legitimate, tough, probing questions and follow-ups on the shootings, and security at Brown, the news on Chief Chatman, as well as Smiley's own performance during the aftermath of the shooting. But Host Erica Hill failed to provide much of what could have and should have been delivered. Even her lead-in into the interview fell short. "School officials say they have placed the campus Police Chief, Rodney Chatman, on administrative leave, effective immediately as the school reviews the response to the attack. Now, according to an announcement a former Providence, Rhode Island Police Chief will now lead a review into what happened..." Hill made no mention of the fact that this was not the first time in his career that Chatman has been placed on leave. It happened to him at University of Utah, shortly before being asked to leave, and winding up at Brown. It should have been her first question for the Mayor. It wasn't.  HILL: When we look at where things stand, understandable there would be this after-action report by the school. We're also learning about the Department of Education investigation into Brown. Do you believe that's appropriate and warranted? SMILEY: ...Brown has been entirely open and would have, without having been asked, conducted this after-action review, and the city of Providence is going to do the same as well. I'm extraordinarily proud of the work of my department through this process, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be willing to look at what we might have done better, what tools and technology we might have wished we had, and Brown's willing to ask all those same questions as well, which is what the campus community deserves, just like it's what my residents deserve. That was it from Hill on the entire subject of the Brown Police Chief and his replacement, although the Mayor would bring it up himself later. Then Hill pitched another softball. HILL: I understand that you've reached out to some other mayors who have unfortunately faced similar circumstances. Have they offered you any guidance you found helpful in terms of what needs to be examined for these after-action reports? SMILEY: I'm very active in the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and through that network, they have been reaching out....The other good advice that I'm getting from my colleagues around the country, because sadly, so many of America's mayors have been through some version of this type of violence, is to make sure that we're staying on the right track in terms of helping, helping our community both heal from what happened and providing resources in terms of trauma and PTSD... HILL: Yes, it will certainly be important to stay on top of that, understandably. Hill's toughest question came on the issue of cameras, or lack thereof, inside and outside of the building on campus where the shooting took place. HILL: If we're thinking about the perimeter, right, of a college campus and where it blends into or sort of becomes the city of Providence, shouldn't those perimeters be a place where there should be, perhaps, added surveillance? SMILEY: I'm sure that's something that Brown will look at. And you mentioned at the outset, the new acting Chief [Hugh Clements] at Brown is our former Police Chief, which is someone that I know well and have a really high degree of confidence in...And so, I know he'll ask those questions. And -- and I have confidence in the administration at Brown that they'll implement recommendations that need to be implemented. Smiley's next statement should have raised a red flag for Hill, but it did not. SMILEY: ..Brown is a campus that is integrated with our community here in Providence. It's one of the things we love about it. Neighbors walk their dog through campus. I live nearby, I jog through campus regularly. I did so this morning. I hope this doesn't turn into a situation where the campus is walled off or gated off. That's not going to help the situation... So, we should be using technology in a smart way that'll help make everyone safer... Sure, just let everyone enter the campus, because that has worked out so well.  And they can waive at any new cameras that appear. We know that the Brown shooter had no trouble coming and going many times. But Hill apparently heard nothing worth following up on, and thanked the Mayor for his time. Or maybe she knew his jogging schedule, and didn't want to keep him from "integrating the community."

