CBS’s Stephen Colbert welcomed Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Thursday’s taping of The Late Show to strategize how they can force President Trump to end the war with Iran. Of course, neither of them thought through the potential consequences that might have, which was ironic considering all the energy they spent criticizing Trump for not having a well-thought-out plan. Colbert began by opining, “Listen, it's no secret that Trump ran for president, one of his promises was no foreign wars. Certainly no regime change wars, and here we are in one that doesn't seem to have an exit strategy and not much of an entrance strategy either.”   Stephen Colbert and Elizabeth Warren suggest that Iran is making it difficult for Republicans to show their faces in public. Colbert says "Last year, when you were here, you said your GOP colleagues in the hallways of the Senate, quote, 'Don't make eye contact anymore' because… pic.twitter.com/X7pssNF5Xc — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 24, 2026   He then recalled Warren’s 2025 appearance and wondered if Iran is making it difficult for Republicans to show their faces in public, “Last year, when you were here, you said that your GOP colleagues in the hallways of the Senate, quote, "Don't make eye contact anymore" because they know he's wrong. What’s—how’s the eye contact these days?” Warren gleefully replied, “Oh, man, those guys. Their eyes are just glued to the floor all the time.” She also claimed, “They truly do understand the president and his team cannot explain why we went to war, what the strategy is in this war, what will constitute winning this war, how to get out of this war, and the number one thing they cannot explain is how this war is helping one single person in the United States of America. It is time for those Republicans to help the Democrats and put an end to this war right now.” Colbert followed by wondering, “How can Congress do anything? How can the Republicans help the Democrats in the Senate or the House do anything right now? Because the president doesn't seem to be asking for any approval. What could you do?”   Colbert then wonders "How can Congress do anything? How can the Republicans help the Democrats in the Senate or the House do anything? The president doesn't seem to be asking for approval. What could you do?" Warren wants to "Cut off funding. Tell them to shut the whole thing… pic.twitter.com/JtPH8kgQih — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 24, 2026   Warren responded by declaring, “It doesn't matter. We actually already have laws in place called War Powers Act, where Congress can simply say, 'You have to put a stop to this until Congress has a chance to come in and vote.' Congress, according to the constitution, is the only one that can declare war.” A confused Colbert pressed for more, “But what can you do? I mean, hasn't he already broken that rule?” Warren then urged Congress to revoke funding, “Congress does have the power to say ‘Stop.’ We have now, the Democrats, have now put on the table. There's a law that—I think of it kind of like in case you have a president who has violated the Constitution, it's like the emergency brake in a car that has lost its brakes, otherwise. And that's what we have voted on to get the Republicans to come in and say, ‘Cut it off.’ Cut off funding. Tell them to shut the whole thing down. The Republicans have voted against that. That is, they voted to continue the war one, two, three, four, five times, so far. And we’re going to stay after it. We are going to keep putting this deal forward and making them vote on it until finally somebody on that side grows a spine and does it.” While Colbert and Warren may think that starving the military of funds is standing up to Trump, in the real world, all it would do is empower Iran and put American servicemembers at increased risk. Here is a transcript for the April 23-taped show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 4/24/2026 12:04 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Listen, it's no secret that Trump ran for president, one of his promises was no foreign wars. ELIZABETH WARREN: Yeah. Yeah. COLBERT: Certainly no regime change wars, and here we are in one that doesn't seem to have an exit strategy— WARREN: Right. COLBERT: —and not much of an entrance strategy either. WARREN: Right. Right. COLBERT: Last year, when you were here, you said that your GOP colleagues in the hallways of the Senate, quote, "Don't make eye contact anymore" because they know he's wrong. What’s—how’s the eye contact these days? WARREN: Oh, man, those guys. Their eyes are just glued to the floor all the time. COLBERT: Yes. WARREN: Because they truly do understand the