After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callis, which found that states could not draw congressional maps based on race, the network Thursday morning shows of ABC, CBS, and NBC took the moment to parrot the Democratic Party’s views on the ruling as the reporter’s news packages focused on the backlash. All the networks covered the decision on their morning shows. ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today had their stories in the early portion of the 7 AM lead hour, while the CBS Mornings segment occurred near the start of their second hour. On Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts teased the story as “Major Fallout” as the sound of the Louisiana Legislature’s session to pass a new map was heard in the background. The actual news package was presented by senior political correspondent Rachel Scott who called it a “major blow to the landmark Voting Rights Act.” Scott continued, “The high court sided with a group of white voters in Louisiana who argued one of the state's two majority-black districts was improperly drawn and relied too heavily on race.”   On Thursday's Good Morning America, ABC's Rachel Scott parroted the Democrats' viewpoint on the Supreme Court's Louisiana congressional map ruling. She described Justice Kagan's dissent as "scathing" as the justice warned of "far-reaching and grave" consequences. pic.twitter.com/q1EuT2nuax — Nick (@nspin310) April 30, 2026   After she played Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry’s response and read part of Justice Samuel Alito’s ruling, she went straight to the liberal viewpoint. She framed the ruling as a decision that might have brought back “discriminatory voting practices” seen before the civil rights movement: But Democrats argue that ruling effectively cuts the Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement, to ban discriminatory voting practices.” Scott then stated, “The ruling also means only one of Louisiana's six congressional districts will now be majority black, even though black voters make up one-third of the state.”  Examining Virginia’s recent redistricting, Scott chatted about how the state may be represented by Democrats ten-to-one in Congress after 46 percent of the electorate voted for Trump in 2024. Scott echoed the Louisiana congressional representative who could lose his seat due to the ruling: "Congressman Cleo Fields represents the district now ruled unconstitutional, saying the decision will make it more difficult for nonwhite candidates to be elected.” She displayed Kagan’s dissent to the six-to-three ruling and called it “a scathing dissent” with “far-reaching and grave” consequences. The end of Scott’s report featured a state Democratic lawmaker’s voice who protested the passage of new maps in Florida. On NBC’s Today, host Craig Melvin teased the segment at the top of the show and described the SCOTUS ruling as “a controversial move as the battle for control of Congress escalates.”  White House correspondent Garrett Haake introduced the story as a “fallout” to the ruling and labeled the ruling as a “conservative majority” decision that said it was unconstitutional for lawmakers to have “allowed race to play a part in government decision-making.”    On NBC's Today, WH correspondent Garrett Haake's news package on SCOTUS's Louisiana map ruling quoted Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and former President Obama, who both worried about democracy in the face of the ruling. In his piece, he also quoted AOC as a voice against… pic.twitter.com/vVhzwh1hHY — Nick (@nspin310) April 30, 2026   After he played a very miniature soundbite from Landry, Haake went straight to the Democrat viewpoint, quoting Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, who called it a “devastating day in the history of our American democracy,” and former President Obama, who accused the court of “abandoning” the principles of “equal participation” in democracy. Haake also reported on Florida’s redistricting before he quoted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as the voice against gerrymandering, along with a much shorter quote from moderate Republican Mike Lawler: HAAKE: But lawmakers on both sides say this fight won't end until politics are removed from the entire process. OCASIO-CORTEZ: The democratic caucus has tried to pass non-partisan gerrymandering for ten years, Republicans have rejected it. So we have to all abide by the same rules. LAWLER: I don't think there should be guaranteed districts for everybody. On CBS Mornings, there was less of a framed angle to the segment than there was from the other two broadcast networks. Guest host Major Garrett introduced the topic as a “monumental” ruling. He described the ruling:  “To a monumental Supreme Court ruling that could affect the upcoming midterm elections and beyond. The rule ruled Louisiana's Congressional Map with two majority black districts is illegal because it relied too much on race to draw the district lines. A lower court had ordered redistricting, arguing one-third of the black population was not properly represented.”   