On Friday, The New York Times published what was basically a press release for ABC lawyers headlined “ABC Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment.” They accused the FCC of a “chilling effect” for daring to investigate them on equal-time grounds. That doesn’t take much of a probe. It’s obvious that show is a unanimous hootenanny dedicated to trashing Trump and the Republicans. It has zero interest in equal time as a principle. On Saturday, The Times posted a more balanced article titled “How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle.” Times reporter Jim Rutenberg talked to us about the show: “The View” draws 2.7 million viewers a day, more or less the audience it has had for a decade, according to Nielsen. “It would be easy for our side to say, ‘Who watches that junk?’” said Tim Graham, a senior leader of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has long been critical of the show. “But the answer is: Many people.” We weren’t quoted talking about how the show is a feverish anti-Trump mess with no pushback. There’s no opposing view even saying “I’m not sure Trump is Hitler.” Instead, The Times asserted “The show’s panel has long included a conservative presence to balance the progressivism of its longstanding hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.” In reality, the most adversarial co-host was Meghan McCain, and they viciously drove her off the set. The Times cited our study as they acknowledged current reality: The two Republicans on the panel — a first-term Trump spokeswoman, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and the longtime strategist Ana Navarro — are frequent Trump critics. And the anti-Trump critics are even tougher. Conservatives accuse the show of interviewing mostly Democrats. This spring, the Media Research Center released a report titled, “The View Kicks Off Midterm Year With 27 Liberal Guests to 1 Republican.” (The study included celebrities in its tally.) In its filing with the F.C.C., ABC noted that guest appearances did not reflect the full range of invitations. The network said the show had invited numerous Trump allies over the past two seasons, including Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Lindsey Graham, Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — all of whom declined. This doesn't include the point we made to them -- that we only count liberal celebrities if they are making political comments. In our last study, we didn't count Robert DeNiro, since politics didn't come up in his interview. But it's a classic defense to say Trump administration figures declined interviews. That doesn't mean you can't find conservative pushback all over the place, and we have certainly volunteered to appear.  The Times repeated the ABC lawyers.  “Of course, government officials are free to express their own views about The View,” ABC’s lawyers said in the filing. “But they cannot utilize the coercive powers of the state to punish viewpoints with which they disagree.” Merely investigating this program's contents is not "coercive" or punitive. It's ABC that punishes dissenting viewpoints. The View suggested conservatives usually don’t live up to their “certain caliber of guest.”  These people often don't live up to being serious. The Times could have included Nick Fondacaro's routine findings that the show unloads crazy disinformation, like Whoopi Goldberg claiming racists are still siccing dogs on black voters at polls in the South, or their ravings that Donald Trump is going to cancel elections and refuse to leave the White House.  Liberal journalists were fine with Big Tech banning Donald Trump accounts for "disinformation," and none of them found First Amendment lawyers to scream "chilling effect." They were fine with the Biden administration censoring opposing views all over the place, even creating a "Disinformation Governance Board." They're only free-speech warriors for their own speech. 

It's become all too predictable over the past two plus months, since the start of the Iran War, tune into the liberal media and watch as Donald Trump, the United States, and Israel are presented as the bad guys, while our enemy Iran, is given a pass. Friday on Fox News's The Five, token liberal Jessica Tarlov followed that script, and she was called out hard by Jesse Watters. The segment began with a clip of Kamala Harris ripping President Trump, using the word, "Bull****". HARRIS CLIP: When you look at this war in Iran which the American people do not want, which was not authorized by Congress, but even if it was, it should not have been initiated. He talked about obliterating, and then he said oh he didn't. It's all just [bleep].... I'm not going to dismiss him as being an idiot. He is dangerous. I guess she would know if he were an idiot. Kayleigh McEnany then pointed out the hypocrisy in Harris's statement, before Tarlov came to Harris's defense. McENANY: In an October 2024 60 Minutes interview, Kamala Harris was asked who the greatest adversary to the world was and she said Iran. And now it's just BS. TARLOV: No, the way Donald Trump is going about taking away Iran's nuclear capacity, which we haven't seen that come to fruition