president and his team cannot explain why we went to war, what the strategy is in this war, what will constitute winning this war, how to get out of this war, and the number one thing they cannot explain is how this war is helping one single person in the United States of America. It is time for those Republicans to help the Democrats and put an end to this war right now. COLBERT: So, what—okay. WARREN: It's true. Yup. COLBERT: At the very least, the troops who actually go prosecute this war on the behalf of the commander-in-chief deserve the rationale— WARREN: Yes. COLBERT: —They understand why they're doing what they're doing. How can Congress do anything? How can the Republicans help the Democrats in the Senate or the House do anything right now? Because the president doesn't seem to be asking for any approval. What could you do? WARREN: It doesn't matter. We actually already have laws in place called War Powers Act, where Congress can simply say, "You have to put a stop to this until Congress has a chance to come in and vote." Congress, according to the constitution, is the only one that can declare war. COLBERT: But what can you do? I mean, hasn't he already broken that rule? WARREN: Well, yes. There is that. COLBERT: Yeah. WARREN: But Congress does have the power to say “Stop.” We have now, the Democrats, have now put on the table. There's a law that—I think of it kind of like in case you have a president who has violated the Constitution, it's like the emergency brake in a car that has lost its brakes, otherwise. And that's what we have voted on to get the Republicans to come in and say, “Cut it off.” Cut off funding. Tell them to shut the whole thing down. The Republicans have voted against that. That is, they voted to continue the war one, two, three, four, five times, so far. COLBERT: Okay. WARREN: And we’re going to stay after it. We are going to keep putting this deal forward and making them vote on it until finally somebody on that side grows a spine and does it.

Simona Foltyn, a Middle East-based “special correspondent” for the PBS News Hour, conducted a shamefully soft interview of a senior official of the Iran-backed anti-Israel terrorist group Hezbollah for Tuesday, after previously fawning over the terrorist group while interviewing figures less directly related to Hezbollah.   Foltyn worked for the Arab news network Al-Jazeera English from 2019 to 2021 (on the Iraq beat) and maintains a virulently anti-Israel X feed. Hezbollah PR knew what they were doing when they agreed to let Foltyn, an expert at peddling anti-Israel propaganda, meet secretly with Wafiq Safa, a senior official in Hezbollah`s political wing. Anchor Amna Nawaz teased “….in a rare interview, a top Hezbollah official tells special correspondent Simona Foltyn they will never give up all of their weapons.” SIMONA FOLTYN: We are at an undisclosed location in Beirut's southern suburbs, a residential area where Hezbollah enjoys widespread support. Israeli bombardment has left a trail of destruction here. Despite the cease-fire, the buzz of Israeli drones is constant. Safa has little confidence in the Trump administration's ability to restrain Israel. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We don`t believe that there are any guarantees with the Israelis, but for the weapons that we possess. SIMONA FOLTYN: It`s a lesson learned from the previous U.S.-backed cease-fire that was supposed to end the 2024 war. Israel had reserved a right to strike what it said were Hezbollah targets, violating the agreement more than 10,000 times in 15 months. Hezbollah held back until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran….   PBS's Simona Foltyn in Beirut: "Israeli bombardment has left a trail of destruction here. Despite the cease-fire, the buzz of Israeli drones is constant. [Hezbollah's Wafic] Safa has little confidence in the Trump administration`s ability to restrain Israel." pic.twitter.com/x2GbQQ8s2u — Clay Waters (@claywaters44) April 23, 2026 Her idea of a challenging question came off sounding like a well-meaning ally in Hezbollah’s war against Israel: SIMONA FOLTYN: On March 2, Hezbollah fired six rockets into Northern Israel. In response, Israel sharply escalated its attacks, killing more than 2,000 Lebanese. But if Israel was preparing for another war, why attack first and give them the justification on a silver platter for what you knew would be a disproportionate response that would claim a many civilian lives? SAFA: The Israelis don't need a pretext. The six rockets that we fired, why didn't they speak to the cease-fire monitoring mechanism? They bypassed the mechanism and they went straight to the war they had been threatening us. Foltyn hit the left-wing