Thursday’s PBS News Hour segment on “extreme weather events” turned out even more bluntly unscientific than the channel’s usual apocalyptic environmental “Tipping Point” fare, with reporter Ali Rogin’s “climate change” screed equating temporary weather patterns with dangerous climate change -- at least when the show and its climate guest cherry-pick the hottest spots on the map. Never mind the extreme cold North America suffered in late January 2026, or Cuba’s first freeze on record in early February, events ignored by the News Hour earlier this year. Now it’s all about the heat dome, due to “fossil fuel pollution.” (From the network that also complains about rising gas prices.) Anchor John Yang warned of “a massive heat dome….spreading across much of the United States, with temperatures reaching historic highs” before handing off to Ali Rogin for the latest alarmist entry in the News Hour's “Tipping Point” series on "climate change." Ali Rogin: John, this heat is not just notable for nearly unprecedented early spring temperatures, but also for the amount of ground it's covering. Temperatures have been 20 to 40 degrees above normal in the Great Plains, and it's been moving east. Some cities are already seeing record-breaking streaks, and the heat is expected to last into early April. That's because a high-pressure system is acting like a lid, trapping hot air underneath and allowing temperatures to rise day by day. The Southwest registered triple digits, with temperatures reaching 101 degrees in New Mexico. Kansas also set a march record with 102 degrees twice in four days. For more on what we can expect in the coming days, I'm joined by Bernadette Woods Placky, chief meteorologist at Climate Central….. Her guest, Bernadette Woods Placky, admitted to "some cold stretches" at the start of the year, "But since the beginning of the year, 85 percent of our records have been warm or hot records, and only 15 percent have been cold records…" Rogin: So you mentioned we're seeing record heat, record cold, but why is it that we are seeing more record hot weather than cold? Placky was exceedingly confident in her analysis. Placky: Well, that's because of climate change. Now, one is the weather pattern. It's extraordinary for this time of year. It looks more like a weather pattern we'd see in July. But that weather pattern alone, combined with the additional fossil fuel pollution we put into our atmosphere, is why we're breaking records to this level…. PBS’s expert finally noticed cold weather (“rare snow in Alabama”). Any weather anomaly is a sign of “extreme weather” and dangerous “climate change,” making the label unfalsifiable. Journalist Rogin made the lazy knee-jerk claim that the weather just keeps getting worse every year, ignoring for one thing the lack of hurricane landfalls in the United States in 2025, usual dire predictions notwithstanding. Rogin: The weather just seems to get worse and worse every year, but it's not just extreme heat. It's also things like flooding in Hawaii, rare snow in Alabama, shifting temperatures in the Northeast. What else can we expect in terms of extreme weather for the rest of this year? A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 3/26/26 7:25:29 p.m. (ET) JOHN YANG: A massive heat dome has been spreading across much of the United States, with temperatures reaching historic highs, but it`s not an isolated spike. In recent weeks, the country has grappled with a series of extreme weather events. Ali Rogin more for our periodic series Tipping Point. ALI ROGIN: John, this heat is not just notable for nearly unprecedented early spring temperatures, but also for the amount of ground it`s covering. Temperatures have been 20 to 40 degrees above normal in the Great Plains, and it`s been moving east. Some cities are already seeing record-breaking streaks, and the heat is expected to last into early April. That`s because a high-pressure system is acting like a lid, trapping hot air underneath and allowing temperatures to rise day by day. The Southwest registered triple digits, with temperatures reaching 101 degrees in New Mexico. Kansas also set a march record with 102 degrees twice in four days. For more on what we can expect in the coming days, I`m joined by Bernadette Woods Placky, chief meteorologist at Climate Central. Bernadette, thank you so much for being here. How unusual is it for us to see this type of heat in March, and has this ever happened before? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY, Climate Central: This is wildly unusual. And, no, it has not happened to this level before. I do think people are used to seeing temperatures spike 100 degrees in Phoenix and Las Vegas, but that`s usually May, June, July. It`s not in March. ALI ROGIN: And how far has this heat spread in the country so far, and what can we expect in the coming days? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: Sure, so there`s a lot of ways to put together these numbers, and, any way you look at them, they are breaking records like we have never seen before. One is, we broke an all-time temperature record for March for the country. We also have had multiple states break their all-time March temperature record. We have seen hundreds of records a day happen over this past week. And when you break down the balance of record highs to record lows, we took it back all the way to the beginning of the year, because, remember, there were some cold stretches. But since the beginning of the year, 85 percent of our records have been warm or hot records, and only 15 percent have been cold records. So there`s a lot of coverage in that early season cold. It`s nothing compared to what we`re experiencing right now. ALI ROGIN: So you mentioned we`re seeing record heat, record cold, but why is it that we are seeing more record hot weather than cold? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: Well, that`s because of climate change. Now, one is the weather pattern. It`s extraordinary for this time of year. It looks more like a weather pattern we`d see in July. But that weather pattern alone, combined with the additional fossil fuel pollution we put into our atmosphere, is why we`re breaking records to this level. And one way you can look at that, right, is, we understand the greenhouse effect. This is science that goes back to the 1800s that really isn`t challenged. And we can measure those greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and we know we`re putting more of those into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas. So when you thicken that blanket around our atmosphere, it traps more heat. The most obvious and direct way that we experience that extra warming on our planet is through extra hot days. ALI ROGIN: And, now, we have been experiencing these heat domes. For the last 10 years, they have been on the rise. What makes them different, though, from just other types of early spring warm weather? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: Well, we have had heat domes before. We have had them this time of year before. But what happens underneath those, when you add those extra greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it allows our temperatures to go to levels we have never experienced. So that`s the big difference right now, is that every time we`re using the word unprecedented or record, and it feels like it`s getting a little old to some people, but it`s happening that frequently right now that we`re pushing record highs to this level. ALI ROGIN: This hot weather is also having implications for things like snowpack and water resources out West. How is this going to affect communities not just in the present, but in the months to come? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: This is a really important part of this conversation, because the West as a whole has been really low on its amount of snow this year. And you got to remember that`s water. That`s water for the warmer months. That`s how we water our plants and our crops. That`s also our water resources. So, on April 1, this is a really big day out West, where we take these measurements across many different areas in the mountains and get an assessment of where that snowpack is for the year as we head into these warmer months. We are so low. We`re at record lows. And it really varies from state to state. But it`s not only that it`s record low. This March heat has forced melting earlier than usual. So we`re not going to have that water in the same ways at the times that we need it. And then that really ups our risk for wildfire. ALI ROGIN: The weather just seems to get worse and worse every year, but it`s not just extreme heat. It`s also things like flooding in Hawaii, rare snow in Alabama, shifting temperatures in the Northeast. What else can we expect in terms of extreme weather for the rest of this year? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: Well, it`s interesting to look at this as a full pattern. One thing we do know is that we are shifting into what`s called an El Nino year. And there have been discussions of this in the past, and people have followed along. But what happens during El Nino years is, we get this extra boost of heat in the water that translates into our atmosphere, and it usually pushes our temperatures overall for the planet higher. So that is one thing. And then that shifts our weather patterns a little bit more. But what we also know is that, when you add more heat to this atmosphere, it`s like a boiling pot of water, right? And so things get more turbulent. And when we have more rain events, when they do actually trigger, there`s more precipitation for them to come down. And when we get these heat events, it pushes to higher levels. And that`s what we`re experiencing right now. And that will continue. ALI ROGIN: In the 40 seconds we have left, I want to ask you about these floods in Hawaii that seem to be really unusual. What can you attribute that to? BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: Well, one way we have looked at that is the water temperatures. These are islands. And the storms are coming off of the water. And the water around the islands right now is higher than usual. And there is a climate change fingerprint in that also. And we can look at that through what we call attribution science, and we can tease out that role of climate change in those water temperatures. So it`s adding more fuel and more moisture for these storms. It`s adding an extra little boost to the already wet pattern that was setting up. ALI ROGIN: Bernadette Woods Placky with Climate Central, thank you so much for joining us. BERNADETTE WOODS PLACKY: Thanks for having me.