"So you're telling me there's a chance." We laughed when the "Dumb and Dumber" character uttered that but that attitude was reflected in real life by a New York magazine writer which makes it even funnier. Yes, the extreme Hopium expressed by that magazine's Intelligencer section senior editor, Margaret Hartmann, over the incredibly slight possibility that Jeffrey Epstein's postcard letter to imprisoned serial sex offender Larry Nassar might be valid is made hilarious by its sheer desperation  despite the much less than million to one chance that it could be true.  You can see Hartmann on Tuesday going full "Dumb and Dumber" in her plea for even slight hint of damning evidence against President Donald Trump, "Did Epstein Really Send Larry Nassar a Suicide Note?" ...the DOJ posted the image of a handwritten letter signed by “J. Epstein,” which was sent to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar in 2019. The letter, which is postmarked three days after Epstein died in prison, seems to allude to Epstein’s plans to end his life, and accuses Trump of sharing their love of “young, nubile girls.” Soooo … did the Justice Department just unceremoniously drop an Epstein suicide note that suggests the president was involved in his crimes? Big if true! But it’s hard to know what to make of the letter, there is significant reason to doubt its legitimacy, and now the DOJ claims it’s “fake.” "Significant reason to doubt its legitimacy?" Try OVERWHELMING reason to doubt it, Margaret. We’ve known about the existence of this purported letter from Epstein to Nassar for years. In 2023, the AP published a report on more than 4,000 pages of Epstein-related documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request to the federal Bureau of Prisons. The letter itself was not included in the documents, but the AP did find correspondence between prison officials debating what to do with it... 2023? And was that not at the time when the Biden administration DOJ was conducting over-the-top lawfare against President Donald Trump? If there was the slightest chance that letter was valid does anybody think there would be any possibility that letter would not be quickly released to a very compliant media? Another document posted on Tuesday reveals that the FBI asked its handwriting analysis laboratory to examine the Epstein note in 2020. ...But the documents released so far do not say if the analysis was ever performed, or what it concluded. Later on Tuesday, the DOJ announced that the letter is “FAKE,” without providing any documentation to back up this claim, or explaining how this forgery ended up in the Epstein files... Perhaps the answer to handwriting question is so obvious that you don't need to to be a handwriting expert to come to a conclusion on this matter as the New York Times Investigation Editor David Enrich reveals:   We have compared Epstein's supposed letter to Larry Nassar with multiple examples of Epstein's actual handwriting (which were provided to @nytimes by a source). I'm no handwriting expert, but.... see for yourself. pic.twitter.com/Vk30fZOwuc — David Enrich (@davidenrich) December 23, 2025   "All we can say for sure: we’ll probably never know if the note is real, so it will just be added to the ever-growing pile of Epstein conspiracy theory fodder." Actually we do know for sure and so do you, Margaret. FAKE. Too bad you think your readers CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH so you pretend that there is still some slight doubt as to the validity of the letter.

For politicians, scandal and controversy can be bad. But becoming the object of ridicule can be even more devastating. So if Kamala Harris happens to read these words, we'd advise her NOT to watch CNN's 7 am Christmas Day hour. What she'd find under the tree would be something worse than a lump of coal. It'd be a steaming pile of . . . ridicule.  It's almost 2026, so why not a horse race segment on 2028 presidential contenders? After former Biden aide Meghan Hays and Republican strategist Melik Abdul named their favorites, Abdul observed:  "Notably, who we're not talking about: Kamala Harris." Host John Berman put it to Hays: "Why aren't we talking about her, Meghan?"  Abdul was manifestly amused to see Hays thusly put on the spot, and even Berman couldn't suppress a grin. Hays proceeded to engage in an extended bout of nervous laughter. She questioned whether Harris would run, and was dubious about the existence of a Harris base or her ability to raise money. On second thought, perhaps Kamala should view the segment—and draw the appropriate conclusion from it. There are 23 universities in the California state system. Surely at least one of them must have an opening for a new president!  Note: Abdul said that the potential Dem candidates that Republicans should most fear are Newsom and Shapiro. Abdul praised Newsom as "stately." I'd call him slick. He peremptorily dismissed the chances of Wes Moore and JB Pritzker, saying of the former that "no one cares about the governor of Maryland," and that Pritzker's money "won't matter." Earlier in the segment, Berman called attention to Ron DeSantis' twitter [X] feed in the last six months, pointing out that he's posting about sports, music, and offering "unplugged commentary." Berman suggested that either "this guy has no more Fs to give," or that he wants to show a more relatable side of himself in preparation for a potential '28 run.  Here's the transcript. CNN News Central 12/25/25 7:33 am ET JOHN BERMAN: One curveball here, Meghan.  I'm a little bit obsessed with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his Twitter feed over the last six months. Because, look, he ran for president and did not do well, right? And I think a lot of people saw him as stiff, unapproachable, prickly.  