CBS Mornings had a less framed approach to the Supreme Court's ruling, as Major Garret described the ruling as "monumental." Then, Ed O’Keefe illustrated potential next steps in the new redistricting battle, as he referenced more possible redistricting in blue and red states. pic.twitter.com/3tDzJjTG3k — Nick (@nspin310) April 30, 2026   Ed O’Keefe reported more details of the story and described the makeup of the House majority and gave potential next steps in the new redistricting battle. After Gayle King asked what the Democratic response would be, O’Keefe mentioned possible redistricting in hard-blue states like California, Colorado, and Illinois, which already has a ridiculously gerrymandered map. The transcripts from ABC, NBC, and CBS are below. Click "expand": ABC’s Good Morning America April 30, 2026 7:00:52 AM Eastern ROBIN ROBERTS: Major Fallout. (...) After the Supreme Court's historic decision to limit the landmark Voting Rights Act? Now, the states are racing to withdraw their voting maps and what it means for the midterms. (...) 7:08:24 AM Eastern GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The fallout now from the Supreme Court's ruling on voting rights, dramatically weakening a key provision of a 60-year-old law from the civil rights era. The decisions could have a significant impact on the midterms. Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott has the story. Good morning, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: George, good morning to you. And we're already starting to see the impacts of this. This decision by the high court severely weakens a section of the landmark Voting Rights Act. And this morning, we're already hearing from Republicans calling on states to redraw their congressional maps before the midterm election.  [Cuts to news package] This morning, the Supreme Court delivered a major blow to the landmark Voting Rights Act. The high court sided with a group of white voters in Louisiana who argued one of the state's two majority-black districts was improperly drawn and relied too heavily on race. Louisiana's governor praising the decision. GOV. JEFF LANDRY (R-LA): I think this whole race-baiting - race issue on the redistricting is has been put to bed finally, once and for all. RACHEL SCOTT: Justice Samuel Alito writing “race can only be taken into account when there's evidence that a state intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.” But Democrats argue that ruling effectively cuts the Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 at the height of the civil rights movement, to ban discriminatory voting practices. The ruling also means only one of Louisiana's six congressional districts will now be majority black, even though black voters make up one-third of the state. Congressman Cleo Fields represents the district now ruled unconstitutional, saying the decision will make it more difficult for nonwhite candidates to be elected. REP. CLEO FIELDs (D-LA): If you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can't do nothing about that. SCOTT: The liberal justices agreeing justice Elena Kagan, writing in a scathing dissent that the consequences of the ruling are likely to be far reaching and grave. Saying if other states follow suit, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Kagan, calling it the latest chapter in the majority's now completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.  And just hours after that ruling, Florida Republicans passing a new congressional map that could allow the GOP to gain up to four seats in the midterms. FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MEMBER: The bill passes. SCOTT: Democrats protesting in the state capitol. FLORIDA LEGISLATURE MEMBER: Have all members voted? [Protest yell in background] [Cuts back to live] SCOTT: Any new congressional maps will likely be challenged in court, but Republicans are wasting no time. One challenge, though, for them is that primary season is already well underway, so it's unclear what impact this is going to have on the November midterm elections, but it will certainly impact the future makeup of Congress and elections for 2028 beyond. Robin? (...) NBC’s Today April 30, 2026 7:01:35 AM Eastern CRAIG MELVIN: Landmark ruling. The Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana's voting map. The state’s governor responding with a controversial move as the battle for control of Congress escalates. Straight ahead, what it all means with the crucial midterm elections now just months away. (...) 7:11:29 AM Eastern SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: More to get to, including a key Supreme Court ruling on voting rights ahead of the critical November elections. It could have a major impact on how states redraw their congressional districts.  NBC's Garrett Haake is at the White House with more. Garrett, good morning. GARRETT HAAKE: Reporter: Hey, Savannah, good morning. The court here ruled that a majority-black district in Louisiana, currently controlled by a Democrat, was illegally created and must be redrawn. But the fallout from this ruling could now create significant and long-lasting impacts on both the partisan and racial makeup of Congress. [Cuts to news package] The Supreme Court escalating an intense back and forth battle for control of Congress, with a landmark ruling that's already affecting some elections. The court's conservative majority ruling six-to-three that Louisiana's current congressional map, with two majority African-American districts, is unconstitutional. Saying lawmakers allowed race to play a part in government decision-making. GOV. JEFF LANDRY (R-LA): This is exactly what we'll be looking for, is some clarity and certainty from the courts. HAAKE: Democrats blasting the ruling, arguing it weakens a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, aimed at preventing discrimination on the basis of race. Adding that other majority black districts are now vulnerable to being erased. SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): Today is a devastating day in the history of our American democracy. HAAKE: Former President Barack Obama accusing the court of, quote, “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy.”  