From our watchtower here at the Media Research Center, we have identified a recent and nasty trend emerging from the Elitist Media. It’s called “Trumpwashing”: that phenomenon wherein the media withhold covering some Democrat scandal until President Donald Trump opines on it, with President Trump’s statement being covered as if it were the scandal, rather than the underlying and until now suppressed Democrat event. The latest instance of a Trumpwashed scandal: the video, published by six Democrat members of Congress calling on members of the Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies to disobey unspecified “illegal” orders. The media held their tongues on the video until Trump spoke up, and the rest is history. As an evidentiary sample, we submit for your consideration the totality of the Trumpwashed report aired on NBC Nightly News (click "expand" to view full transcript): NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 11/20/25 6:37 PM TOM LLAMAS: Now to the outrage from Democrats after President Trump lashed out, saying some of them should be arrested and even put to death. The White House defending the president tonight. Here's Garrett Hake. GARRETT HAAKE: President Trump facing outrage from Democrats tonight after demanding the arrest of a half- dozen democratic lawmakers, suggesting they be executed for posting this video… MARK KELLY: You want to speak directly to members of the military? HAAKE: …where six Democrats, all with national security backgrounds, urged members of the military to disobey any illegal orders from President Trump. ELISSA SLOTKIN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law… CHRISSY HOULAHAN: …or our Constitution. HAAKE: Referring to the video, President Trump writing: “seditious behavior from traitors. Lock them up.” And, “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” Later reposting a comment in which someone wrote, quote, “hang them. George Washington would.” Democrats condemning the comments, calling for extra security for the members involved. CHRIS MURPHY: This is perhaps the most reckless, irresponsible thing that he has done all Congress, and it's going to get a lot of us killed. We have kids. NANCY CORDES: Does the president want to execute members of Congress? KAROLINE LEAVITT: No. HAAKE: The White House firing back. LEAVITT: You're suggesting, Nancy, that the- the president has given illegal orders, which he has not. And to, to suggest and encourage that active duty service members defy their chain of command is a very dangerous thing for sitting members of Congress to do, and they should be held accountable, and that's what the president wants to see. HAAKE: And tonight, Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin, who appears in the video, said she has received close to a thousand threats, and now has 24/7 security. Tom. LLAMAS: All right, Garrett. Thank you. This was, mercifully, the shortest of the nightly news items across the broadcast dial. But it achieved its purpose. Tom Llamas’s introduction didn’t even address the video. Viewers are left to believe that Trump just lashed out and that Democrats are rightfully outraged. Correspondent Garrett Haake does a quick set with the video, some of Trump’s statements, a bit of the exchange between White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and CBS’s Nancy Cordes, before closing out with increased security for Slotkin. The report achieves its purpose in Trumpwashing the wildly inappropriate video by making Trump’s reaction to the video the greater scandal. WATCH as ABC Trumpwashes the highly inappropriate video published by Slotnik, et al (potentially violative of 18 USC § 2387), framing President Trump's reaction as the greater scandal. pic.twitter.com/7xZ97yBC5H — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) November 21, 2025 Over at ABC, David Muir and Rachel Scott work overtime to establish Trump’s reaction as the greater scandal. Scott validates the video’s premise for the viewing public. David Muir makes references to “this environment”, as if “this environment” wasn’t conservatives being shot by deranged furry-adjacent leftists.  CBS’s report was only slightly less ridiculous, John Dickerson’s introduction notwithstanding. This is because the report aired more of the exchange between Cordes and Leavitt. Across the board, there was little to no examination or questioning of the video itself. For all the caterwauling over President Trump’s use of the words “sedition” and “treason”, no one seems to have considered that the legislators did, perhaps, place themselves in legal jeopardy. Per 18 USC § 2387: Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the United States: (1)advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States; or (2)distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United States— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. It isn’t treason or seditious conspiracy, but it isn’t nothing, either. Cue the inevitable media howls of “retribution” if this thing ever gets tried in federal court Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective networks on Thursday, November 20th, 2025: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 11/20/25 6:35 PM DAVID MUIR: Tonight The White House dialing back President Trump's own words today, the president calling several Democrats in Congress, most of them veterans, “traitors” in a post, and then in another post saying “this is punishable by death”, after they put out a video telling service members they can refuse, quote: “illegal orders.” The White House was asked, in this environment, what is the president suggesting? Here’s Rachel Scott. RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, President Trump criticized by members of both parties after calling six Democratic members of Congress “traitors" and accusing them of seditious behavior punishable by death. It came in response to video released