The Elitist Media Sunday Shows did their part to elevate and promote the astroturfed “No Kings” rallies throughout the country as some sort of organic expression of discontent against the current state of affairs. Only one of those shows featured any sort of conservative pushback against this premise. Watch as Scott Jennings joins CNN’s State of the Union panel and brutally mocks the protests while exposing the truth about them: WATCH: @ScottJenningsKY absolutely CLOWNS the astroturfed "No Kings" rallies and rightly notes that they are funded by "weirdo liberal boomers" (see Singham, Neville). JAKE TAPPER: Last word? SCOTT JENNINGS: These- these No Kings rallies actually look pretty representative to… pic.twitter.com/UDseKTaVuP — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 29, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: Last word? SCOTT JENNINGS: These- these No Kings rallies actually look pretty representative to me of the Democratic coalition. I saw people flying the hammer and sickle in New York City. I saw Hezbollah flags. I saw Hamas flags. I saw Palestinian flags. I saw trans signs. I see weirdo liberal boomers out there. This is pretty representative of the Democratic coalition. And that's who funds it as well, by the way. And so I think -- I think -- I think -- I think if, if America looks at this and says, what do the two parties stand for, they got it at the No Kings rallies. (CROSSTALK) ASHLEY ALLISON: No, I think if you knew Americans were out there, you were out there, Republicans are saying... JENNINGS: You like hammer and sickle? You like hammer and sickle flags? ALLISON: That's- that’s not what that No Kings stood for.  JENNINGS: They had a bunch of them. ALLISON: And you know that. JENNINGS: They come from somewhere out there. ALLISON: And that is… No, Scott. No. NANCY MACE: A lot of commie flags out there. TAPPER: Thanks- thank you, one and all. Appreciate- I should have ended it on your nice note. (LAUGHTER) Jennings broke through the usual fluffery to describe what was at the heart of the No Kings protests, and to remind the American public that this event is little more than CCP-adjacent astroturf. Per Fox News: But Fox News Digital has also identified key participation by a network of radical socialist and communist organizations funded by Neville Roy Singham, an American tech tycoon and avowed communist living in China. Over nearly a decade, Singham has financed a constellation of activist institutions that promote revolutionary socialist politics and frequently collaborate in protest campaigns, including the People’s Forum in New York, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the ANSWER Coalition and CodePink, whose co-founder Jodie Evans is married to Singham. These groups work closely with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. They are all sending members to the protests and one group said they plan to bring a message of "revolution" to the protests. When you dig a little deeper you find that these are the same groups that backed last week’s Cuba flotilla. Flotilla attendees stayed at a five-star hotel in Havana, which for a time was the only place in Cuba with reliable power amid endless blackouts. The flotilla ended with leftist influencers making hungry Cuban children dance for snacks. The same people that shout “no kings” in the United States went to Cuba to worship Fidel Castro and to rejoice in his works- notwithstanding the misery they have created for everyday Cubans. This is the truth about these “No Kings” protests that the media do not want you to see. Credit to Scott for making the most of his time and opportunity in order to expose these protests for the astroturf they truly are. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN State of the Union on Sunday, March 29th, 2026: JAKE TAPPER: Ashley, did you go out? Did you participate in a No Kings rally yesterday? ASHLEY ALLISON: Tangentially, but not... TAPPER: Tangentially? ALLISON: Yes. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: OK. Well, here's some -- demonstrators nationwide, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, turned out for the No Kings protest. Take a listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't express how much I hate Donald Trump, and I think that he's just ruining our country. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He cares nothing about America. He cares nothing about the American people. He cares nothing about the people of the world. (END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: So, the front page of "The New York Times" today: "Will primal scream of No Kings echo in the voting booth?" And I think that's the question for your party right now. Does this actually mean anything? ALLISON: Wow. Look, if you remember after... TAPPER: It's not my work. ALLISON: I know, I know, I know. The reason why I said tangentially is also because there were events throughout the entire weekend. I did some stuff on Friday. There's a couple things today that I will be most likely participating in. But, look, if you remember, after the 2024 election, everybody was like, where's the resistance? Nobody's taking to the streets. Democrats are like, they're defeated. They feel exhausted. They know they are not like the way of the American people. And I think people like myself said, well, when you lose, it's right to take a step back and say, is marching the only thing that is going to get people to rally