President Trump calling the decision a, quote, “big win”, which comes as he's urged GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps to boost Republicans. PRESIDENT TRUMP: Some states don't need to redraw and some do. HAAKE: That push creating a legislative tit for tat. Both parties angling to win more seats, which will be key for the rest of Trump's presidency, with Congress currently narrowly controlled by Republicans.  Eight states have already approved mid-decade map changes. FLORIDA STATE REP.: Drawing lines on the basis of race is wrong and unconstitutional. HAAKE: Most recently, on Wednesday, the Florida GOP making a change that will lead to more Republican-leaning districts. Experts say the real implications will come in future elections. But lawmakers on both sides say this fight won't end until politics are removed from the entire process. REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The democratic caucus has tried to pass non-partisan gerrymandering for ten years, Republicans have rejected it. So we have to all abide by the same rules. REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): I don't think there should be guaranteed districts for everybody. [Cuts back to live] GUTHRIE: So, Garrett, how could this ultimately impact the upcoming midterms? HAAKE: Well, it’s all going to depend on how aggressive governors and state legislators really want to be, with state primaries already in full swing. In the short-term, most experts think that only a handful of states will have the combination of both political will and time to change their now, before the midterms. I’d watch Tennessee and South Carolina, both of which have similar majority-black districts that could now potentially legally be redrawn. But that would lead to Democratic states potentially right to respond with new maps of their own. So, I think what seems more likely is that before the next election in 2030, we'll see another months-long process of politicians redrawing maps to try to pick their voters before the voters pick their next set of politicians. Savannah? GUTHRIE: All right, Garrett, thank you very much. (...) CBS Mornings April 30, 2026 8:03:00 AM Eastern MAJOR GARRETT: To a monumental Supreme Court ruling that could affect the upcoming midterm elections and beyond. The rule ruled Louisiana's Congressional Map with two majority black districts is illegal because it relied too much on race to draw the district lines. A lower court had ordered redistricting, arguing one-third of the black population was not properly represented. The Supreme Court decision weakens section 2 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and could have a lot of effect on elections this term and in the future. Ed O'Keefe is in Washington to bring us the details. Ed, good morning. ED O’KEEFE: Major, good to see you. Let's remind folks that the current balance of power shows Republicans with a real thin majority there. Ultimately, 218 seats is what you need to control the House of Representatives, and they're both, the two parties, are fighting over where exactly they can pick up seats.  So, let's go through this. Louisiana is the first place we expect it will happen. The governor is reportedly going to suspend next month's primaries to redraw the map and deal with this specific blue district that stretches from New Orleans to Shreveport. If they can do that, that’s one potential Republican seat.  Then go over to Florida, where just yesterday Republican legislators approved a new map that potentially gives the GOP up to four more seats there. They called the special session, anticipating the Supreme Court would rule this way. The other state that may quickly redraw its map is Mississippi. They have four seats in that state, and that big blue one there is the one that may potentially be up for redrawing. It is where most of the state's African-American voters live. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that they can tweak the Voting Rights Act, Republicans say they may try to draw there. Other states would like to do this, major. The problem is the candidate registration deadline is passed, the primary has already been held, so you are looking to 2028 to see a bunch of other states redraw their maps. GAYLE KING: So, hey Ed, before you go, how do you expect the Democrats to respond to all of this? O’KEEFE: First of all, they will file a bunch of lawsuits to try to stop it in the individual states. Second, a bunch of Democrats said, you want to redraw the maps in the Republican-controlled southern states? Well, introduce you to California, Illinois, New York, Colorado, places like that.  You want to redraw there, we have more seats in those states and could potentially redraw those.  And the idea now is: see these two parties potentially fight over this and then maybe at some point there's an ultimatum on trying to do this. That requires voters, though, to get upset, call their congressman and your governor and say, “I don't like this,” and maybe, one day, it stops. KING: All right. To be continued, Ed. Thank you. Always good to see you. (..)