So on social media the last several months, he's tweeting about music. He's tweeting about sports. He's offering sort of unplugged commentary. I don't know if you've had a chance to see it, But it's the kind of stuff that makes you think either this guy has no Fs left to give, or, he thinks I need to show a different side of myself if I'm going to have a future in politics.  . . . Melik, who do you think Republicans fear the most?  MELIK ABDUL: I think that Republicans, well, who they should fear the most, I would argue it's between Shapiro and Gavin Newsom.  You remember the Fox News debate between Gavin Newsom or Ron DeSantis? Gavin Newsom actually performed very well. And even though he's from California, he is very, he looks the part. He's very stately. And those types of things matter from an optics perspective. But also, Shapiro being from a battleground state. I think that that is something that we also have to watch. I don't think that Wes Moore, he's the governor of Maryland. No one cares about the governor of Maryland. I don't think Pritzker, he has a lot of money. It won't matter.  I think that the two standouts will be Gavin Newsom, and Shapiro. And notably, who we're not talking about, Kamala Harris.  BERMAN: Why aren't we talking about her, Meghan? [Abdul chuckles.] MEGHAN HAYS: [Nervous laughter] Uh, [Abdul laughs out loud] you know, it's interesting [more nervous laughter.]  I just am not sure [Abdul having a ball, continues to chuckle] she, I don't know that she's going to run. I know she talks about leaving the door open, but I think running, you have to have a base. You have to be able to raise a lot of money, and I think there's a lot of people in the race, and I'm not sure that that's a path she wants to take again. But, you know, again, there's probably going to be 20, 25 candidates. So, the water is warm. 

When voters are allowed to see the facts that the leftist, legacy media are denying them, their economic outlook brightens significantly, results of a new McLaughlin & Associates study reveals. In a nationally-televised address to the nation last week (Wednesday, Dec. 17), President Donald Trump described the ways in which the U.S. economy has improved under his administration. In response, left-wing media attacked Trump in an effort to dupe their viewers into believing that the economy is worsening. Even during his speech, the media took steps to prevent viewers from seeing the facts Pres. Trump was presenting, as partners John and Jim McLaughlin noted Wednesday in an analysis of the results of their latest study: “During the President's address, several liberal, anti-Trump networks chose to censor or obscure the White House's visual graphs — graphs which clearly documented improvements in wage growth versus inflation, gas prices, manufacturing, and tax refunds. “This was not a subtle editorial decision; it was a deliberate act of information suppression.” “It's illustrative of precisely why moving public opinion remains difficult even when the facts are on the president's side,” they write, providing examples of how destructively influential media bias can be. The graphics documented price increases for various products during the Biden administration, compared to decreases in their costs since Trump entered the White House, and showed how “real” (inflation-adjusted) wages fell during his predecessor’s term and have risen during Trump’s (see graphics below). In their national survey, conducted December 15-19, 56% of U.S. voters surveyed said they believe the economy is getting worse, while just 37% perceived it as improving But, “facts change minds,” they report: “When voters are presented with factual information—that the economy is growing, inflation is declining, wages are rising faster than prices, consumer spending is up, unemployment is low, interest rates are being cut, business investment is rising, and federal taxes are being cut — public opinion shifts dramatically.” Indeed, once voters were informed of the facts, the numbers flipped. The percent who said the economy is improving jumped 25 points, from 37% to 62%, while pessimism plummeted from 56% to 33%. Even a 56% majority of viewers who rely on left-wing media for their news agreed the economy is improving, once they reviewed the facts. “This explains why legacy media outlets chose to censor the President’s graphs,” the pollsters say. Likewise, “Most voters do not yet view President Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ (OBBBA) as a tax cut,” they note, reporting that about the same share of viewers (four in 10) believe it is a spending bill as think it lowers taxes. The media-driven misperception among voters weakens support for the new tax act even though, as the IRS explains, it: Lowered individual income tax rates. Increased the standard deduction. Extended tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. Eliminated tax on tips and overtime pay. Made interest on car loans deductible. Increased the deduction for seniors. “The conclusion is unavoidable, the pollsters say: “When voters are given accurate information, attitudes shift quickly and decisively.” To overcome the media bias, they write, Trump and his fellow Republicans must find ways to bypass hostile media filters – such as utilizing social media and holding rallies – and constantly counter fake news with documented facts. Graphics from Pres. Trump’s address to the nation are presented below, followed by video of his full speech. Read the complete analysis by John and Jim McLaughlin here. The business and economic reporting of CNSNews is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.  