around you? We saw first Hands Off a year ago. Then we saw No Kings around the president's birthday. And now we see this. And I think what the important -- I don't know if this will ring in the voting booths. I know that some of the policies the Republicans are passing is what might actually be the thing that makes Americans not support them in the midterms. But what a protest like this shows is that there are so many people at home being like, I don't like this. And they think they're by themselves sometimes saying that. And when you have millions of people peacefully go out, rock stars, Bruce Springsteen, Jane Fonda, all these folks coming out and saying, we don't like it either, we're not in isolation, it shows a unifying force that could be powerful. TAPPER: Did you go to a No Kings rally? SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM: I did. I went to six. And I will tell you, there's so much excitement. There's so much energy. SCOTT JENNINGS: Six? SUBRAMANYAM: Yes. JENNINGS: That's a lot of free speech for a country with a king. (CROSSTALK)  SUBRAMANYAM: You should come. I will get you a T-shirt. You should come. JENNINGS: That's a lot of free speech for a country with a king. SUBRAMANYAM: That's a lot of free speech. And I will tell you, there's so much excitement and there's so much energy. We didn't have that a couple of years ago. And there's also people -- I met someone who was a Republican actually at the rally, who is -- because of the Iran war, he said he will never vote for a Republican now because of what's going on. TAPPER: Do you worry that the Iran... NANCY MACE: I did not go to a No Kings rally. SUBRAMANYAM: You didn't? Oh... (CROSSTALK) SUBRAMANYAM: We will invite you next time. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Do you worry that the Iran war is going to help Democrats? MACE: Well, I come from a military family. I come from a military district. I worry about the impact of war on our troops and our sons and daughters that we're sending into war. They deserve an answer to, how does this end? I don't make decisions, obviously, based on what elections look like. I don't think any of us should. This is something I take -- that has such deep gravity and a seriousness. I think it is insulting to equate it to elections. I just -- this is serious. We want to take out terrorists. We want to take out Iran's nukes. We want to make sure they don't have uranium. And we want to do it with the lowest impact on American soldiers, our sons and daughters from Hampton, South Carolina, Bamberg, small towns across the country, the poorest of all Americans, those are the ones that we're sending into war. JAKE TAPPER: Last word? SCOTT JENNINGS: These- these No Kings rallies actually look pretty representative to me of the Democratic coalition. I saw people flying the hammer and sickle in New York City. I saw Hezbollah flags. I saw Hamas flags. I saw Palestinian flags. I saw trans signs. I see weirdo liberal boomers out there. This is pretty representative of the Democratic coalition. And that's who funds it as well, by the way. And so I think -- I think -- I think -- I think if, if America looks at this and says, what do the two parties stand for, they got it at the No Kings rallies. (CROSSTALK) ASHLEY ALLISON: No, I think if you knew Americans were out there, you were out there, Republicans are saying... JENNINGS: You like hammer and sickle? You like hammer and sickle flags? ALLISON: That's- that’s not what that No Kings stood for.  JENNINGS: They had a bunch of them. ALLISON: And you know that. JENNINGS: They come from somewhere out there. ALLISON: And that is… No, Scott. No. NANCY MACE: A lot of commie flags out there. TAPPER: Thanks- thank you, one and all. Appreciate- I should have ended it on your nice note. (LAUGHTER)  

The Elitist Media continue to circle their wagons around embattled Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), providing near-zero coverage of the latest episode in this ongoing saga. The omission campaign has now extended to the Sunday political affairs shows which, with one exception, a throwaway segment on CBS’s Face the Nation. If you had Margaret Brennan being the sole Sunday host to ask an elected Democrat about l’affaire Cherfilus-McCormick, kindly make your way to the cashier’s window and collect your winnings. Watch the exchange below: The Sunday shows joined their network evening news counterparts in completely burying the House Ethics Committee finding Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) guilty of 25 ethics violations. The sole mention- a throwaway question to Jim Himes on CBS's Face the Nation. MARGARET… pic.twitter.com/o2qgpz8UGK — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 29, 2026 MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, Democrats have been making corruption a theme in their campaign against the President and to win back control of the house. Your fellow Democrat, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida has been found guilty on 25 ethics charges related to stealing millions of dollars in COVID relief money. Should she resign? Should she be expelled? JIM HIMES: You know, if she doesn't resign, there will be a vote in the House, and you know, people will find reasons to support the congresswoman, just as Republicans found reasons to support George Santos-- BRENNAN: Should she resign?  