by the lawmakers, all of whom served in the military or in U.S. intelligence. MARK KELLY: I was a captain in the United States Navy. ELISSA SLOTKIN: Former CIA officer. CHRIS DELUZIO: Former Navy. SCOTT: In the video, the lawmakers reminding members of the military they should not obey illegal orders. KELLY: Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. SLOTKIN: You can refuse illegal orders. DELUZIO: You must refuse illegal orders. SLOTKIN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law… CHRISSY HOULAHAN: …or our Constitution. SCOTT: The lawmakers did not specify which orders they were talking about. But the president, enraged, posting a flurry of messages on social media saying “they should be arrested and put on trial. Their words cannot be allowed to stand”, adding: “an example must be set.” The president then writing, “Seditious behavior, punishable by death”. And he reposted a message from another account that said “hang them, George Washington would.” Democrats accusing the president of inciting violence. CHRIS MURPHY: This puts all of our lives in jeopardy. What are we all doing right now? Democrats in Congress are on the phone with their chiefs of staff, beefing up our security for this weekend and next week because the president has a lot of unhinged supporters out there. SCOTT: Republicans clearly uncomfortable. MIKE JOHNSON: The words that the president chose are not the ones that I would use, OK? Obviously, I don't think that this is -- these are crimes punishable by death or any of that, okay? SCOTT: Republican senator Rand Paul was blunt. RAND PAUL: That kind of rhetoric isn't good. It stirs up people among us who may not be stable, who may think (unint) traitors, what we do with traitors, it’s the death penalty, maybe I’ll just take matters into my own hands, which is not something we should be encouraging. SCOTT: At The White House, Press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to explain. NANCY CORDES: Just to be clear, does the president want to execute members of Congress? KAROLINE LEAVITT: No. Let's be clear about what the president is responding to. SCOTT: Leavitt saying the six Democrats are the ones inciting violence. LEAVITT: They are literally saying to 1.3 million active duty service members not to -- to defy the chain of command. SCOTT: I spoke with Congressman Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger who was in that video.  What would your message to the president be? JASON CROW: I don't do fear and intimidation well and I am not going to stop. SCOTT: In that video, Democrats cited what they called threats to the Constitution, insisting that the Trump administration is pitting our military against American citizens, but they didn't provide any specific examples. Congressman Crow telling me they felt the need to start a conversation after the President made what he called “disturbing statements.” David. MUIR: Rachel Scott, lined up on The Hill tonight. Rachel, thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS 11/20/25 6:31 PM JOHN DICKERSON: It came to this at The White House today. The chief spokesperson for the president, who swore to execute the laws of the land, was asked if he wanted to execute some of the men and women who make those laws. MAURICE DuBOIS: The question came up because President Trump, in an extraordinary post, accused a group of democratic lawmakers of committing a crime, he said, is punishable by death. Nancy Cordes is at The White House. MARK KELLY: I was a captain in the United States Navy. ELISSA SLOTKIN: Former CIA officer. CHRIS DELUZIO: Former Navy. JASON CROWW: Former paratrooper and Army Ranger. NANCY CORDES: This is the video that prompted President Trump's threat. SLOTKIN: We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. CORDES: Six Democratic lawmakers with a provocative message to U.S. troops. MARK KELLY: Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. SLOTKIN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law. CORDES: They didn't elaborate on which orders they meant, and for Trump, it didn't matter. At 10:21 A.M. Eastern time, he accused them of seditious behavior, punishable by death. CHUCK SCHUMER: I don't know any president who has gone this low. CORDES: Democratic leaders quickly called on Trump to recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed. CHRIS MURPHY: He just told his supporters that we should be hung -- we should be hung! CORDES: Trump didn't repeat the threat, but he didn't delete it, either. Just to be clear, does the president want to execute members of Congress? KAROLINE LEAVITT: No. CORDES: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. LEAVITT: Let's be clear about what the president is responding to. They are literally saying to 1.3 million active-duty service members not to -- to defy the chain of command, not to follow lawful orders. CORDES: Actually what they said is you can refuse an illegal order, which is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. LEAVITT: They are suggesting, Nancy, that the president has given illegal orders, which he has not. CORDES: The six lawmakers say they posted the video because troops have concerns about the legality of recent strikes on Venezuelan drug boats, and about Trump's deployment of troops to U.S. cities. SLOTKIN: It has been a bit of a wild morning... CORDES: Michigan senator Elissa Slotkin and the other five have now been granted extra security. SLOTKIN: And I'm not going to shut up because Donald Trump is threatening me. CORDES: Trump's comments come at a time when threats against lawmakers are already at record highs. Just a few weeks ago, a man was arrested for threatening to kill Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, and Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene says even her son got death threats after Trump recently called her a traitor. DICKERSON: Nancy Cordes at The White House. Thank you, Nancy.  