The leftists inside CBS News clearly despise new Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, who threatens to add troublesome balance to their “news.” The war erupted when Weiss delayed the latest 60 Minutes hit piece on Team Trump deporting Venezuelans into a "notorious" Salvadoran prison. Delaying it is a “crisis,” the Trump-haters screamed, a “death knell for democracy.” Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi assembled what we could guess was a typical hit piece on the “notorious” CECOT prison in El Salvador that temporarily held illegal migrant cause celebre Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. When it was delayed at the last minute, The Wall Street Journal reported a combative note from Alfonsi to fellow 60 Minutes staffers that quickly leaked to the media, where she said her segment was being held for political reasons, not editorial ones. Alfonsi said Weiss had "spiked" the story and not given her a chance to discuss it further. It is certainly a serious subject when the Trump administration not merely deported illegal immigrants, but deported them directly into a prison. That can certainly be questioned. We can question why it was that Weiss couldn’t delay this story until the promos had already been sent out. Team Alfonsi not only leaked to the papers, but I think we can guess they got their story posted in Canada through Global TV, which has the rights to air 60 Minutes in Canada. so that all their super-fans could see it. We’ve seen it, and the best we can about it is this: It’s like all the other hatchet jobs that 60 Minutes has launched against Team Trump in 2025. If it had aired, it might not have caused as much of a ripple outside its natural audience. Make no mistake: to use Brian Stelter’s lingo, it "centered" the story on illegal immigrants and their allegations of torture and sexual assault. It was intended to suggest Trump sent innocent men into “Hell,” the term of art CBS used, even though these people aren’t generally religious. If you think 60 Minutes ever wanted to ponder the Hell endured by Laken Riley, by Rachel Morin, by Jocelyn Nungaray, and other people murdered by illegal aliens, think again. They never want to center the negatives about illegal immigration. The illegal immigrant in general, or in specific like Kilmar, have been centered all year long. They are automatically, let’s joke autocratically awarded Sympathetic Victim Status. The Border Patrol and ICE are perpetually the villains of these stories. Alfonso and her crew didn't want to put a Trump aide like Stephen Miller into this story. Why? Because they don’t want an energetic rebuttal, where someone might cast aspersions on illegal aliens or worse yet, on CBS for making Fake News.  Alfonsi could not abide Weiss wanting a Trump official to comment: "If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a 'kill switch' for any reporting they find inconvenient.... We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state,” Alfonsi wrote. This statement's hilarious, considering Pelley put aside "investigative powerhouse" to "stenographer" in two puffball interviews with President Biden, not to mention Alfonsi's own puddle of goo over student activists like David Hogg at Parkland High School.  If Alfonsi wants to trash Weiss for curtailing her speech, she could review her 60 Minutes piece hailing the Germans for cracking down on free speech on the internet. Enjoy the podcast below, or on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.