HIMES: --at a time when we're at war, when gas prices are too high, that shouldn't happen. So I would hope that my colleague might avoid that outcome by choosing to resign. But it is also very important that both parties be consistent in punishing ethical lapses inside their own teams. BRENNAN: Okay, you hope she resigns. Thank you, Congressman, for all your insights today. We have to leave it there. We'll be right back. On the one hand: Brennan’s question is a significant improvement from the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it mention the scandal drew on CBS Saturday Morning. On the other, this was a “before you go” question- a throwaway at the end of an interview that was mostly about the ongoing DHS shutdown and the military operation in Iran. No other Sunday show dared mention the Cherfilus-McCormick matter to their Democrat guests or discuss it in their Beltway panels. In the case of ABC’s This Week, host Jon Karl mentioned Florida’s special elections in their panel discussion within the context of the upcoming midterms- but not Cherfilus-McCormick. This story simply does not fit within that narrative, or any other. We continue to be reminded that were it not for double standards, there would be none at all when it comes to the Elitist Media. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, March 29th, 2026: MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes, who joins us from Greenwich, Connecticut. Good morning to you.  JIM HIMES: Good morning, Margaret. BRENNAN: So you just heard the border czar, the White House representative here, make his argument. Politically speaking, though. I mean, the shutdown was intended by Democrats to try to constrain ICE and how it had been acting. But practically speaking, ICE is already funded. In fact, it's one of the few DHS entities where people are getting paid because they had so much funding from the President's last bill, and now their portfolio is expanding because they're in American airports across the country. So what did Democrats get out of this standoff? HIMES: Yeah, well, Margaret, the standoff is not done yet, right? The President is illegally paying, apparently, TSA agents. You had the Senate, as you pointed out, with Mr. Honan- Homan, pass a bipartisan bill unanimously in the United States Senate to say, look, let's fund everybody else, and let's deal with this thorny issue about ICE. And then you had the Republican House say, hell no, we're not doing that. And by the way, mock their own Republican leaders in the Senate. So look what- this thing is still very much live for one very simple reason. We can talk about House, Senate, changing law, for one very simple reason, which is that the vast majority of Americans look at the way ICE behaved with the murder of two American citizens, with the constant knocking down of doors of American citizens without warrants, people dressed like they are, you know, airlifting into Fallujah to do the legitimate work of going after illegal aliens in this country, and they say that is not okay, and that's our position. Our position is very simply, we want ICE to act like the police force that they are, and that fight is not won yet. And look, I'm sorry it got tied up. I'm sorry that the Republicans on one side of the Capitol said this was a good idea, and on the other side of the Capitol. They called it a joke, but we're ready to negotiate around something that is not a radical demand. We just want ICE to act like proper police officers. BRENNAN: So in the meantime, the president's redirecting existing funding to pay TSA agents. You said he was illegally paying them. You believe that he is violating the law in this interpretation that the White House says they have?  HIMES: Well, it's not that I believe it, it's that I know it, right? I mean, if there's one power that Congress has, it is the power of the purse. Now this president has, of course, consistently and universally said that he in fact has that power-- BRENNAN: --So they shouldn't be paid? HIMES: --but any American that went through fourth grade civics- no, they should be paid. This- they should have never been held hostage. And we had a deal come out unanimously from the Senate, that if it had passed right now, they would be getting paid, and we wouldn't be talking about the constitutional power of the purse. But Mike Johnson, leader of the House of Representatives, said hell no to what his Republicans in the Senate said yes to.  BRENNAN: So there were three Democrats, though, who got on board with Speaker Johnson the House version of this bill, even without any new accountability measures in it, Congresswoman Glusenkamp Perez says she did so because she thinks it's wrong not to pay people for their work, and Democrats had set unattainable goals. She says since the White House was agreeing to things like body cameras- doesn't she have a point here that there is, as she put it, 'ideological purity' that's getting in the way of working people? HIMES: So this is not a question of ideological purity. And I agree with Marie on one point, which is the people shouldn't be held hostage. And we can come back to that. But this is not extreme demands by any stretch of the imagination. Again, we're asking that guys not dress like Navy SEALs when they go into Minneapolis. We're asking that they wear badges the way every other police officer does, that they have warrants when they break down doors.  