On Friday's The 11th Hour on MS NOW, contributor Jason Johnson seemed visibly happy when he recounted that immigration enforcement agents in Charlotte, North Carolina, have had their tires slashed and were chased out of buildings by anti-ICE activists. Additionally, during a discussion of the possibility that former President Bill Clinton might be hurt by release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, Johnson laughably claimed that Democrats have never had a problem with convicting fellow Democrats even though every Senate Democrat voted against convicting President Clinton in 1999. Near the end of the show as each panel member gave a pick for "MVP of the Week," he chose the liberal students in Charlotte who walked out of their classes to protest the push by DHS to arrest illegal immigrants in the area. He recalled: So Charlotte's Web is basically ICE Department of Homeland Security's plan to arrest thousands of supposedly undocumented people in Charlotte. It has terrorized the city -- it has shut down traffic. You have schools where 30, 40 percent of the kids are not showing up. And these young people, on their own -- without politicians, without mom, without mom and dad -- said, "We're standing against this -- we want our country to be better." And thousands of them walked out of their schools in protest to say, "We don't want ICE here." Then, even though he claimed that he does not recommend the harassment of federal agents, Johnson couldn't help smiling as he informed viewers of agents being targeted by anti-ICE activists: In addition to the fact -- and I won't say I'm suggesting this behavior -- but ICE agents have found that their tires are slashed. [It sounds like one of the male panel members laughs in the background.] They have found that they have been chased ... Yes, they have been chased out of buildings -- chased out of restaurants. After Ruhle injected, "But that's dangerous behavior," Johnson added: "It is dangerous behavior, but it is a demonstration that the American public, when they're not being listened to, these are the options that they'll take. I hope this administration listens and pulls back these ICE raids." Then, even though a Border Patrol agent was recently injured in Charlotte during a deliberate van attack, Ruhle only expressed concern for anti-ICE protesters: "And I hope nothing violent happens -- happens to any of these students." Earlier in the show, there was also a noteworthy conversation about whether Democrats are concerned about implicating former President Bill Clinton in their push to release the Epstein files, leading Johnson to demonstrate amnesia over Democrats defending their own Presidents accused of sexual misconduct. The liberal MSNBC contributor asserted: Epstein has never been about Democrats because Democrats have never had a problem, like you said, with convicting their own people. This is an internal circular firing squad amongst MAGA. It is -- it is MAGA people who are upset -- it's MAGA people who are concerned. Because if you're a Democrat, you haven't voted for Trump in any of the last 16 years worth of elections. It was not mentioned that Democrats do, in fact, have an established record of defending Democrat Presidents over such issues. Not only was President Clinton defended over a variety of accusations in the 1990s, but sexual assault against President Joe Biden were also ignored in 2020. Since Clinton has not been President in decades, it is no longer in the interests of Democrats to shield him if they can undermine a Republican who still is President. Transcripts follow: MS NOW's The 11th Hour November 21, 2025 11:19 p.m. Eastern JASON JOHNSON, MS NOW CONTRIBUTOR: ... they desperately need to change the story to being about Democrats. Like if you remember, this whole thing -- the whole, "We're going to release the Epstein files," by Trump when he was running for President was because everybody assumed that it was going to be Bill Clinton who got exposed, right? That's what this -- that's what the MAGA -- that's what the QAnon Pizzagate people believe. RUHLE: But Democrats are willing to say, "Let Bill Clinton get exposed -- let anybody get exposed -- it's about the victim." JOHNSON: But, see, that's the thing. Epstein has never been about Democrats because Democrats have never had a problem, like you said, with convicting their own people. This is an internal circular firing squad amongst MAGA. It is -- it is MAGA people who are upset -- it's MAGA people who are concerned. Because if you're a Democrat, you haven't voted for Trump in any of the last 16 years worth of elections. It is baked into the cake that you think he is a sexual abuser -- whether it's, whether it's grabbing women by their body parts, whether it's doing things to his first wife, whether it's going into dressing rooms. I mean, you already think that's who Donald Trump is. This is about people who are true believers who are disappointed. And they are desperate to turn it into a Democrat problem rather than Ghislaine Maxwell or anybody else. (...) 11:52 p.m. Eastern JASON JOHNSON, MS NOW CONTRIBUTOR: My "MVP of the Week" is all of the students who walked out in Charlotte this week in protest of ICE raids. STEPHANIE RUHLE: Remind us because we didn't talk about it. JOHNSON: So Charlotte's Web is basically ICE Department of Homeland Security's plan to arrest thousands of supposedly undocumented people in Charlotte. It has terrorized the city -- it has shut down traffic. You have schools where 30, 40 percent of the kids are not showing up. And these young people, on their own -- without politicians, without mom, without mom and dad -- said, "We're standing against this -- we want our country to be better." And thousands of them walked out of their schools in protest to say, "We don't want ICE here." In addition to the fact -- and I won't say I'm suggesting this behavior -- but ICE agents have found that their tires are slashed. (It sounds like one of the male panel members laughs in the background.) They have found that they have been chased --  RUHLE: Stop it. JOHNSON: Yes, they have been chased out of buildings -- chased out of restaurants. RUHLE: But that's dangerous behavior. JOHNSON: It is dangerous behavior, but it is a demonstration that the American public, when they're not being listened to, these are the options that they'll take. I hope this administration listens and pulls back these ICE raids. RUHLE: And I hope nothing violent happens -- happens to any of these students.