talking points of Israel as a colonial occupier, not a small country trying to establish some security in a region out for their blood. FOLTYN: Israel says it now wants to take care of Hezbollah itself. Its troops have pushed several miles into Southern Lebanon, establishing a yellow line similar to Gaza in what looks like an annexation of land. Hezbollah has vowed to resist the occupation. …. FOLTYN: Israel says its so-called buffer zone is necessary to protect residents in the north. At least 35 Israelis have been killed by Iranian and Hezbollah missiles, though Safa denies that the group is deliberately targeting civilians. Did Foltyn provide Israel the same understanding? She certainly didn’t challenge Safa’s bizarre claim that Hezbollah doesn’t kill civilians. SAFA: Let us be clear and honest. Hezbollah's ethics and religion prohibits it from killing civilians. But what happens when we fire at soldiers, there may be what is called collateral damage…. She strove to make the anti-Israel terrorist group the sane party next to Israel. You’ll hear nothing here about Hezbollah running roughshod over Lebanon’s official government through threats of violence, a fact even the anti-Israel New York Times concedes. FOLTYN: Hezbollah’s demands are clear. SAFA: We want complete and permanent adherence to the cease-fire, withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territory, the release of the prisoners, and the return of the displaced. In November 2023, Foltyn questioned Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, a former Lebanese intelligence official with close ties to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group designated as a terrorist group by the United States. In February 2025 Foltyn reported from a funeral service celebrating Hassan Nasrallah, who led Hezbollah. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour April 21, 2026 7:28:25 p.m. AMNA NAWAZ: The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah attacked an Israeli army position in Northern Israel today, saying it was in response to several Israeli cease-fire violations. It's the first time the Iran-backed group has claimed responsibility for an attack during the tenuous truce that started last week. Representatives from the government of Lebanon and Israel will meet again this Thursday in Washington for peace talks. Hezbollah is not involved. The full disarmament of the group is a central part of the discussions. But, in a rare interview, a top Hezbollah official tells special correspondent Simona Foltyn they will never give up all of their weapons. SIMONA FOLTYN: We're about to meet a high-ranking Hezbollah official to understand the group's position on the cease-fire. He is one of the few senior leaders to have survived Israel's relentless assassination campaign, and he`s still considered a high-value target. Wafiq Safa is a senior official in Hezbollah's political wing. He narrowly escaped a targeted Israeli strike in 2024. This is his first interview on American television. There have already been several violations in the first days of the cease- fire. Is Hezbollah committed to abiding by it? WAFIQ SAFA, Senior Member, Hezbollah Political Council (through translator): Hezbollah is committed to the cease-fire, but we have seen during the last two days that the Israelis have continuously violated it, be it the destruction and bulldozing of houses or the bombardment of villages or even the killing of civilians. There can`t be a one-sided cease-fire from Hezbollah only. So Hezbollah will respond to these attacks, but in a way that we deem appropriate. SIMONA FOLTYN: We are at an undisclosed location in Beirut`s southern suburbs, a residential area where Hezbollah enjoys widespread support. Israeli bombardment has left a trail of destruction here. Despite the cease-fire, the buzz of Israeli drones is constant. Safa has little confidence in the Trump administration`s ability to restrain Israel. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We don`t believe that there are any guarantees with the Israelis, but for the weapons that we possess. SIMONA FOLTYN: It`s a lesson learned from the previous U.S.-backed cease- fire that was supposed to end the 2024 war. Israel had reserved a right to strike what it said were Hezbollah targets, violating the agreement more than 10,000 times in 15 months. Hezbollah held back until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. It reentered the war to avenge the killing of Iran`s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Many Lebanese blamed Hezbollah for this decision to drag Lebanon back into a war, and it looked as though you were defending Iran`s interests and not Lebanon`s interests. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): In reality, there`s a delusion. And this delusion stems from the fact that Israel never stopped the war. Diplomacy was tried, and it failed. Therefore, it was necessary to take the right decision under the right circumstances and at the right time to defend Lebanon and to defend the Lebanese people, to deter Israel and to force it to stop the attacks. SIMONA FOLTYN: The decision to reenter this war, was that an Iranian decision or a Lebanese decision? WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We chose the right time, when the Israeli enemy was busy with its war on Iran. We benefited from the ongoing war. And we don`t deny that Iran also benefited from this war that we took to the Israeli enemy. We are in a permanent alliance with the Islamic Republic, and it`s natural that we support each other. Israel was preparing for another war on us, and Hezbollah made the first move. SIMONA FOLTYN: On March 2, Hezbollah fired six rockets into Northern Israel. In response, Israel sharply escalated its attacks, killing more than 2,000 Lebanese. But if Israel was preparing for another war, why attack first and give them the justification on a silver platter for what you knew would be a disproportionate response that would claim a many civilian lives? WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): The Israelis don`t need a pretext. The six rockets that we fired, why didn`t they speak to the cease-fire monitoring mechanism? They bypassed the mechanism and they went straight to the war they had been threatening us. SIMONA FOLTYN: But Safa admits that Hezbollah too was preparing for another war, even as it appeared to collaborate with the Lebanese state to hand over some of its weapons. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): During these 15 months, Hezbollah was trying to rehabilitate its military, organizational, political, and social capabilities. And Hezbollah succeeded in that. SIMONA FOLTYN: As part of a U.S. and Israel-backed Lebanese government decree, Hezbollah was supposed to have disarmed south of the Litani River, which runs up to 18 miles north of Israel`s borders. The process was declared completed at the end of December 2025. We saw with our own eyes how the Lebanese army confiscated some of your weapons. But in the past weeks, we have seen Hezbollah fighters once again battling Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon. So it seems that you were not disarmed. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): The Lebanese army did seize a number of weapons, but the Lebanese army didn`t know how many weapons Hezbollah had to begin with. We helped the Lebanese army so that the south of the Litani is free of weapons. When this war started, we fired from the north of the Litani to the north of the river, and it`s our right to do so. SIMONA FOLTYN: Israel says it now wants to take care of Hezbollah itself. Its troops have pushed several miles into Southern Lebanon, establishing a yellow line similar to Gaza in what looks like an annexation of land. Hezbollah has vowed to resist the occupation. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We don`t accept any Israeli presence, not on our land, not in our skies, not even in our waters. SIMONA FOLTYN: Israel says its so-called buffer zone is necessary to protect residents in the north. At least 35 Israelis have been killed by Iranian and Hezbollah missiles, though Safa denies that the group is deliberately targeting civilians. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): Let us be clear and honest. Hezbollah`s ethics and religion prohibits it from killing civilians. But what happens when we fire at soldiers, there may be what is called collateral damage. If Hezbollah wanted to target civilians, you would have seen large numbers of civilians killed and injured. SIMONA FOLTYN: Following this latest war, Hezbollah appears to have hardened its position, boosted by Iran`s insistence that Israel must cease attacks on Lebanon if the Strait of Hormuz is to remain open. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): As far as Hezbollah`s weapons are concerned, it`s out of discussion. SIMONA FOLTYN: Hezbollah`s demands are clear. WAFIQ SAFA (through translator): We want complete and permanent adherence to the cease-fire, withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territory, the release of the prisoners, and the return of the displaced. SIMONA FOLTYN: Israeli and Lebanese officials will meet again on Thursday in Washington. For now, this tenuous truth is barely holding. And, this time, Hezbollah says it will fight back if it fails. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Simona Foltyn in Beirut.

