Liberal reporters have a funny habit of touting liberal bias as glorious "editorial independence." When Larry and David Ellison won the bid to take over CNN in February, Washington Post reporters found it sad: "Among power players in politics and media, Paramount’s swoop is also widely viewed as a win for the right amid a broader push to rein in what many conservatives view as a liberal slant in the media and entertainment industries." On April 5, Post media reporters Scott Nover and Liam Scott turned to a group of CNN staffers -- providing them with anonymity to complain without offending the new owners. How nice of them. Nover tweeted with the "independence" verbiage:  David Ellison has promised to respect CNN’s editorial independence, but its employees worry about political interference and large cuts to personnel. https://t.co/55w1YutZuC — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 5, 2026 These anonymous CNN insiders want to maintain their "alleged" liberal slant and the takeover is "fueling anxiety," as the online headline relayed:  What the looming sale of CNN means for Trump’s feud with the network Animosity from the White House has taken on new meaning amid an imminent sale to David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance, fueling anxiety among journalists. The Post noted that Team Trump is delighted at the successful Ellison bid, and then turned to CNN's current boss for ridiculous denials about an anti-Trump bias:  “We stand by our journalism,” Thompson wrote in response to the attacks. “Politicians have an obvious motive for claiming that journalism which raises questions about their decisions is false. At CNN our only interest is in telling the truth to our audiences.” Absolutely no one who watches CNN believes that, especially the people who love the liberal tilt and don't want to see it watered down, like they fear is happening at CBS News.  So we're presented with "several CNN staffers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, expressed a degree of dread about the sale." They're worried that the bias denials won't continue:  Despite Ellison’s assurances, questions are swirling among some staffers about how long promises of editorial independence will hold. Right now, CNN fires back when attacked, the CNN staffer said, but now “there’s the question in the back of my mind — would we be sending the same statement in eight months or whenever this closes?” Then came the CBS comparison:  Another CNN staffer said they were more concerned about mismanagement should a new guard — or CBS News’s current leadership — take control. Trump has praised Bari Weiss, the former New York Times opinion writer and critic of “wokeness” who Ellison installed as editor in chief of CBS News. She has clashed with the news network as she attempts to remake the organization in her first six months in charge. “People at CNN have concerns about competence, even more so than editorial interference,” the staffer said. Putting "wokeness" in quotes is always amusing. It's easy for journalists to assume "incompetence" of the new managers as they question how the journalistic sausage is made.  Nover and Scott made the obvious point that in the first term, Jeff Zucker was constantly pushing anti-Trump bias.  One former CNN journalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized by their current employer to comment, noted that in morning editorial meetings at the time, Zucker urged them to be tough. “Often, he would spend the first 10 to 15, maybe even 20 minutes, rallying the troops, talking about how important it was that we investigate things Trump was doing, that we not let up, that we not let things slide,” the reporter said. Zucker did not respond to a request for comment. Verbal attacks against journalists became common. “You weren’t covering the White House until somebody there came after you,” said another former CNN reporter. These reporters added that Trump appeared to hold particular disdain for the network. You don't say! Nover and Scott equated criticizing CNN with opposing press freedom: "Since 2015, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented more than 3,500 anti-press social media posts from Trump. Hundreds of them specifically mention CNN."