BRENNAN: And some of those things have been agreed to-- HIMES: This is not ideological purity. This is basic adherence to the law- yeah, well, okay, so it's all agreed to, let's pass the law which codifies it. Because you know what, we don't trust the president when he says, okay, no masks any more than we trust him when he says, oh, well, now I'm negotiating with the Iranians when he's not, right? So if this is so easy, fine, let's codify it into law. But they're not, you know- they're not willing to do that. Now, where Maria's right, and this is important, we have gotten too used to using shutdowns as a mechanism of getting what we want legislatively. And what that implies is that people like TSA agents or folks that work in the federal government for the Department of Agriculture or- don't get paid when one party throws a tantrum, right? Now, in this case, I happen to believe that the American people- you know are with the Democratic Party and saying you don't get to act like ICE acted in Minneapolis, but we do need to get away from legislating through shutdown that is not consonant with the great country that we are. BRENNAN: Well, and they just want their airports and basic government to work. But on the point you raised, you said that the President's not really negotiating with Iran is that because you haven't been briefed as a member of Congress on the diplomacy. Or you think he's flat out lying? HIMES: I think he's flat out lying last Sunday, when he was told- and by the way, we're in exactly the same position today, you know, oil prices now $112 a barrel. And you know futures in the stock market down 2%. Last Sunday, he realized, oh my God, I've got a financial cataclysm on Monday. So he just made it up that they're in negotiations with the Iranians. Look underneath that statement, the Iranians have now realized that they have the reins. They are controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Gasoline prices are up more than $1 a gallon, and so the Iranians realize, holy smokes, we've got a lot of leverage here.  BRENNAN: In Islamabad today, there are a number of mediators who are in contact with the United States saying they're talking about Iran. But neither the United States nor Iran are at that table at this moment in time. But further on, the Iran point, I know you care about what's happening in Ukraine. Notably, President Zelensky of Ukraine has been in the Gulf in these past few days, and he said yesterday that Russia is providing satellite imagery to Iran, and that imagery consists of U.S. military bases. He also said Russia is giving signals intelligence and electronic intelligence to Iran. Do you know of evidence that Russia is actively helping Iran in its war against the United States?  HIMES: Well, I have to be a little careful about this Margaret, because I do review the intelligence, and I obviously can't speak about things that are classified, but boy, I would sure not argue with President Zelensky on that point. And I would ask the American people to think about what do you think Putin is doing right now? Over four years, we have been, rightly, in my estimation, helping the Ukrainians exact a terrible toll on the Russians. So what do you think is happening? Meanwhile, as you know, we are letting the Iranians, so now the Iranians are getting billions of dollars sell their oil to the Chinese so that they can buy drones from the Russians. We're letting the Russians sell oil so that they can get dollars to attack the Ukrainians and use those dollars to attack- to help attack our troops. I mean, you just couldn't make this stuff up in a Hollywood script. BRENNAN: Well, Secretary Rubio was asked about the degree of aid Russia is giving to Iran, and he minimized it. He says it's not making a difference on the battlefield. I know the French, I know the British have said that Russia and Iran are helping each other on drones here. When you heard Secretary Rubio's statement, what did you think he meant? HIMES: I think it is very much in Marco Rubio's interest as one of the chief cheerleaders of this war that the American people are now coming to realize is a catastrophe, another quagmire for Marco Rubio to say things like, oh, they're not making a difference. Well, I don't agree with Marco Rubio on that point. You know, the Russians have capabilities, things like using basic satellite technology, which you can do commercially, by the way, to find our aircraft carriers. Our military bases in the region, Margaret, right now are supposedly uninhabitable. Why do you think that is? BRENNAN: Before I let you go, Democrats have been making corruption a theme in their campaign against the President and to win back control of the house. Your fellow Democrat, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida has been found guilty on 25 ethics charges related to stealing millions of dollars in COVID relief money. Should she resign? Should she be expelled? HIMES: You know, if she doesn't resign, there will be a vote in the House, and you know, people will find reasons to support the congresswoman, just as Republicans found reasons to support George Santos-- BRENNAN: Should she resign?  HIMES: --at a time when we're at war, when gas prices are too high, that shouldn't happen. So I would hope that my colleague might avoid that outcome by choosing to resign. But it is also very important that both parties be consistent in punishing ethical lapses inside their own teams. BRENNAN: Okay, you hope she resigns. Thank you, Congressman, for all your insights today. We have to leave it there. We'll be right back.  