Back in 2020, National “Public” Radio promoted a nasty little book called In Defense of Looting. NPR summarized the “Marxist-informed” author Vicki Osterweil in the wake of the “racial justice” rioting in cities: “She argues that looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.” It’s interesting to imagine how they would feel if someone stole all their lame Nina Totenberg tote bags, or some transgressive activist broke in and emptied out the designer fashions in NPR CEO Katherine Maher’s residence. They are striking an anti-capitalist pose, and let’s guess it’s not the same if you commit property crimes against socialists. Now it is The New York Times that is platforming the advocacy of petty theft from the Left. On their podcast “The Opinions,” they brought on another Marxist-informed dilettante named Hasan Piker, best known as a live-streaming personality on Twitch, popular with video gamers. This was their online headline:  The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?  Why petty theft might be the new political protest Piker said "I’m pro-stealing from big corporations, because they steal quite a bit more from their own workers." He claimed it was interesting “that a kind of harm committed by the individual, strangely, continually draws more ire than the same harm being committed by a structure. And so, I mean, and so I kind of am inclined towards this. It’s like, everyone try it! See what happens!” But don’t break into Piker’s house and steal his stuff. He’d probably beat you to a pulp. A year ago, The Times wrote a gushy article about Piker and his muscle-bound physique under the headline “A Progressive Mind in a Body Made for the ‘Manosphere.’” As a Marxist, Piker prefers government-operated stores, matching the plans of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. “I’m in favor of fast and free buses and also government-owned storefronts. And two of those policies the mayor of this beautiful city is currently working on.” He wouldn’t steal from those.   But it’s not just theft, it’s also the advocacy of assassination. As they talked about “an outpouring of glee” over Luigi Mangione shooting down an insurance executive in the street, Piker brought out one of his communist heroes. “Friedrich Engels wrote about the concept of social murder, and Brian Thompson, as the UnitedHealthcare C.E.O., was engaging in a tremendous amount of social murder.” Social murder? That’s a fancy Marxist term to describe capitalism as “systematized violence.” Refusing to pay for someone’s health-care costs is “social murder,” so the execution of a health insurance CEO is justified.   Piker complained that “Americans are very draconian about crime and punishment. They’re very black and white on this issue. And yet, because of the pervasive pain that the private health system had created for the average American, I saw so many people immediately understand why this death had taken place.” The leftists routinely scream about how “normalizing” President Trump is creating a permission structure for fascism. Hasan Piker’s ideological embrace of violence and theft has been normalized, and the permission structure for communism is obvious in America’s most celebrated newspaper.  Just as it was in New York Times columnist Ezra Klein’s article titled "Hasan Piker Is Not the Enemy” – which The Times then changed to “This Is Why There’s No Liberal Joe Rogan.” Piker is now endorsing and appearing at campaign events with Democrat candidates for Congress. The Times clearly wants the Democrats to accept the message “Hasan Piker Is Your Friend.”

The Justice Department has indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center for financial fraud, taking money from leftist donors and paying informants inside racist and extremist groups and trying to hide the money trail as they "fight extremism and hate." Naturally, the leftist networks and newspapers don't want to get into the ugly specifics of the indictment underlining that scam.   MRC senior research analyst Bill D'Agostino and CNS News managing editor Craig Bannister joined the show. On Thursday morning, The New York Times offered a front-page story laying out all the conservative complaints about the group in recent years, but not their fraudulent payoffs. The SPLC has been a favorite elitist media source for decades to warn constantly of a dangerous "far right" threat to America, from neo-Nazis to the Ku Klux Klan. From the Oklahoma City bombing to the January 6 riot, the "Hatewatch" theorists have been gurus for the media wanting to scare everyone about the powerful right-wing extremists. After the indictment, the Democrats came out and said "this is just paying informants like the FBI or the cops." But the informants are often not just keeping tabs, they're pushing moves. So in this case, if the SPLC informant is helping push a far-right rally in Charlottesville that becomes a huge national news story, which leads to a massive influx of donations to SPLC, isn't that a scam? Speaking of sneaky tactics, voters in Virginia very narrowly approved a referendum on redistricting. We were inundated with dishonest ads about restoring fairness and restoring the voices of the people with these bizarre districts. The national media pretty much ignored this, after they treated redistricting in Texas as a national scandal. It depends on which party is doing the map-shaping.  We also discussed the forthcoming White House Correspondents Dinner, and how all the retired leftists like Dan Rather put out an open letter screeching for more #Resistance to Trump's appearance on stage. Finally, we recall Joy Behar winning our last Worst Media Quote of the Week contest. In the midst of Trump sharing a meme where he looked like Jesus, Joy was trying to say Jesus was more modest than Trump, but this she ended up suggesting it was arrogant for Jesus to tell people he was the Messiah. Enjoy the show below:   