It was TACO Tuesday on CNN’s The Situation Room. CNN and the rest of the liberal media spent much of Monday and Tuesday morning trying to scare the bejeezus out of the American public by ridiculously suggesting President Trump was going to commit “war crimes” and genocide all of the Iranian people. Something that was never going to happen. But the tone changed during The Situation Room when they mocked Trump and suggested he was going to “chicken out” of slaughtering millions of innocent people, even dropping the Democrats’ TACO line, proving that they didn’t believe their own reporting. “The president is sticking to his very, very tough language right now. Is he painting himself though into a corner? If the Iranians don't accept the concessions that he wants?” co-host Wolf Blitzer asked CNN chief global affairs analyst Kimberly Dozier. Dozier started her expert analysis by immediately mocking Trump and jabbing him for how he was preparing to “chicken out.” She praised the Islamic regime and even used the Democrats’ political line that “Trump always chickens out” and said he had a “syndrome”: This could be a high stakes negotiating tactic to try to get them to blink, but so far they haven't. They've proved consistently that they can take more pain, and they see themselves as gaining in political stature every time they force Trump to bypass one of his deadlines, which we might see tonight. The TACO, Trump always chickens out syndrome. A little over 24-hours prior, Dozer suggested Trump was going to march America “straight into the territory of war crimes.”   And there it is. After the media spent most of yesterday and today suggesting Trump was going to nuke or otherwise genocide Iran, CNN is already suggesting Trump will "chicken out" and drops the "TACO" line: WOLF BLITZER: The president is sticking to his very, very tough… pic.twitter.com/1JD7EgP92s — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 7, 2026   Her analysis was immediately followed up by co-host Pamela Brown and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen quipping about Trump’s other “empty threats”: BROWN: And, Peter, we've seen empty threats before from the president. This seems different, though. And if he doesn't follow through and or doesn't get anything tangible in the negotiations, I mean, what kind of a position would that put the U.S. in this war? BERGEN: Well, actually, I'm reminded in his first term he said he could he could end the Afghan war in a week, but it would kill 10 million people. So, he's made these kind of very grandiose kind of threats before. “I mean, in this case, obviously, this, you know, who knows what's going to happen at 8 p.m. tonight? The only person who knows is the commander-in-chief,” Bergen added before predicting Trump was going to find a way to save face: Um, I presume to if he wants to kind of retain some form of credibility, he's going to have to do something because he's threats have been so over the top. But you know, they could be limited and they could be dressed up as well. The negotiations continue. So the limited strikes and continued negotiations, I mean that wouldn't be surprising. “Yeah,” Brown agreed. Being so easily able to pivot from telling viewers that Trump was certainly going to commit war crimes one day to saying he was going to “chicken out” the next, proved that CNN was just spewing pure propaganda to gas light Americans. Efforts that could incite another mentally unstable liberal to violence. Or, was it an effort to goad Trump into committing a genocide? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Situation Room April 7, 2026 11:17:12 a.m. Eastern WOLF BLITZER: The president is sticking to his very, very tough language right now. Is he painting himself though into a corner? If the Iranians don't accept the concessions that he wants? KIMBERLY DOZIER: This could be a high stakes negotiating tactic to try to get them to blink, but so far they haven't. They've proved consistently that they can take more pain, and they see themselves as gaining in political stature every time they force Trump to bypass one of his deadlines, which we might see tonight. The TACO, Trump always chickens out syndrome. Or we could see as a gulf official I just spoke to was worried about a massive strike against many targets in Iran that then causes Iran to retaliate against the gulf. So far, they've been doing destructive attacks, but they haven't unleashed the full scope of what gulf officials think they could do. PAMELA BROWN: And, Peter, we've seen empty threats before from the president. This seems different, though. And if he doesn't follow through and or doesn't get anything tangible in the negotiations, I mean, what kind of a position would that put the U.S. in this war? PETER BERGEN: Well, actually, I'm reminded in his first term he said he could he could end the Afghan war in a week, but it would kill 10 million people. So, he's made these kind of very grandiose kind of threats before. I mean, in this case, obviously, this, you know, who knows what's going to happen at 8 p.m. tonight? The only person who knows is the commander-in-chief. Um, I presume to if he wants to kind of retain some form of credibility, he's going to have to do something because he's threats have been so over the top. But you know, they could be limited and they could be dressed up as well. The negotiations continue. So the limited strikes and continued negotiations, I mean that wouldn't be surprising. BROWN: Yeah.