is what she's saying is B.S. Not that Iran isn't a real threat. Everyone knows Iran is a real threat. They have been for 47 years. We know that Netanyahu pitched the same war to Joe Biden and Barack Obama and he only got Donald Trump to bite.. That's what she's  saying here. No, in fact Harris said absolutely none of what Tarlov claimed she said in that clip. Then came her obligatory Trump bashing. TARLOV: The idea that we are in the midst of a ceasefire because it's just a love tap isn't backed up by reality. Iran says we are not in a ceasefire and it does take two to tango with a ceasefire.... And now apparently we may get a 30-day pause so that we can hopefully get a bigger deal. I hope that that's the case. We hear from our administration, Iran, they're on the back foot, all this economic sanctions are being totally crushed. They are going to fall tomorrow, no, the next day, the next day. Now there is a new CIA report  that Iran could survive a naval blockade for three to four months....They have dug in....We know that China can prop them up. They can certainly give them the money they need to keep surviving here....I hope we get a compromise.... But the imminent collapse of Iran that we were promised, has not come to fruition. Tarlov's source for the CIA report was apparently The Washington Post. When Watters had his turn, he challenged her point by point. WATTERS: Jessica says China's gonna give them money. How, Jessica? There's a blockade, you can't get anything in or out. It is a fragile ceasefire but we are going to defend ourselves.... The New York Times is reporting they're leaking oil all over the Strait. It's an environmental catastrophe. Where's Al Gore? Isn't it funny, you don't hear any Democrats complaining about Iran. You listen to Jessica and she doesn't say anything about Iran. All talk's about how  Donald Trump's the bad guy here. They're slaughtering women, they're polluting the Strait. They have blocked the Strait which has caused energy prices to rise, and they are lobbing missiles at civilian targets, and they're always like "Donald Trump this, Donald Trump that." Last week it was this war cost too much. They said it was $25 billion. Guess what, we just sold $25 billion of weapons our allies....Read the news Jessica, 25 billion. Tarlov's response was pathetic. TARLOV: That doesn't include the repairs that we have to make to all of the equipment that they destroyed. WATTERS: You also said that we're running out of missiles. How we're running out of missiles if we are selling all of the missiles to our friends in the Middle East? Another leak from the CIA, anonymous sources during the Trump administration. Iran has 75% of their missile still. Really? We're still going to buy anonymous leaks from the CIA deep state to hurt Trump? They have four to six months left. Really? Tarlov protecting Harris, bashing Trump, ignoring Iran's atrocities -- nothing new to see here from Tarlov.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner got a Nazi tattoo in Croatia in 2007 while serving in the Marines – not just a swastika tat either, but a special skull and crossbones “Totenkopf” tattoo, similar to those worn by Hitler’s SS. He had the tattoo covered with new ink in late October 2025 only after it became a controversy during his emerging Maine U.S. Senate campaign. Notably, the offensive tattoo was not removed in a prolonged process of laser removal, but only covered up with another. What do the writers of the New York Times think of Platner’s Totenkopf tattoo? After all, the paper has spent years pushing the left’s most hypersensitive reactions to any signs of fascism, real or mostly imagined, on the part of Republican-identified figures, like Elon Musk’s so-called Nazi salute. Reporter Ryan Mac wrote in January 2025 under the headlines “Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation Over the Meaning of a Hand Gesture -- Speaking at a celebratory rally in Washington, Mr. Musk twice extended his arm out with his palm facing down, drawing comparisons to the Nazi salute”). Certainly the real deal, a deep cut of Nazism emblazoned on the chest of a candidate for U.S. Senate, would inspire true revulsion. Yet the same paper that went into such hysterics over nothings (even the “OK” hand gesture was suspected of links to “white power”) has greeted Platner’s Totenkopf with a shrug, as long as its owner has a chance to damage the Trump Administration by defeating moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins. It’s certainly not a dealbreaker for New York Times writer Frank Bruni, who announced his support for Platner, who appears to have wrapped up the nomination for the June Democratic primary, in order to kick Collins and help deprive Trump of his Senate cushion. Bruni made his blunt argument in his May 4 newsletter “If Democrats Have Appropriate Fear of Trump, They Will Elect Platner.” What Democrats have to fear from Sen. Collins, who actually voted to impeach Trump in 2021, is another matter. To be fair, Bruni wasn’t at the forefront of the Times’ feverish bouts of cancel culture, and has made occasional chiding noises about liberals’ overzealousness in their search for enemies (perhaps like calling everything they don’t like fascist?) But in a January 2025 “written online conversation” he hosted between business writer Bethany McLean and Nate Silver on Musk, Bruni argued that "Musk isn’t just a private citizen anymore; he’s a government official who might end up with an office in the West Wing. Shouldn’t we be talking about his stiff-armed salute — or whatever we’re calling it — at that rally on Monday in that context? What do you think it meant? And whatever was going on there, isn’t it incumbent on Musk in his new role with his new responsibilities to check his speech and spasms in a manner that forbids anyone from seeing a 'Sieg Heil' and flashing back to the Nazis?” Bruni went after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s Christian tattoo in a recent column on April 13 to bolster his argument that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is a religious Crusader with a capital C based on Hegseth's Jerusalem Cross, “Deus Vult” tattoo: “Hegseth has a tattoo on his right biceps that says ‘Deus vult,’ Latin for ‘God wills it.’ He has described that phrase as a battle cry during the Crusades, which, of course, pitted Christians against Muslims." A December 2024 Times article claimed the Deus Vult motto had been used by white supremacists. (Platner’s literal white supremacist tattoo was not similarly linked). The Times doesn’t care that anti-Semitic leftist luminaries like podcaster Hasan Piker have praised Platner: “He was giving Hamas credit in 2014. What more do you f***ing want?” Indeed. Platner also sat for a podcast interview with antisemitic conspiracy theorist Nate Cornacchia, with Platner saying he was a “longtime fan.” But for the Times, Platner is just a jaunty “populist oysterman.” The paper has referred to Platner as “an oyster farmer and veteran” without even noting the specific Nazi tattoo he got while serving in the Marines.

MS NOW should be known as your channel if you're looking for overwrought racism metaphors. In a stunning segment on Saturday's The Weekend, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) unleashed an unhinged attack on the Supreme Court and its recent Voting Rights Act decision — comparing it to the Taney Court’s infamous 1857 Dred Scott ruling and declaring the Roberts Court “one of the most racist courts in American history.” Here was Morelle to co-host Eugene Daniels: “Jose [sic!], we’re fighting back . . .  Eugene, the Supreme Court, which by the way made the worst decision since the Taney Court came up with Dred Scott. I mean, this is the Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the most racist courts in American history, and it is disgraceful.” No MS NOW host was going to fact-check that nasty cartoon.  Morelle also ripped the Virginia Supreme Court for supposedly “completely reject[ing] the will of the Virginia voters” when it struck down the Democrat-led mid-decade redistricting referendum. (The "Yes" vote was 51.7 percent.)  But it wasn’t the court that disregarded the will of the voters — it was the Democrat-run legislature that disregarded the Virginia Constitution and its clear rules for adopting amendments. Morelle also falsely claimed that Louisiana’s governor paused primaries “despite votes having already been cast.” In fact, early voting in Louisiana had not begun when the governor suspended the congressional primaries to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In stark contrast, when Virginia Democrats pushed their mid-decade redistricting referendum in April, over 1.37 million early votes had already been cast. WATCH: Dem congressman on MS NOW calls John Roberts' Supreme Court among "most racist in history." pic.twitter.com/wcPyfkhZ9E — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) May 9, 2026 After Morelle has covered the whole pasture with manure, host Eugene Daniels could only helpfully asking Morelle how Democrats can amend New York’s constitution so they can do the exact same mid-decade gerrymandering they’re denouncing elsewhere. Sadly, Eugene missed that New York's governor already accomplished mid-decade gerryamandering in 2024. Morelle admitted that Democrats are actively working to rewrite New York’s constitution — the very thing they scream is illegitimate when Republicans do it. Daniels didn’t challenge any of the inflammatory rhetoric. He simply asked for a roadmap on how best to rig the maps in New York. This is peak Democratic-media hypocrisy: Compare courts enforcing constitutional rules to Dred Scott, cry about “the will of the voters” while ignoring that your own side pushed a referendum after more than a million votes were already in the books, and then openly plot to bypass your own state constitution. Equating the Supreme Court’s recent Voting Rights Act decision with the infamous Dred Scott ruling has apparently become a mandatory Democrat talking point. We’ve documented other Dems, as here and here, making that grotesque comparison in recent days. And sure enough, Morelle checked the box on MS NOW today. Note: Morelle also called co-host Eugene Daniels “Jose” before getting it right later. Whoops! Did a producer whisper in his ear? If a Republican had made such a gaffe? Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 5/9/26 7:25 am EDT EUGENE DANIELS: Congressman, you talked about changing the rules and changing the game. Republicans have also done that when it comes to mid-decade redistricting. It all started when President Trump told Texas lawmakers to find him five seats. They did that and set off this entire back and forth. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-backed redistricting plan that is both a blow to Democrats and kind of the process that we are operating within. When you, as someone who is in New York — it’s reported that you were involved in kind of pushing the redistricting effort there — when you’re looking at how Democrats and Republicans have been operating, that Republicans have been doing this over and over again. Even just this week you had Louisiana pause its primaries so that they could change the game and change the seats, as you said. When you look at that, what should Democrats be doing next, especially in New York? JOE MORELLE: Jose [sic!], we’re fighting back. We’re a little limited in New York because we cannot do mid-decade redistricting under our state constitution.  So I was asked by Leader Jeffries to go to Albany and meet with legislators and the governor earlier this week, which I did. I’m a former state legislator, and I have a lot of relationships.  So I urged them to begin the process, which is a two-year process, to change the state constitution because we have to fight back. I mean, what’s happened, and is astonishing, Eugene [did a producer whisper in his ear to correct the "Jose" gaffe?], you just mentioned it. In California and Virginia, Democrats changed district lines by asking the public whether they wanted that to happen, through referenda, which passed. And of course, in Virginia, apparently the courts in Virginia think it’s too late to change lines, so they’re willing to completely reject the will of the Virginia voters. But in southern states, in the past week, state legislatures by fiat have changed district lines that will likely lead to the elimination of black representation throughout the South, and they just did it. Doesn’t matter to them. And to your point, Louisiana’s already in the middle of their voting — they’ve already had the primary, they’re in the runoff stage — and the governor unilaterally said, no, we’re gonna follow the Supreme Court. Which, by the way, made the worst decision since the Taney Court came up with Dred Scott. And this is, the Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the most racist courts in American history, and it is disgraceful.  That [the VRA decision] is being respected, but the will of voters in Virginia and in California are being challenged by Republicans. It’s really unbelievable. So New York and other states are gonna have to fight back, ’cause there’s no alternative at this point. DANIELS: Congressman, really quickly, we’re out of time, but you mentioned that New York has to change its constitution. There are two ways to amend the constitution in New York to allow for something like this. Do you think that you guys should amend the constitution to allow for mid-decade redistricting in New York? MORELLE: Yes. There’s really one way. You have to pass a provision in two different legislatures. There needs to be an intervening election, which is why we can’t do it this year. We would need to wait for final passage and then a referendum by the people in 2027. So I think by the 2028 election, I think you’ll see new lines in New York.

Former DNC chairwoman and current ABC contributor Donna Brazile joined outgoing GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw and HBO’s Real Time host Bill Maher to show an amazing display of hypocrisy. In the span of only a couple of minutes, the short-tempered Brazile would claim that Republican redistricting efforts are “immoral,” but that Democratic efforts are what “voters decided.” Brazile also sought to add race into the conversation, “I come from one of those states that all of a sudden, the Supreme Court said, 'Well, we don't like partisan gerrymandering. No, we don't like racial gerrymandering.' So, one out of three voters in Louisiana is a black voter. One out of three. And they are now thinking of eradicating. So, that says people from some parts of Louisiana can represent New Orleans better than the folks who are representing—or Baton Rouge. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is unjustified.” Addressing Maher and Crenshaw, she continued, “Bill, let me just say this, and I saw what the congressman tweeted today after Tim Kaine—but here’s it—I’m old enough—”   Former DNC Chair/ABC contributor Donna Brazile thinks Louisiana redisctring after the SCOTUS's VRA ruling is "is immoral and it is unjustified," but when SCOVA threw out Virginia's referendum, "The voters decided, as you well know, in California, the voters decided in Virginia."