On Wednesday, U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared before the House Armed Services Committee to answer questions about the war with Iran, and as you might expect, things got heated particularly when Rep. John Garamendi, Democrat called the two month old war a quagmire, evoking an angry response from Hegseth. But as Hegseth indicated, it wasn't the first time he had heard the Congressman use the term quagmire, he saw him use earlier Wednesday morning on CNN's News Central, with no pushback at all. CNN's Kate Bolduan sat through all of Garamendi's anti-war and anti-Trump Democrat talking points -- as CNN viewers like it -- before bringing up the latest alleged Democrat plot. BOLDUAN: His handling of the war is one reason that some Democrats are pushing for impeachment again. Axios has reported that there are house Democrats who want to start building a case against Trump now, in anticipation of a day one impeachment vote if Democrats retake the house in the midterms. Do you support that? GARAMENDI: I think we need to be prepared for every eventuality. We have no idea what Trump's going to do tomorrow, but we do know what he has done thus far. He has plunged the United States into an unnecessary war. BOLDUAN: So you support an impeachment vote again? GARAMENDI: What I do support is that we begin talking about why Trump is not fit for office.... The bottom line is he is not fit to be president. Is that an impeachment issue? It could turn into that. It's not there today, but we need to be prepared for it.  And then came the claim that would enrage Hegseth. GARAMENDI: Bottom line is, we're stuck. America is stuck in another Middle East quagmire. Thank you Mr. Trump, thank you Mr. Secretary. This is what you've done for the American people, brought us back to a Middle East war. No surprise that Bolduan allowed the quagmire claim to go unchallenged, even though a two-month war is hardly in the same category as the 20-year wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, which are commonly referred to by that term. Later on CNN's Situation Room, co-Host Pamela Brown played a clip of Hegseth responding to Garamendi at the hearing for her panel. The Secretary began with a short reference to his opening statement. HEGSETH: I hope you appreciate how reckless it is. When I said reckless, feckless and defeatist of congressional Democrats at the beginning. That came after watching you say the same thing on CNN this morning, a quagmire. My generation served in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, years and years of nebulous missions and utopian nation building that led us to nothing.... Shame on you, calling this a quagmire two months in. The effort, what they've undertaken, the success on the battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran. And you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies? Shame on you for that statement. Hegseth was just getting started. HEGSETH: And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say I support the troops on one hand, and then a two month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivocation. Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for?... Your hatred for President Trump blinds you....I know the American people support that mission despite your loose talk and words like quagmire. Brown then turned to CNN contributor Sabrina Singh -- the former Pentagon press aide for Biden -- and pitched: "Clearly, the Democratic Congressman hit a nerve there with Hegseth calling the war a quagmire." Singh agreed and seemed to be enjoying it all, as she responded to Brown. SINGH: It's getting under Hegseth's skin and they're clearly pushing the Secretary on when does this war end? You said we don't want endless wars, and yet here we are, we've blown past that four- to six-week timeline that you initially said at the outset, and here we are, nearly 60 days in. So what's the plan? And clearly that bothered Pete Hegseth. Pamela Brown might have responded like a journalist, by noting that wars are unpredictable, and traditional use of the term "quagmire" might not apply here. But like Kate Bolduan before her, she had no issue with the term being used and abused. This is CNN.

On Wednesday evening, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider joined The Evening Edit on Fox Business with Liz MacDonald to address the growing fallout over Jimmy Kimmel’s vile rhetoric and the legal reckoning facing his parent company, Disney. While the elitist media rush to defend Kimmel’s latest attack on First Lady Melania Trump as mere "comedy," Schneider argued that the issue isn't just about bad jokes; it is about a massive corporation violating its legal contract with the American people. The controversy stems from Kimmel’s recent monologue, where he joked that the First Lady had the "glow of an expectant widow." MacDonald pressed Schneider on the blatant double standard, asking how the media would react if such "expectant widow" remarks were directed at Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Jill Biden. "Disney is just about the largest, most lucrative welfare recipient on the planet. It is given massive value from the taxpayers to have these monopolies." @Schneider_DC explains why Disney and its