On Tuesday’s CBS Mornings, CBS continued its commitment to actual, enterprise, public service journalism under editor-in-chief Bari Weiss that appeals to all Americans with part two of its CBS News Investigation into rampant fraud in dark blue California’s hospice system. Following on part one from March 11, correspondent Adam Yamaguchi chose to spotlight one doctor who submitted over $70 million of claims in 2024 allegedly caring for nearly 2,800 patients at 126 hospice facilities. NEW: Tuesday's 'CBS Mornings' aired part two of the CBS News Investigation on hospice and Medicare fraud in California. Correspondent Adam Yamaguchi found one man -- Dr. Rajiv Bhuva -- has submitted claims alleging to have cared for nearly *2,800* patients at *126* hospices pic.twitter.com/wx9MD6J1Er — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 7, 2026 The only criticism here would be there was no connection between the level of fraud taking place in California versus the rest of the country, floating the possibility it’s happening there for a reason and allowed to fester under Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom’s nose (though his team, in an X post, blamed the federal government). Following two teases, Norah O’Donnell — a former longtime co-host filling in this week — tossed to Yamaguchi with the revelation that “[o]ur investigative unit found some potential red flags” with “[o]ne hospice doctor [having] submitted claims for more than 20 times the number of patients the average California doctor cares for in a year.” Yamaguchi hit the ground running with a simple but important reality to keep in mind as he investigated the curious case of Dr. Rajiv Bhuva in the greater Los Angeles area: “The state of California says that if a doctor is involved with any more than, like, even just a few hospices, it is a sign of potential fraud.” “At the heart of the industry are doctors who are trusted to sign off on care, but in records for the active physicians caring for terminal patients one stands out, a man whose name appeared on claims from 126 hospices and had 60 percent more in Medicare reimbursements than the next closest doctor in 2024 – the last full year of available data – Dr. Rajiv Bhuva,” he added. He then showed his visit to one such facility in which he introduced himself to two purported staff members, saying “we’re doing a story about hospice, and we’re just trying to understand how often [Bhuva] is here.” In broken English, one of them replied, “I didn’t [sic] see him in a long time.” Yamaguchi had the door shut on his face at another stop (click “expand”): YAMAGUCHI: [TO NUSRSE] We understand that Dr. Rajiv Bhuva is the medical director here, and we’re trying to get some information about him. RECEPTIONIST [OFF-CAMERA]: He’s not. YAMAGUCHI [TO STAFF]: He’s not? RECEPTIONIST: No. YAMAGUCHI [TO NURSE]: Was he at some point? NURSE: Yes, he was. YAMAGUCHI [TO STAFF]: But you’re telling me he’s longer associated with you guys? NURSE: No, close the door. YAMAGUCHI [TO STAFF]: Was he at some point? NURSE: No, close the door, thank you. RECEPTIONIST: Thank you. The CBS reporter said the response was the same at each “of the hospices we visited” because “[w]e wanted to find Dr. Bhuva to ask how he managed to work for so many different providers, so we followed a trail of hospice offices linked to his name and Medicare claims totaling $71 million in 2024 across the LA basin.” Then came the stunning find: “On average in California, a hospice doctor claims for about 140 patients in a year. In 2024, claims with Bhuva’s name were submitted for nearly 2,800 terminally ill patients.” To recap, we have boots-on-the-ground reporting, attempts at interviews with relevant parties, and a probe of what was likely a trove of documents. Yamaguchi added another key component: interviewing an expert. He found one in Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Dr. Kristina Newport (click “expand”): NEWPORT: There’s no reason to think it is legitimate. YAMAGUCHI: Dr. Kristina Newport has been in the hospice field for 18 years. There are a range of reasons why one physician might be identified in connection with the care for so many patients, including stolen identity. NEWPORT: If someone is really effectively evaluating the plan of care for every patient that they admit to the hospice, which is their job and their responsibility, they, you know, would have a superhuman schedule to do that in a meaningful way. Unsurprisingly, Yamaguchi said “several hospices” Bhuva’s claims cited have since “lost their Medicare certification for what regulators called an abuse of billing, a pattern of submitting improper claims.” The taped portion appropriately wrapped with Yamaguchi’s attempts to track down Bhuva himself: We reached out to him on the phone and e-mail, but couldn’t connect, so we headed to Dr. Bhuva’s home address. Dr. Bhuva came out. He said that being affiliated with dozens of hospices is not illegal. And I – and I said you’re correct. There’s nothing in the law that prevents someone from being affiliated with many, but, again, it raises flags, and that’s what I have questions about. Bhuva said he wanted to see our information. Until then, he said he wouldn’t talk any further. Of course, the CBS crew did return and Bhuva hilariously refused to hold up his end of the deal, down to the fact that Yamaguchi called Bhuva out from his front door: “We were able to hear you through the door!” Back live, O’Donnell praised Yamaguchi for this “really important investigation raising these questions” while co-host Gayle King predicted “more people will be asking questions after that story today.” Yamaguchi replied to O’Donnell that “[o]ne of the things that’s so shocking about all of this is that it appears to be hiding in plain sight” and CBS has been “the only ones asking these questions.” Granted, Nick Shirley has also joined the case and been covering it (as has Fox News), but Yamaguchi was indeed the first on the case as part one went live on March 10 at CBSNews.com O’Donnell wrapped it all up with an important takeaway about why fraud in health care is so damaging (in addition to it being criminal and morally wrong): “I think the question that many people have is, why is my health care so expensive? And is it because of fraud that exists out there?” “Ultimately, we, the taxpayers, end up paying,” Yamaguchi concluded. To see the relevant CBS transcript from April 7, click here.