… pic.twitter.com/xI85tvFjWz — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 9, 2026   After Maher sought to understand what Crenshaw had tweeted and some table crosstalk, Brazile changed her position on gerrymandering, “He's saying the constitution is—they made it based on the constitution. They made it based on—they said the voters were already voting when the state put this law into place. So, that the voters can decide. The voters decided, as you well know, in California, the voters decided in Virginia. Politicians should not choose their voters, but I have one more—” Maher interrupted, “Well, they have done it forever. We’ve—” An insulted Brazile snapped back, “Don't I know that, Bill?” Following some more crosstalk, Brazile went back to her first position, “When did my family get the right to vote, Bill? 1965. 61 years ago. So my daddy served in war and could not vote for that. My grandparents—my grandmother was 77 when she got the right to vote. Her husband—so we understand—” Maher interrupted again to rebuke Brazile’s tone, “Yeah, I'm on your side. Don't yell at me.” Brazile scoffed, “Oh, you’re on my side?” After Maher answered “Yeah, of course,” Brazile quipped, “I didn't know.” Eventually, Brazile allowed Crenshaw to say his piece, “If you are on the side of the Constitution, you're on the side of democracy. So, Congressman, I will let you describe why you went into Tim Kaine's ass today. He tried to put his entire side into another man's ass.” After objecting to Brazille’s phrasing, Crenshaw recalled his comments about Kaine, “He was making a case that the Supreme Court doesn’t know what it's talking about and that they’re misreading. I pointed out that he should—I know reading is time-consuming, but you might read the actual case that the Supreme Court wrote. It is very well written, it’s very logically written, it’s pretty irrefutable, and it was a 10-1 vote.”   The SCOVA ruling was 4-3. The map was 10-1, which is interesting given Brazile’s earlier laments about New Orleans and Baton Rouge being represented by someone outside the cities because it got that way by splitting dark blue Fairfax County into five districts, which means people far away from the Beltway would have been represented by a Beltway liberal. Crenshaw added, “They're making the case that, simply, the constitutional amendment was, in itself, unconstitutional because of the process they followed. That is what the Supreme Court argued. It was not about the ability to politically gerrymander.” That is correct. It is also worth noting that Brazile and Kaine’s objection that the decision was made after the vote is also gravely dishonest considering Virginia Democrats originally demanded the court follow precedent and wait until after the vote to make its ruling. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 5/8/2026 10:20 PM ET DONNA BRAZILE: I come from one of those states that all of a sudden, the Supreme Court said, “Well, we don't like partisan gerrymandering. No, we don't like racial gerrymandering.” So, one out of three voters in Louisiana is a black voter. One out of three. And they are now thinking of eradicating. So, that says people from some parts of Louisiana can represent New Orleans better than the folks who are representing—or Baton Rouge. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is unjustified. Bill, let me just say this, and I saw what the congressman tweeted today after Tim Kaine—but here’s it—I’m old enough— BILL MAHER: What did he tweet? I don't know. BRAZILE: Well, he’s going to have a— DAN CRENSHAW: Tim Kaine—Tim Kaine is wrong. [Crosstalk] BRAZILE: He's saying the constitution is—they made it based on the constitution. They made it based on—they said the voters were already voting when the state put this law into place. So, that the voters can decide. The voters decided, as you well know, in California, the voters decided in Virginia. Politicians should not choose their voters, but I have one more— MAHER: Well, they have done it forever. We’ve— BRAZILE: Don't I know that, Bill? The Constitution. 1787. [Crosstalk] 1787. The Constitution. When did my family get the right to vote, Bill? 1965. 61 years ago. So my daddy served in war and could not vote for that. My grandparents—my grandmother was 77 when she got the right to vote. Her husband—so we understand— MAHER: Yeah, I'm on your side. Don't yell at me. BRAZILE: Oh, you’re on my side? MAHER: Yeah, of course. BRAZILE: I didn't know. MAHER: You didn’t know? BRAZILE: If you are on the side of the Constitution, you're on the side of democracy. So, Congressman, I will let you describe why you went into Tim Kaine's ass today. He tried to put his entire side into another man's ass. CRENSHAW: Phrasing! You know, phrasing. You know, alright, he is the last ass I would go into. BRAZILE: Okay. CRENSHAW: But Kaine—he was making a case that the Supreme Court doesn’t know what it's talking about and that they’re misreading. I pointed out that he should—I know reading is time-consuming, but you might read the actual case that the Supreme Court wrote. It is very well written, it’s very logically written, it’s pretty irrefutable, and it was a 10-1 vote. BRAZILE: 4-3 in Virginia. CRENSHAW: They're making the case that, simply, the constitutional amendment was, in itself, unconstitutional because of the process they followed. That is what the Supreme Court argued. It was not about the ability to politically gerrymander.