broadcast affiliates need to serve the public interest @FoxBusiness pic.twitter.com/IfqFAvxt2g — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 30, 2026 Schneider pointed out that Disney and its broadcast affiliates receive massive value from taxpayers in the form of broadcast licenses. In exchange for this lucrative public gift, these companies are legally required to serve the public interest. Schneider argued that when ABC provides a platform for incendiary rhetoric and discriminatory practices, they are failing to meet the "benefit of the bargain." The conversation turned to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s recent move calling for an early review of Disney TV station renewals. The investigation, which began last year, looks into potential violations of the Communications Act of 1934, specifically regarding Disney’s DEI practices. The leftist media narrative claims that the FCC is merely retaliating against Jimmy Kimmel’s comments and infringing on his free speech, but Schneider explained why this claim is legally flawed. He clarified the critical distinction between an individual comedian’s personal rights and the specific legal responsibilities of a corporate broadcaster. Jimmy Kimmel has free speech rights, so does ABC. They can say whatever they want, but when they are using their broadcast stations, they need to meet the public interest standard. @Schneider_DC explains the FCC's investigation into Disney's ABC on @FoxBusiness pic.twitter.com/EPUBFVss8J — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 30, 2026 Schneider concluded by emphasizing that no corporation is above the law when it comes to the requirement to serve the public. As the FCC continues its investigation, the message to Disney is clear: you cannot accept taxpayer-funded airwaves and use them to inflame the country while ignoring the very laws that allow you to operate. Watch the full segment below:

Fidelity and Vanguard, two of the top three investment companies managing trillions of dollars of assets, have stopped facilitating customers’ donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a result of the Justice Department’s indictment of the nonprofit that purports to identify and combat “hate” in the name of social justice. The philanthropic arms of the two companies, Fidelity Charitable and Vanguard Charitable, allow their customers to donate to a list of nonprofits via donor-advised funds (DAF). Fidelity Charitable, which has about 350,000 donation accounts, describes DAF on its website: “A donor-advised fund, or DAF, is like a charitable investment account for the sole purpose of supporting charitable organizations you care about.  “When you contribute cash, securities, or other assets to a donor-advised fund at a public charity, like Fidelity Charitable, you are generally eligible to take an immediate tax deduction. Then those funds can be invested for tax-free growth, and you can recommend grants to any eligible IRS-qualified public charity.” However, both of the asset management giants have a policy of disallowing donations to organizations if those potential recipients are under indictment for a crime – as SPLC has been since last week. “The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public," FBI Director Kash Patel said on April 23, announcing that a grand jury had returned an 11-count indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche explained in a press release. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds to individuals who were associated with various violent extremist groups including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Party of America, Patel and Blanche alleged at a press conference. In response, Fidelity and Vanguard notified customers that they could no longer donate to SPLC, due to the criminal indictment, pending resolution of the case.  “The organization has had allegations and/or charges brought against them for activities that may call into question their ability to carry out their tax-exempt charitable purpose,” Vanguard Charitable told customers. “If we become aware an organization has been charged with a crime by state or federal authorities, we pause grant-making while the matter is pending.” Ironically, customers had been able to donate to SPLC through the two firms’ charitable programs – even though SPLC in 2023 branded both Vanguard Charitable and Fidelity Charitable as donor advised funds from which “hate- and extremism-related nonprofits were receiving funding.” A “Hatewatch” page currently on SPLC’s website is titled “Extremists Get Boost From Donor-Advised Funds, Bitcoin.” The page lists funding received by – what SPLC considers “hate” and “extremist” nonprofits – from “six popular donor-advised funds.” Listed among the so-called hate groups receiving funding from Fidelity Charitable are: Turning Point USA. Parents Defending Education. American Family Association. Family Research Council. Alliance Defending Freedom. Liberty Counsel. For its part, Vanguard is condemned by SPLC for allowing customers to donate to nonprofits such as: Moms for America. Project Veritas. Turning Point USA. Parents Defending Education. American Family Association. Family Research Council. Alliance Defending Freedom. Liberty Counsel.