On Tuesday's CNN This Morning, host Audie Cornish turned to retired Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson to assess President Trump’s potential expansion of military strikes on Iran. Anderson repeatedly warned that targeting infrastructure such as bridges, power plants, and water facilities could amount to “war crimes,” even suggesting U.S. troops could be put in the position of refusing “illegal” orders. Cornish failed to disclose that Anderson sits on the board of VoteVets, a progressive PAC that backs Democrat candidates. Nor did she note his record of sweeping, alarmist claims, including warning in a Washington Post op-ed of a potential military coup, and, in a recent MS NOW appearance, calling the Iran conflict ‘the greatest geopolitical disaster in the history of our country.” Cornish reinforced the theme by playing a clip of a United Nations spokesman declaring that attacks on civilian infrastructure would violate international law. CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere then pointed to Trump’s statements about targeting such sites, and said “there is a pretty clear line,” effectively backing the same argument. Anderson doubled down, insisting the line was “very clear” and reiterating that such strikes would be criminal. There was no meaningful pushback. WATCH: CNN Stacks Panel to Call Trump Strikes ‘War Crimes’ pic.twitter.com/5KuPBNpuW9 — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) April 7, 2026 Ashley Davis, the panel’s nominal Republican voice, did not contest the charge, offering only that Trump could run up against a 180-day limit to secure congressional authorization—raising a procedural point while leaving the central allegation untouched. Anderson closed on a strikingly downbeat note, arguing ANDERSON: The political will to continue to fight. I mean that's the other issue here. You know, I mean, the Iranians have it in spades, okay? They're fighting for their lives there. It's an existential threat to them. And this whole war was essentially predicated on a miscalculation of their will to fight. Oh, by the way, they also have the card, which is the Strait of Hormuz. And they also have perhaps 1,000 pounds of highly-enriched uranium that we haven't found. So the Iranians have the cards. We don't. America's stocks seem to go down every single day. Iran's seems to go up. By the end of the segment, CNN had constructed a consensus that the U.S. risks “war crimes”—against an adversary that, viewers were told, already “has the cards”—with no pushback from the panel’s lone Republican. Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 4/7/26 6:02 am EDT AUDIE CORNISH: Today in the group chat, Isaac Dovere, CNN senior reporter, Steve Anderson, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General, Chuck Rocha, Democratic strategist and former senior advisor to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaigns, and Ashley Davis, former White House official under President George W. Bush.  Okay, so serious business to start. I have heard that overnight the IDF issued an urgent warning for Iranians to stay away from trains and railways. CNN reporting showing that Israel has approved an updated list of energy and infrastructure targets and that basically they're waiting on Trump's decision on the next steps.  And we also heard Trump talking about a plan about bridges. Is this part of the war games, meaning did people sort of model out what it would mean to go after Iran more broadly?  STEVE ANDERSON: Well, we would not be going after bridges that had civilian applications; only if they had military connections somehow because otherwise it would be a war crime. Water desalination plants, civilian target, a war crime. Power plants, probably civilian targets unless they supported some kind of a military installation, probably a war crime.  So it would be a very, very difficult thing for American soldiers to be faced, to try to obey what would be essentially an illegal order, as Senator Kelly and his colleagues did a couple months ago.  CORNISH: Yeah, I'm glad you're bringing this up, because we have heard it so much. I want to play the U.S. Secretary General, I'm sorry, the Secretary General of the U.N., who was asked about the potential for violations of international law, and I'll have you guys react when we come out of it.  STEPHANE DUJARRIC: I think whether something is a crime or not a crime would have to be decided by a court, but they, any attack on civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law and a very clear one.  CORNISH: So, a spokesperson for the Secretary General. Is it too soon to be talking this way?  EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE: The president keeps saying it, right? So that's why we're talking about it. He said over and over again yesterday at that press conference that power plants, bridges are on the target list. He said destroy the whole country, that the Iranian people would be willing to suffer for it. Those are the things that, look, I'm not a lawyer, certainly not an international lawyer, but there is a pretty clear line.  CORNISH: Yeah, that's your cue. Is the line that clear?  ANDERSON: Very clear. I mean, you cannot attack those kind of targets. But every target needs to be evaluated, and that's one of the things that we have legal opinions. We have staff, judge advocate lawyers that are a part of every decision, and they have to first look at and make a recommendation to the commander, the actual authority that makes a decision.  Every single target gets evaluated whether or not it's an appropriate military target. If it's not an appropriate military target, to attack it would be a war crime.  DOVERE: You mentioned that video that had Senator Kelly and the others in it. They, that video was people who had served in various capacities saying, just repeating what was in the military code, right? That you are not required to file an illegal order. And for that, the Secretary of Defense tried to strip Senator Kelly of his pension and his rank, this ongoing legal stuff about it, right?  And saying this would never happen. The president is talking about it happening.  ANDERSON: The political will to continue to fight. I mean that's the other issue here. You know, I mean, the Iranians have it in spades, okay? They're fighting for their lives there. It's an existential threat to them. And this whole war was essentially predicated on a miscalculation of their will to fight. Oh, by the way, they also have the card, which is the Strait of Hormuz. And they also have perhaps 1,000 pounds of highly-enriched uranium that we haven't found.  So the Iranians have the cards. We don't. America's stocks seem to go down every single day. Iran's seems to go up.