At the end of Thursday’s Morning Joe, co-host Jonathan Lemire interviewed the CEO of the National Urban League, Marc Morial, and former U.S. Attorney and MS NOW analyst Joyce Vance to defend the Southern Poverty Law Center amid the recent indictment from the DOJ related to wire fraud, as Morial called the indictment an “assault on civil rights.” In the same program, an advertisement aired for the indicted SPLC. Just about an hour before the segment, MS NOW and Morning Joe aired a 2-minute-long ad, which asked for donations to the SPLC for “$19 a month” for a “special Fight Hate t-shirt.” Essentially, amid the criminal indictments, MS NOW was still taking money from the SPLC. The two-minute SPLC advertisement also aired on Tuesday Night’s 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle, mere hours after the announcement of the indictment. Lemire's introduction of the topic gave actual details, unlike his colleague Chris Hayes’s non-detailed version. Lemire described the indictment as “claiming that a DOJ investigation found that the SPLC used donor money to pay informants in extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the national socialist movement, and then hid the payments through shell companies.”   On Morning Joe, Jonathan Lemire and a panel that included the Urban League CEO, Marc Morial, and legal analyst Joyce Vance defended the SPLC amidst their fraud indictment. All three implied the indictment was political, as Morial said it was an "assault on civil rights." pic.twitter.com/zWtUerqzuH — Nick (@nspin310) April 23, 2026   Vance described the indictment and focused on the informant aspects, as she went towards the new talking point of the FBI, a government agency, relationship with informants as similar to the SPLC, an activist group, allegedly paying extremist group members as informants while they committed wire fraud: And, you know, this is not unused or unused in federal law enforcement either. If you want to get information about a domestic terror group, you have to go and talk to domestic terrorists. Oftentimes, those are unscrupulous people, and your best way in is to pay them. Vance continued on the claim the indictment uses “fiction”: So, what this indictment does is it sort of uses the fiction that the only thing that the Southern Poverty Law Center was doing was paying informants, and it ignores the center's larger work, which involved dismantling those entities. They were the entity that was responsible for bankrupting the Ku Klux Klan and putting them out of business. Guest Pablo Torre, former ESPNer turned Morning Joe regular, asked Morial about “how this has now been used politically on the internet” and showcased a New York Post cover that, Torre said, claimed the KKK “is funded by the SPLC.” Torre asked him only to “process the conversation that’s happening as a result.” The Urban League CEO stated, “the indictment is nakedly political,” and turned to complain about the DOJ’s end of the relationship with the SPLC under the Trump administration. Morial further went on to accuse the DOJ of political prosecutions and said the indictment “is furthering this pattern and practice of an assault on civil rights through frivolous, political motivated indictments.” Lemire implied the investigations were only for interim AG Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel to gain more notoriety and, in Patel’s case, an attempt to squash bad headlines. Morial responded with the favorite word of Democrats during Trump's second term:  Distraction away from the problems that they're facing. A distraction away from the FBI director's continuing controversy over his personal conduct. And of course, the acting attorney general wants to be confirmed. And so maybe he's playing to a certain audience. Vance then agreed with Lemire and Morial, as she stated the press conference was “very unusual” and it was “relatively rare” for the Attorney General to announce indictments. She ended the presser, “underscores the analysis that this was nakedly political.” Lemire’s mention of the actual details of the indictment was the next step, but it was unlikely a network that takes ad money from the indicted SPLC would not do much of anything but defend the group. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe April 23, 2026 9:48:36 AM Eastern JONATHAN LEMIRE: Welcome back. The Southern Poverty Law Center is vowing to vigorously fight an indictment leveled against the civil rights organization by the Department of Justice, FBI director Kash Patel joined acting attorney general Todd Blanche earlier in the week, claiming that a DOJ investigation found that the SPLC used donor money to pay informants in extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the national socialist movement, and then hid the payments through shell companies. The 11-count indictment was handed down by a federal grand jury in Alabama, where the Southern Poverty Law Center is located.  The organization's interim CEO and president said he is, quote, “outraged by the false accusations.” Joining us now, the president and CEO of the National Urban League, Marc Morial, and former U.S. Attorney and MS NOW legal analyst Joyce Vance. Our thanks to you both for being with us.  Joyce, I'll start with you. Can you just walk us through this indictment? You know what allegations are made. And in your estimation, do they have merit? JOYCE VANCE Well, this, Jonathan, is something we've discussed before. It's a speaking indictment. So, instead of just being bare bones, the Justice Department lays out its entire theory of the case. They then charge the Southern Poverty Law Center. They only charge the entity. They don't charge any individuals with wire fraud, with making false statements to banks, and to money laundering.  