Thursday’s Morning Joe aired a piece of video reporting by MS NOW’s Britt Miller on the recent statements made by Pope Leo XIV and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops concerning the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. The co-hosts were quick to emphasize the Catholic authorities’ disapproval of the treatment of illegal aliens while conveniently ignoring the Church’s acknowledgement of the need for border security. After watching a selectively edited clip of Leo’s Tuesday comments and Miller’s piece, co-host Joe Scarborough attacked the Trump administration as contrary to Jesus: I mean, the administration official said the Pope is wrong. You[‘re] kind of going against not only the Pope, you're going against Jesus's teachings throughout the entire New Testament. All I can say is good luck with that, taking it up with Jesus and taking it up with the Pope. And all of the archbishops and so many priests. The New Testament, the Gospel is so painfully clear that the Pope feels free to say, “Please don't call yourself pro-life if you're against abortion, but you support the inhumane treatment of these souls.” This was in reference to the controversial comment made by Leo on September 30th, in which he questioned how one could consider themselves to be “pro-life” while simultaneously in favor of how immigrants in the U.S. have been treated and the death penalty. This is the full comment made by Leo on Tuesday, which MS NOW cut off right before he denied calling for open borders (Click “expand”): Well, I've made some statements about that already. I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it's a very important statement. I would invite, especially all Catholics, but people of goodwill to listen carefully to what they said. I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts, there's a system of justice. I think there are a lot of problems in the system. No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter. But when people are living good lives, and many of them for 10, 15, 20 years, to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful to say the least, and there's been some violence unfortunately. I think that the bishops have been um very clear in what they said and I think that — I would just invite all people in the United States to listen to them. Thank you. MS NOW also featured a clip from November 4th, in which the Pope “invited” authorities to allow pastoral workers to attend to the “spiritual rights” of detained persons.     Co-host Willie Geist swiped at President Trump’s Border Czar: “… if you're Tom Homan, what specifically is the Pope wrong about here? When you say the Catholic church is wrong […] what is he wrong about? I think he just doesn't like that he's getting some blowback ...” For context, this is exactly what Homan said when asked about the Catholic Bishops’ statement on November 14th (Click “expand”): So the message — so, according to them, the message we should send to the whole world is that, “If you cross the border illegally, which is a crime, don’t worry about it. If you get ordered removed by a federal judge after due process, don’t worry about it, cause there shouldn’t be mass deportations.” If that’s the message we send to the whole world, people are still putting themselves in harm’s way to come to the greatest nation on earth. They’re gonna spend their life savings and give it to a criminal cartel. And we saw during the Biden administration, when there was no immigration enforcement, over 4,000 aliens died making that journey, historic record. Quarter million Americans died from fentanyl, historic record. Secure borders saves lives. I wish the Catholic Church would understand that. We have the right to secure our borders like they have the right to secure their facility. You can’t enter their facility without getting arrested. Matter of fact, their — the penalties for entering their facilities are much worse than ours. So, you know, we’re gonna enforce the law. And by doing that we’re saving a lot of lives. Secure borders saves lives. And no one — one of the reasons no one talks about why we had the most secure border in the history of this nation is because exactly what ICE is doing. ICE just sent a message to the whole world, “Don’t give your life savings to come to country, cause you’re not gonna be released. You’re not gonna cross the border illegally, you’re gonna be prosecuted.” So, the Catholic Church’s wrong. I’m sorry, I’m a lifelong Catholic. I’m saying it as not only the Border Czar, I’ll say it as a Catholic. I think they need to spend time fixing the Catholic Church, in my opinion. So Homan based his disagreement on the fact that the open border endangered not only U.S. citizens, but also those who crossed the border illegally, as well as the apparent hypocrisy in terms of prosecuting trespassing. The main point of the USCCB’s “Special Message,” which MS NOW highlighted, was as follows: We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement. However, also included in the statement (and not mentioned by anyone on Morning Joe) was a recognition of a national sovereignty’s duty to immigration regulation: We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good. Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks. Scarborough again invoked the teachings of Jesus and aligned Pope Leo with them: “Well, and it is unambiguous, the words of Jesus, the red letters. It's just unambiguous. And so the Pope is standing on solid spiritual ground.” Co-host Jonathan Lemire ended the conversation by mentioning Leo’s predecessor: “Pope Francis […] spoke out about, sort of, Trump's immigration policies in the first term, particularly the kids in the cages and the like.” If you’ll remember, the “kids in cages” controversy was actually due to Obama-era immigration policies. Lemire returned to the sitting Pope and acclaimed his influence, “But there's something unique about an American Pope, Pope Leo, who's quieter than Francis, but very effective in what he's saying, the messages are being heard.” MS NOW misrepresented the Catholic Church’s stance on illegal immigration enforcement. While Catholic authorities have clearly disapproved of how ICE and the Border Patrol have conducted physically-violent raids (which the leftist media has no doubt exaggerated), they have also acknowledged the need for border security. Scarborough, who has loved touting his Baptist upbringing, would do well to be more honest in his namesake’s coverage. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: MS NOW’s Morning Joe November 20, 2025 6:53:55 a.m. EST (…) MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You can see from Britt’s reporting there, the Pope is leaning in on this. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, he's engaged. But also, Willie, the archbishops are engaged, priests are engaged. I mean, the administration official said the Pope is wrong. You kind of going against not only the Pope, you're going against Jesus's teachings throughout the entire New Testament. All I can say is good luck with that, taking it up with Jesus and taking it up with the Pope. And all of the archbishops and so many priests. The New Testament, the Gospel is so painfully clear that the Pope feels free to say, “Please don't call yourself pro-life if you're against abortion, but you support the inhumane treatment of these souls.” WILLIE GEIST: Yeah, and what — if you're Tom Homan, what specifically is the Pope wrong about here? When you say the Catholic Church is wrong, what do you — what is he wrong about? I think he just doesn't like that he's getting some blowback and it's beyond blowback. It's a united front. And I think for a lot of Catholics who've struggled over the last couple of decades with scandal and all that, this is a very proud moment — BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. GEIST: — because they are — they don't believe this is political. This is Jesus’ teaching. This is from the Bible. SCARBOROUGH: Right. GEIST: And the fact that the Pope is showing leadership, this American pope who obviously understands immigration in this country, the fact that he's taking the lead, it's a very significant moment. SCARBOROUGH: Well, and it is unambiguous, the words of Jesus, the red letters. It's just unambiguous. And so the Pope is standing on solid spiritual ground. And the question is, how is this going to impact Catholics? And I think we've seen some Protestant churches also starting to go, “Well, we may have voted for the President, but we can't just throw out everything Jesus said about protecting those in need, and welcoming the foreigner and, you know, the Good Samaritan story.” Mike Barnicle told us about being in mass last week and letter from the Pope being read from the pulpit and the priest — after the priest ended, the audience, the giving a standing ovation. BRZEZINSKI: Wow. JONATHAN LEMIRE: Yeah. Pope Francis — BRZEZINSKI: It’s moving. LEMIRE: — spoke out about, sort of, Trump's immigration policies in the first term, particularly the kids in the cages and the like. But there's something unique about an American Pope, Pope Leo, who's quieter than Francis, but very effective in what he's saying, the messages are being heard. And we're seeing it in pulpits, but also in polling. BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. LEMIRE: Americans don’t like how this administration is handling immigrants and deportations. (…)