On Lawrence O’Donnell’s The Last Word on Tuesday night after King Charles’s address to Congress, the MS NOW host ended his monologue with a comparison of the current Trump presidency to the American Revolution from the English and the “insane” King George III. O’Donnell also took the moment to praise the current king for his “humiliation” of Trump and made him feel “akin to gratitude to a British monarch.” The MS NOW host’s monologue was mostly a repetition of points heard on cable and broadcast news after the King’s eloquent speech, which many media hosts framed as full of veiled attacks against Trump, which they, of course, enjoyed. O’Donnell’s continuation of those points was on display as he said the King “played an unprecedented part in another desperately humiliating day for Donald Trump's Washington.”   In response to King Charles's address on Tuesday, MS NOW's Lawrence O'Donnell took the moment to compare Trump to "insane" King George III, as he seemingly compared this moment in the Trump presidency to the American Revolution from the mad King George. pic.twitter.com/NGTWNgu0PQ — Nick (@nspin310) April 29, 2026   He, full of ‘No Kings’ pride against Trump, said “for the first time in my life, made me feel something akin to gratitude to a British monarch and outright awe for his speechwriters.” That’s a lot different for someone who had cried out against an alleged king’s rule of the U.S. O’Donnell continued on to compare the King’s Speech to a certain former president, as he said the speech “reads like a Biden State of the Union address,” but still Republicans clapped since it was read in a “posh British accent.” He went on, “This was the day that I hoped at least some high school kids were watching. American high school kids who have grown up in the dark shadow of Donald Trump.” Of course, O’Donnell overlooked other portions of the speech like the jokes and references to the U.S.’s and U.K.’s foundation of Christian faith, along with more unifying messages from the King.  Finally, the MS NOW host wrapped his monologue as he said the King made an Epstein acknowledgment in his speech, something that Trump supposedly did not do. The King’s line of, “to support victims of some of the ills that so tragically exist in both our societies today” was supposedly that acknowledgment, according to a royal report he quoted. O’Donnell wrapped his monologue with an interesting comparison of the moment of Trump's second term to the American Revolution from the “insane” and “mad” King George III: And here we are, 250 years after the madness of King George the Third helped drive the American colonies into revolution against the crown, and when Charles became the first British king to address the Congress today, he found the madness on this side of the Atlantic.  O’Donnell may have just described the moment of the King’s visit and Trump’s presidency as similar to the U.S. Revolution from the British Monarchy. His comparison was somewhat veiled, but he has consistently referred to Trump as insane over the past months and years.  The “dark shadow” he described is just another exaggeration, and references to revolutions only inflated the situation amid the aftermath of Trump’s third assassination attempt. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s The Last Word w/ Lawrence O’Donnell April 28, 2026 10:04:40 PM Eastern (...) LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: And in that county today stepped the King of England, who played an unprecedented part in another desperately humiliating day for Donald Trump's Washington. And for once, the King himself was not the humiliated one. No one humiliates Trump lawyers more than Donald Trump, and he could not have done more to humiliate the already humiliated Todd Blanche than he did today. By getting the goofiest indictment America has ever seen out of Todd Blanche after literally years of Donald Trump urging the indictment of James Comey. And Donald Trump's humiliation today was delivered to him by his guest of honor, the King of England, who, for the first time in my life, made me feel something akin to gratitude to a British monarch and outright awe for his speechwriters. The speechwriters had the task of telling the truth in a chamber where half of the members applaud and cheer Donald Trump's pathological lies. And today, the King of England and his speechwriters had those same Republicans applauding sharp criticism and complete disagreement with Donald Trump. (...) 10:07:25 PM Eastern O’DONNELL: And now we know. We know you can get the Republicans in that room to applaud what reads like a Biden State of the Union address. You can get the Republicans in that room to applaud a speech that completely contradicts Donald Trump if the speech is delivered in a posh British accent.  This was the day that I hope at least some high school kids were watching. American high school kids who have grown up in the dark shadow of Donald Trump. High school kids who in most of their lifetimes now have been living under a Donald Trump presidency filled with uncouth public profanity and rank stupidity and an inability to simply read the words put in front of him by his speechwriters and skip the idiotic ad libs. (...) 10:16:52 PM Eastern KING CHARLES III: In both of our countries. It is the very fact of our vibrant, diverse, and free societies that gives us our collective strength, including to support victims of some of the ills that so tragically exist in both our societies today. O’DONNELL: In his reporting today, Jack Royston quotes a royal aide saying that that line was about the Epstein survivors, quote, “it was certainly in his majesty's mind to acknowledge victims of abuse. So they are naturally incorporated in this line.”  It's not much. In fact, it is very, very little. It couldn't be smaller. It's the smallest and most indirect acknowledgment of the Epstein survivors' suffering that the speechwriters could have come up with, but it's something. It is more than Donald Trump has ever said about them.  Charles's fifth great-grandfather was the King of England during the American Revolution. King George lost his mind during his rule. He was literally insane, which was dramatized in the wonderful 1991 play by the British playwright Alan Bennett, titled “The Madness of George the Third.”  And here we are, 250 years after the madness of King George the Third helped drive the American colonies into revolution against the crown, and when Charles became the first British King to address the Congress today, he found the madness on this side of the Atlantic.  (...)