The money laundering charge first, that depends entirely on whether there's any merit to the other two substantive charges. If they don't work out for the government, then money laundering is off the table. And so it's interesting. I think the easiest way to summarize the merits of this indictment is to say that it's hyper-focused on one aspect of how the Southern Poverty Law Center operated, that for a period of time, they paid informants, they paid them a lot of money to provide information about various domestic terror, white supremacist hate groups.  And, you know, this is not unused or unused in federal law enforcement either. If you want to get information about a domestic terror group, you have to go and talk to domestic terrorists. Oftentimes, those are unscrupulous people, and your best way in is to pay them. So, what this indictment does is it sort of uses the fiction that the only thing that the Southern Poverty Law Center was doing was paying informants, and it ignores the center's larger work, which involved dismantling those entities. They were the entity that was responsible for bankrupting the Ku Klux Klan and putting them out of business. As domestic terror groups reformed in that vacuum, they then began scrutinizing them, often working with law enforcement to provide information.  You know, the point here is that this might be an indictment that looks good on its face in some ways, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. And a jury, of course, will hear the evidence in this larger context. Tough sell for prosecutors to convict. PABLO TORRE: Mark, when you look at how this has now been used politically on the internet, on the cover of the New York Post today, the argument is that this money has funded this is the money that was responsible for the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. That the KKK actually, per the cover of the Post, funded by the SLPC. And so, for you, and the question of paid informants, how do you process the conversation that's happening as a result? MARC MORIAL: The indictment is nakedly political, and it's the Justice Department turning on itself. For years, federal law enforcement worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center to ferret out hate groups and domestic terrorist groups, and recently, the Justice Department canceled its relationship with the Southern Poverty Law Center.  So, the government has been intimately involved in what the Southern Poverty Law Center has done, which has been an important public service, and that is to ferret out these hate groups, these domestic terrorist groups, these anti-semitic groups. And this Justice Department, once again, is furthering this pattern and practice of an assault on civil rights through frivolous, politically motivated indictments. Think of Comey, think of the Attorney General in New York. Think of these. This is a continuation indeed of that pattern.  And to stand up against this is really the call to action for the American people, because the Justice Department itself in recent years has identified these types of groups as the biggest threat to the public safety, to mass violence in this country, these supremacist groups, these domestic terrorist groups. So, the Southern Poverty Law Center has performed an important public service consistently and continuously working with our government to ferret out these groups. So, this indictment, I think, is political. I think it's a grasping at straws. And let's see how it evolves in the courts. LEMIRE And, Mark, you can't help but note that the two men up front announcing this,. FBI Director Kash Patel trying to ward off some negative headlines, and interim attorney general Todd Blanche, who's trying to make a bid for the job full-time. Feels like this is an audience of one move too, no? MORIAL: Distraction away from the problems that they're facing. A distraction away from the FBI director's continuing controversy over his personal conduct. And of course, the acting attorney general wants to be confirmed. And so maybe he's playing to a certain audience.  But this is what's so important. The civil rights community and the American people have to stand up to prosecutorial misconduct, to the weaponization of the power of the state and the justice department. And this is just another example of that pattern continuing. So, we're going to stand with the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think the more people understand the magnitude and the importance of the work that they've done, I think the public is going to understand it, and they're going to support it, and they're going to see this indictment for what it is. And that is nakedly political. LEMIRE: And Joyce, lastly and briefly, can you walk us through what the next steps are going to be? VANCE: Right. So, we'll see a flurry of pretrial motions trying to determine what goes forward. There will, of course, be discovery, but these are largely the kinds of charges that get vetted, either on a guilty plea or at trial. Very unlikely that we'll see a guilty plea here.  And to the point that you just made, you know, this is a very unusual press conference. It's relatively rare for the Attorney General of the United States, or an acting one in this case, to announce a case that a United States Attorney's Office has indicted. Usually, those announcements happen in the district. It's very rare for main justice to send high-ranking officials down here. We've got the two top leaders at DOJ making the announcement without the U.S. Attorney alongside them. I think that that underscores the analysis that this was nakedly political. (...)