Trying to juxtapose President Trump talking about the war with Iran with the setting of the White House Easter Egg Roll, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel urged his viewers to imagine the new ayatollah laughing at the “lunatic” Trump while watching him stand next to a guy in a bunny suit. The only problem was that Kimmel did not mention the clip he played of Trump was about the U.S. military rescuing the downed airman in a daring operation that left Iran humiliated. Kimmel introduced a clip of Trump by declaring, “This is a tradition that dates back to 1878, and what you are about to see—even though we did not have video back when Rutherford B. Hayes was running the show—I have to believe that this would rank among, if not at the top of, the most preposterous moments in White House Easter Egg Roll history.”   Jimmy Kimmel reacts to Trump at the White House Easter Egg Roll talking about the rescue of the downed airman (although he didn't provide that framing) "Having fun, kids? Okay. I want you to take another journey with me, if you will. Can you imagine the new ayatollah sitting in… pic.twitter.com/yEYWi6UViD — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 7, 2026   In the part immediately preceding the start of the clip, Trump declared, “And what about the rescue that took place yesterday? What about that? That's something that you rarely see.” However, Kimmel did not play that part of Trump’s speech, meaning that his audience was probably unaware of what he was talking about. As it was, Kimmel’s clip featured Trump proclaiming, “Well, they were giving me a briefing about that, and they said, ‘Normally, when you’re in very hostile territory’—and I don’t think it gets much more hostile than Iran. They're capable fighters. They're very tough people. And there are others like that. You don't mind when the enemy is weak, but the enemy is strong. Not so strong like they were about a month ago. I can tell you, in fact, right now they're not too strong at all, in my opinion. But we're soon going to find out, aren't we?” Kimmel reacted by urging his audience to take a mental field trip, “Having fun, kids? Okay. I want you to take another journey with me, if you will. Can you imagine the new ayatollah sitting in his bunker, eating his yogurt and potatoes, watching TV, watching this lunatic bragging about blowing them up, while, with no explanation, standing next to a man in a bunny suit. ‘What this is khargoosh.’ That's 'bunny' in Farsi. I looked it up. I did some research there. And by the way, you know who was in that bunny suit? Marco Rubio! I assume.” Even if one assumes the ayatollah is cogent, the fact that Trump was talking about Iran’s failure to capture a downed American airman deep inside their own country despite putting a bounty on him means the ayatollah would be well-advised to not make too much out of the fact that Trump made his remarks next to a guy in a bunny costume. Kimmel would also be well-advised to play clips in their full context. Here is a transcript for the April 6 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 4/6/2026 11:39 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: This is a tradition that dates back to 1878, and what you are about to see—even though we did not have video back when Rutherford B. Hayes was running the show—I have to believe that this would rank among, if not at the top of, the most preposterous moments in White House Easter Egg Roll history. DONALD TRUMP: Well, they were giving me a briefing about that. and they said. “Normally, when you’re in very hostile territory”—and I don’t think it gets much more hostile than Iran. They're capable fighters. They're very tough people. And there are others like that. You don't mind when the enemy is weak, but the enemy is strong. Not so strong like they were about a month ago. I can tell you, in fact, right now they're not too strong at all, in my opinion. But we're soon going to find out, aren't we? KIMMEL: Having fun, kids? Okay. I want you to take another journey with me, if you will. Can you imagine the new ayatollah sitting in his bunker, eating his yogurt and potatoes, watching TV, watching this lunatic bragging about blowing them up, while, with no explanation, standing next to a man in a bunny suit. “What this is khargoosh.” That's "bunny" in Farsi. I looked it up. I did some research there. And by the way, you know who was in that bunny suit? Marco Rubio! I assume.