Saturday's edition of MS NOW’s The Weekend: Primetime turned its “No Kings” protest coverage into a cringe reel. It began with a narrative setup that immediately collapsed. Ayman Mohyeldin teed up his co-host Antonia Hylton to describe Trump voters who had supposedly turned against him and joined the protests. Problem: Hylton hadn’t actually found any. ANTONIA HYLTON: “Today, I didn’t specifically talk to anyone in the crowd who had voted for Trump in the past…” So much for that narrative. But the real spectacle came live from Los Angeles, where correspondent Jacob Soboroff’s man-on-the-street routine quickly went off the rails. It was "incredible," it may be "historic." Let's guess few people remember the last one of these, despite all the elitist media boosterism.  Soboroff began by literally grabbing a woman by the arm and pulling her into the camera frame—only to learn she was a federal employee who didn’t want to be identified. SOBOROFF: Come here. Come here. Come on! Come here! Come here! . . . What’s your name? PROTESTER: I work for the federal government. SOBOROFF: Oh… well… stand this way… Sorry to pull you in there like that. Yes—he actually had to apologize for physically dragging a protester into the shot. Moments later, Soboroff tried stopping another passerby: SOBOROFF: Is this your first protest? MAN: I’m not trying to. SOBOROFF: He doesn’t want to… [nervous laugh] Another swing and a miss. WATCH: MS NOW Reporter Drags No Kings Protester Into Shot pic.twitter.com/rNqUnR285P — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) March 29, 2026 Soboroff also had the odd habit of introducing himself to protesters, as if networking at a cocktail party rather than covering a live protest. SOBOROFF: What's your name? PROTESTER: Farah Abdullahi. SOBOROFF: It’s really nice to meet you. I’m Jacob. The reaction: visible confusion. But Soboroff ran into a professional: LinkedIn matches Abdullahi as a Lead Organizer for Service Employees International Union, Local 2015. And just in case viewers hadn’t noticed the overexposure, Soboroff himself did—apologizing to the hosts for monopolizing airtime: “I know you have a show to do…” No kidding. Between the nonexistent ex-Trump voters, the arm-grabbing, the on-air apologies, and the awkward meet-and-greets, MS NOW’s big “nationwide protest” showcase landed less like a historic moment—and more like a chaotic, self-parodying mess. Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend: Primetime 3/28/26 6:08 pm EDT AYMAN MOHYELDIN: I wanted to get your thoughts on the diversity of the crowd, politically speaking. You know, we mentioned that there are protests taking place in 3,000 different areas or cities across this country.  But we've also been speaking to a lot of people who at one point supported Trump and now feel somewhat betrayed by him, whether it's about the Iran war or farmers and people who are being hurt by the tariff policies that he's enacted.  I'm wondering if you came across people who may have voted for Trump, supported Trump, but felt the need to be out here now because they did not anticipate his overreach in any of these areas or some of the bad policies that he's enacted.  ANTONIA HYLTON: Today, I didn't specifically talk to anyone in the crowd who had voted for Trump in the past. But at the last one back in October, I did have those conversations.  . . .  JACOB SOBOROFF: An incredible day where we're waiting to see if the numbers will be as historic as they have been time after time here.  And I continue just to meet the guys.  Come over here. I was just, come here. Come here. Come here. Come on! Come here! Come here! I just want to see you from behind the camera [pulls her by the arm into the shot.] What's your name? Come over here. Stay right next to me.  PROTESTER: I work for the federal government.  SOBOROFF: Oh, well, then stand this way or whatever. She gave up the info. You are incredible. It's incredible to be out here with you. Thank you so much for talking to me.  Nice to meet you. Sorry to pull you in there like that.  