As she did just over a year ago, Alyssa Farah Griffin, the faux conservative for ABC’s The View, came to the defense of Vanity Fair editor Olivia Nuzzi, the liberal journalist who cheated on her then-fiancé Ryan Lizza with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. During Thursday’s episode, Farah Griffin proclaimed floozy Nuzzi was “one of the best writers of my generation” and hoped she “will come forward and defend herself” from new allegations of sleeping with another politician and a former MSNBC host. Near the top of the segment, moderator Joy Behar was perplexed that people had a problem with a journalist having affairs and sleeping with their sources: “And her ex-fiance, who’s also a political reporter, is writing a blog claiming that she had an affair with yet another politician. Okay. (…) So, what's wrong with that?” “The problem is that's unethical under journalism standings,” co-host Sunny Hostin had to explain to her. “I mean you can’t sleep with a source because there's an immediate conflict of interest in your reporting. And she gave glowing reports – She wrote glowing reports about the two men that she allegedly had affairs with.” Apparently tired of hearing Hostin list off Nuzzi’s transgressions, Farah Griffin interjected to defend and glaze her friend: FARAH GRIFFIN: If I could mention; I said before when this came up, I've been friendly with Olivier over the years and I want to give her the credibility of this. She's one of the best writers of my generation. She wrote for New York magazine. She wrote – HOSTIN: Why is she having affairs with the subjects of her – FARAH GRIFFIN: I'll get there. I remain frustrated that when this story comes up there are so many calls for her to be held accountable, her being dragged, and RFK Jr., who allegedly participated in this gets off scot-free and is in the cabinet. That bothers me.   Alyssa Farah Griffin whines that Nuzzi is being dragged for being a fluzzi and cheating on her fiance multiple times and blames "society": "I want to give her the credibility. She's one of the best writers of my generation ... I remain frustrated that when this story comes up… pic.twitter.com/OkLrO9lz1e — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 20, 2025   She went on to blame “society” and men for Nuzzi choosing to cheat and sleep around. “I think it's society's [fault],” she argued. At one point, she seemed to try to paint Nuzzi, a consenting grown adult who chose her actions to advance her career, as a victim: “The man had more power. He was 30 years older than her.” Farah Griffin did admit that Nuzzi’s actions harmed journalism. “But I think journalism matters more than ever and when you break ethical boundaries, I think that makes people lose trust in the media,” she said. “[P]eople don't trust the media because of things like this.” But, she pivoted to trying to wash Nuzzi’s hands of responsibility and blame the news media industry: But I also think this is a by-product of what's happening in journalism right now. A lot of it, like, great journalists are getting laid off left and right. It’s hard to be able to pay people for good journalism. And a lot of executives frankly are telling people your personal brand, how many Twitter followers you have, your Instagram matters more than anything. So, I think in many ways she's sort of a by-product of the moment we're in in the country, not -- it's not like something -- I just think there's so much focus on her uniquely in it rather than what does it say more about society at the moment.   Farah Griffin argues for Nuzzi's career: "The alleged RFK situation was inappropriate. I would have never engaged. I don't think women in journalism should but I think you can come back from one mistake. I don't think that should ruin your entire career. What makes me nervous… pic.twitter.com/IkGp4SWLA6 — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 20, 2025   While further admitting the “alleged RFK situation was inappropriate,” Farah Griffin hoped Nuzzi could bounce back. “But I think you can come back from one mistake. I don't think that should ruin your entire career. What makes me nervous about the story it sounds like there may have been other situations. And I just hope if that's untrue she will come forward and defend herself,” she said. Nuzzi already had parlayed her journalistic malpractice into a new editor position (which Hostin accurately called into question) and a new book. The only person harmed in this was Lizza. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View November 20, 2025 11:17:13 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: And her ex-fiance, who’s also a political reporter, is writing a blog claiming that she had an affair with yet another politician. Okay. SUNNY HOSTIN: That she wrote about. She was a journalist working a story and she slept with both of the people she was profiling. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Allegedly. HOSTIN: Allegedly. [Laughter] BEHAR: Yeah, well. So, what's wrong with that? HOSTIN: The problem is that's unethical under journalism standings. Right? I mean you can’t sleep with a source because there's an immediate conflict of interest in your reporting. And she gave glowing reports – She wrote glowing reports about the two men that she allegedly had affairs with. BEHAR: So, one of them was RFK, right? HOSTIN: Well, apparently it was an emotional affair because it was just -- SARA HAINES: Someone with a worm. We don't name-names. We don’t know. HOSTIN: Text message affair. BEHAR: Is she vaccinated because that's the end of that relationship? [Laughter] FARAH GRIFFIN: If I could mention; I said before when this came up, I've been friendly with Olivier over the years and I want to give her the credibility of this. She's one of the best writers of my generation. She wrote for New York magazine. She wrote – HOSTIN: Why is she having affairs with the subjects of her – FARAH GRIFFIN: I'll get there. I remain frustrated that when this story comes up there are so many calls for her to be held accountable, her being dragged, and RFK Jr., who allegedly participated in this gets off scot-free and is in the cabinet. That bothers me. But do feel strongly. I think that - BEHAR: Now, whose fault is that? FARAH GRIFFIN: I think it's society's. I think that society needs to call for men – HOSTIN: RFK Jr. has denied it though. He said there was no affair. [Crosstalk] HAINES: It might have been another man with a worm FARAH GRIFFIN: The man had more power. He was 30 years older than her. [Crosstalk] BEHAR: One at a time. One at a time. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I think journalism matters more than ever and when you break ethical boundaries, I think that makes people lose trust in the media. HOSTIN: It does. FARAH GRIFFIN: I think that part of the moment we're in, is people don't trust the media because of things like this. But I also think this is a by-product of what's happening in journalism right now. A lot of it, like, great journalists are getting laid off left and right. It’s hard to be able to pay people for good journalism. And a lot of executives frankly are telling people your personal brand, how many Twitter followers you have, your Instagram matters more than anything. So, I think in many ways she's sort of a by-product of the moment we're in in the country, not -- it's not like something -- I just think there's so much focus on her uniquely in it rather than what does it say more about society at the moment. (…) 11:22:24 a.m. Eastern FARAH GRIFFIN: But listen! I think the RFK situation, the alleged RFK situation was inappropriate. I would have never engaged. I don't think women in journalism should. But I think you can come back from one mistake. I don't think that should ruin your entire career. What makes me nervous about the story it sounds like there may have been other situations. HOSTIN: Yes. FARAH GRIFFIN: And I just hope if that's untrue she will come forward and defend herself. HOSTIN: Yes. I hope she does. FARAH GRIFFIN: Because like I said, she is tremendously talented and I think that would really help her. BEHAR: Meanwhile she gets the bad name and these guys just walk away. As usual! (…)

POLL: What was the worst media take of the week? (Vote below)     NOMINEES:    1. Katy Tur: Shutdown Revealed Trump’s “Dark Side” “The shutdown did reveal quite a dark side of Donald Trump….Posting about the grim reaper coming to slash government jobs, laying off workers….Suing states to say, ‘No, you can’t release these SNAP funds.’...There was a certain callousness that went further than I’ve seen Donald Trump go in the past.” — Host Katy Tur on MSNBC’s Katy Tur Reports, November 12.    2. Katie Couric Blames the Victim: “Charlie Kirk’s Rhetoric Was Extreme”  “I think some people might say Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was extreme. You know, I think that’s the conversation that happened. People condemned political violence, but they also felt a great deal of discomfort with his language, suggesting that these kinds of words lead to violence. I don’t know, I’m just kind of sharing my observations as I saw the conversations unfold.”— Host Katie Couric to Sen. John Fetterman on her podcast Next Question with Katie Couric, November 13.    3. Sunny Hostin: America is a “Sick” and “Racist” Country “I think it’s ridiculous that people don’t see what this country was founded on and what this country still is sickened with. It’s a sick country. It’s a racist country.”— ABC’s The View co-host Sunny Hostin on Behind the Table podcast, November 18.     Funded by James P. Jimirro