PROTESTER II: We have three branches of government equal in power to check each other, and there's none of that right now, and that's so disgusting.  SOBOROFF: I hear that over and over again. It feels like authoritarianism. It feels like There are no checks and balances in this country. What's your name? Eve? Really nice to meet you. I'm Jacob. Have a good time. Be safe out here today.  . . .  All right. Thank you. Let's keep going just a little bit because I know, guys, you've got a show to do. But it's too important not to hear from people out on the streets.  [Stops man walking through crowd] Is this your first protest?  MAN: I'm not trying to.  SOBOROFF: He doesn't want to [nervous laughter.] . . .  [To protester sitting on the ground] Are you taking a little breather on the floor?  PROTESTER III: A little bit. Just for a second.  SOBOROFF: It's hot out there. What's your name?  PROTESTER III: Farah Abdullahi.  SOBOROFF: It's really nice to meet you. I'm Jacob. Thanks so much. [Protester seems befuddled by Soboroff's gesture.]

While they celebrate the leftist "No Kings" protests this weekend, the Left is monitoring the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Texas. Mediaite was alarmed by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's comments about how "President Trump is taking on the fake news media, and President Trump is winning." Leftists are horrified that the supposed "independent agency" is aligning itself with the president -- as if that's never happened at the FCC. But Democrat FCC chairs are only a soothing presence for the DNC Media. FCC Chair: Trump is winning. Look at the results—PBS and NPR defunded. Joy Reid, Sleepy-Eyed Chuck Todd, Jim Acosta, John Dickerson are gone. Colbert is leaving. CBS is under new ownership, and soon enough CNN will have new ownership as well. pic.twitter.com/8kdrG5T3GP — Acyn (@Acyn) March 27, 2026 Carr explained Trump's actions: “When he ran for office, he ran directly at the fake news media. So many other politicians and Americans simply gave way to the legacy national media. They let the legacy media set the narrative, and President Trump smashed the façade. He said, ‘You don’t get to decide what we say, what we think, how we’re gonna vote inside the voting booth.’ President Trump took on the fake news media, and President Trump is winning.” The elitist media are used to setting the agenda for both parties, and Republicans have traditionally sought to roll with the punches the media were throwing. Trump hasn't allowed the press to set the agenda, especially in the second term.  Carr continued: “Look at the results so far. PBS — defunded. NPR — defunded. Joy Reid — gone from MSNBC. Sleepy-eyed Chuck Todd — gone. Jim Acosta — gone. John Dickerson — gone. Colbert is leaving. CBS is under new ownership, and soon enough, CNN is gonna have new ownership as well.” Cheers could be heard. Oracle founder Larry Ellison and his son David acquired CBS, and are now in the process of getting CNN, too.  “So, we’re not at the point yet where we’re raising the ‘mission accomplished’ flag, but President Trump is taking on the fake news media, and President Trump is winning,” Carr concluded. This is definitely a dramatic list of changes, but for anyone like us who monitors media content every day, there hasn't been a noticeable evolution in the nature of the "news." It's still hyper-negative in its approach to Trump, even if some vocal hosts and reporters ended up on Substack. CBS News isn't "MAGA-coded," no matter what the Daily Beast says. Defunding PBS and NPR was certainly a victory -- so that conservatives and Republicans aren't funding their opposition media. But their programs are still incessantly left-tilted. It's certainly premature to declare a victory, but it's also true that the leftists feel quite demoralized about the trends in media, which they like to portray as creeping authoritarianism. They pose as the saviors of democracy, and when they lose, so does democracy. They want Democrats to retake control of Congress, and then they'll feel like they have their mojo again.