Tuesday’s PBS News Hour was blessed with a rare sight: A Catholic bishop as guest. But of course PBS didn’t invite him on to talk about the church’s opposition to abortion (there was little attention to pro-lifers in Wednesday’s nine-minute News Hour story on an underground network of abortion pill providers). Instead, El Paso bishop Mark Seitz was featured for his opposition to deportation of illegal immigrants under President Trump, which new Pope Leo has made a political crusade for the church. Amna Nawaz: Pope Leo spoke out today about the Trump administration's approach to mass deportation and the treatment of some immigrants. The pope was asked about Catholic bishops who have been critical of those policies. In a so-called special pastoral message, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decried the — quote — "indiscriminate deportation campaign" and said they are — quote — "praying for an end to the dehumanizing rhetoric and violence." The pope offered his support for that message this evening. Pope Leo XIV: I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it's a very important statement. I would invite especially all Catholics, but people of good will, to listen carefully to what they said. I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts. There's a system of justice. Nawaz: Before the pope's remarks, I spoke with one of the bishops behind that immigration message. That's Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who met with the pope this fall…. CBS News previously featured Seitz in a May 2024 segment, being hailed by Pope Francis for, in his words, doing “the impossible to help the migrants” -- or, less sympathetically, shielding undocumented migrants from law enforcement. But Nawaz didn’t bring up Seitz’s immigration activism. Nawaz: If you had a chance to speak directly with someone in the White House, what would you say? Rev. Mark Seitz: ....we would express our great concern about some of the rhetoric that's been using, characterizing whole large groups of people, and giving the impression that they're criminals, that they're rapists and all of these kinds of things that have come along.... Still, Seitz’s absolute capitulation to the far-left viewpoint on one issue didn’t wholly satisfy Nawaz, who didn’t approve of the church’s hesitation to fully embrace transgenderism, and used discredited media conventional wisdom to bolster her complaint. Nawaz: Bishop, I have to ask you. At the same Baltimore conference where you approve this immigration message, I know bishops also agreed on a statement and a decision around the treatment of transgender people by the church, made the decision to officially bar Catholic hospitals from providing gender-affirming care for transgender people. Can you explain why, what's behind that decision? Seitz: ....we couldn't go along with doing something that we believe would be harmful to a person and in fact would not — would harm them for life in many cases. Then Nawaz lunged for the discredited, data-barren proposition that gender dysphoria is a genuine affliction that can be cured via “gender-affirming care," i.e. surgical and chemical castration and mutilation. (We had hoped the News Hour’s transgender obsession had ceased with the departure of reporter Laura Barron-Lopez.) Nawaz: I should note that the gender-affirming care is backed by medical professionals and by years of study. But I will also note we heard from other faith leaders this week saying — from Episcopalian faith, from Presbyterians, Reform Jews saying they feel their faiths compel them to treat transgender, intersex and nonbinary people with respect, love and equal rights. They're reading from the same holy text here, right, so why the divide? Which "holy text" has the passage on transgenderism?  A transcript is available, click "Expand." PBS News Hour 11/18/25 7:45:33 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: Pope Leo spoke out today about the Trump administration's approach to mass deportation and the treatment of some immigrants. The pope was asked about Catholic bishops who have been critical of those policies. In a so-called special pastoral message, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decried the — quote — "indiscriminate deportation campaign" and said they are — quote — "praying for an end to the dehumanizing rhetoric and violence." The pope offered his support for that message this evening. Pope Leo XIV: I appreciate very much what the bishops have said. I think it's a very important statement. I would invite especially all Catholics, but people of good will, to listen carefully to what they said. I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have. If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts. There's a system of justice. Amna Nawaz: Before the pope's remarks, I spoke with one of the bishops behind that immigration message. That's Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, who met with the pope this fall. Bishop Seitz, welcome to the "News Hour." Thanks for joining us. Rev. Mark Seitz: It's great to be with you, Amna. Amna Nawaz: So, as we noted there, this kind of message is very rare. What did you and other bishops see that said to you it's necessary to deliver this message and right now? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, I think probably there were a lot of people that would have liked to have heard from us as a body even sooner. But it's a complicated matter with 300-plus bishops in the United States to come together around a statement. Even though there is a high deal of unanimity in terms of the issue itself, to come together on the words is challenging and we undertook that process at our last meeting. Amna Nawaz: Now, I should note that President Trump is not mentioned by name anywhere in the statement, but this is in response to his policies and his approach. And his border czar, Tom Homan, responded to your message by saying the Catholic Church is wrong. What's your response to that? Rev. Mark Seitz: Yes. Well, he has a right to his opinion, but he needs to realize he's disagreeing with the Catholic Church. Our role in the church is that we are to speak according to the Gospel and the teachings of the church. And certainly when you find this degree of unanimity between the Holy Father and the entire body of bishops of the United States, there ought to be something that causes people to look up and say, wow, this must have something to do with church teaching. Amna Nawaz: You also say in the statement, you're grateful for the chance to dialogue with public and elected officials. Have you had that chance? Are you or any of your colleagues speaking to the White House or to DHS? And what is it specifically you would like to see change? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, we're constantly seeking to be in communication with the government. And we see ourselves as having a role of conscience formation, you might say, just speaking the basic principles that we believe that we have gotten from the Gospel and through the history of the church's reflection on these issues. We believe we have something to offer to the polity, to the state. And we do that wherever we are. So we have been in contact, but we haven't had the level of contact to this point that we would like, that we have seen in the past with the leadership of our country. Amna Nawaz: If you had a chance to speak directly with someone in the White House, what would you say? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, I'd certainly want to have a conversation with them. But we would express our great concern about some of the rhetoric that's been using, characterizing whole large groups of people, and giving the impression that they're criminals, that they're rapists and all of these kinds of things that have come along. We would also want to remind them that this country has signed on to a law that is our own in this country, but also according to international law, that says that we will accept people into this country who are fleeing for their lives. And the law establishes a way to do that that recognizes the urgency of that acceptance in some cases. So we would remind them about that. We would ask that they be very careful when they consider actions that could result in the division of families and the separation of families or sending people, individuals or families into situations that are really threatening to their very life in some of the countries that we're considering sending people to. Amna Nawaz: Bishop, I have to ask you. At the same Baltimore conference where you approve this immigration message, I know bishops also agreed on a statement and a decision around the treatment of transgender people by the church, made the decision to officially bar Catholic hospitals from providing gender-affirming care for transgender people. Can you explain why, what's behind that decision? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, first of all, let me say that we believe that we should love and care for every human being, and that is the goal of the church. But, sometimes, actions that a person might request might not be in their best interest, from our understanding of the human person, according to what we have received from Scripture, from the teaching of the church. And so we couldn't go along with doing something that we believe would be harmful to a person and in fact would not — would harm them for life in many cases. Amna Nawaz: I should note that the gender-affirming care is backed by medical professionals and by years of study. But I will also note we heard from other faith leaders this week saying — from Episcopalian faith, from Presbyterians, Reform Jews saying they feel their faiths compel them to treat transgender, intersex and nonbinary people with respect, love and equal rights. They're reading from the same holy text here, right, so why the divide? Rev. Mark Seitz: Well, there's always been differences based on the interpretation of the Scriptures, and I don't think that's going to end right away, although we would love to see it happen. But we read it differently than they do. And, again, we have tremendous respect and care for people who are going through this struggle. We want to support them, walk with them, but we wouldn't want to do anything that we would believe would hurt them. Amna Nawaz: Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso, Texas, we thank you so much for your time, for making the time to speak with us. Appreciate it. Rev. Mark Seitz: You're welcome. God bless you and your listeners.