CNN correspondents on Friday’s The Situation Room came to a strange head when the topic of the mid-1940s Nuremberg Trials was brought up in light of the recent controversy concerning “unlawful orders.” On Tuesday, a handful of Democratic Congressmen posted a video telling U.S. military and intelligence members to defy illegal commands, to which Trump retorted with a reminder of the punishment for sedition: death. After reporting White House reactions to the back-and-forth, CNN White House reporter Alayna Treene mentioned a point some on the right have made regarding those Democrats’ video: “The fact that the lawmakers who shared this video or were part of this video did not give any examples of any illegal orders that perhaps the military had received or would receive.” Perhaps they feared a legal battle if they accused Trump of issuing or U.S. military members of following specific “unlawful orders.” Or, more likely, they knew they’re full of it. Treene then finished by reminding of audience of the Nuremberg Trials. You know, that somehow totally comparable event that occurred 80 years ago: But I do want to be clear, we know that the law states that service members should not be obeying illegal orders and to do so would actually open them up to prosecution. I'd remind you of the Nuremberg Trials. And so this is gonna be very messy.     Rounding up illegal immigrants with lawful deportation orders was not a war crime. Prosecuting violent aliens who damaged Americans’ quality of life was completely legal. Where did Treene get the idea that she should share this? Situation Room co-host Wolf Blitzer added on to Treene’s ridiculous comparison with a faulty history lesson: … I was just going to say at Nuremberg, the Nazi generals and other senior military officers simply said they were obeying orders from the top. But those orders were illegal, and as a result, they paid the price for those illegal orders. Well, no, actually. Technically, the orders carried out by Nazi militarists were legal under German law at the time. The Third Reich’s living perpetrators, who carried out genocides and conquests, were prosecuted by an International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg because their actions were sheer evil. Blitzer gave a veiled defense of the Democrats’ joint statement with the appearance of an explanation: “The Democrats were not saying, you know, to go ahead and disobey legal orders. They were saying disobey illegal orders or something that goes against the Constitution.” Yes. And grass is green and the sky is blue. What else is new? The video clearly wasn’t a pure and innocent PSA. Those Democrats intended to stir mutinous thoughts amongst U.S. service members because they didn’t like how the Trump administration had utilized the military as of late. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: CNN’s The Situation Room November 21, 2025 10:04:10 a.m. EST WOLF BLITZER: Looking forward to that interview. I want to go live right now to CNN's Alayna Treene, she's over at the White House, and CNN's Arlette Saenz, she's up on Capitol Hill. Alayna, let me go to you first. What is the Trump administration saying right now about this? ALAYNA TREENE: Well, there's a few points to make, Wolf and Pamela. One is that they — a lot of them were outraged by that video that you just played of these Democratic lawmakers, six of them, all of whom either served in the military or in the U.S. intelligence community. They essentially were arguing that they were trying to encourage troops to rebel against the commander-in-chief. However, once the President started posting, particularly that post about claiming that they were engaging in seditious behavior and that that's punishable by death, that's when a lot of Republicans started agreeing with Democrats that this went too far. Now, the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, addressed this yesterday and she also denied that the post meant that the President was essentially calling on lawmakers to be executed. [Cuts to clip] NANCY CORDES [on 11/20/25]: Just to be clear, does the President want to execute members of Congress? PRESS SEC. KAROLINE LEAVITT [on 11/20/25]: No. [Transition] You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired to together to orchestrate a video messaged to members of the United States military, to active duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the President's lawful orders. [Cuts back to live] TREENE: There's a few things as well, Wolf and Pamela, that I've been hearing in some of my conversations with people in that building behind me. The fact that the lawmakers who shared this video or were part of this video did not give any examples of any illegal orders that perhaps the military had received or would receive. I also want to point you to what we heard from the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche. He said that the Justice Department was going to be opening a formal investigation to look into all of this. But I do want to be clear, we know that the law states that service members should not be obeying illegal orders and to do so would actually open them up to prosecution. I'd remind you of the Nuremberg Trials. And so this is gonna be very messy. There's a chance we will hear from the President today addressing this. A lot of people very eager to know what exactly he meant with these posts. BROWN: All right. So, let's bring in — oh, go ahead, Wolf. BLITZER: No, I was just going to say at Nuremberg, the Nazi generals and other senior military officers simply said they were obeying orders from the top. But those orders were illegal, and as a result, they paid the price for those illegal orders. The Democrats were not saying, you know, to go ahead and disobey legal orders. They were saying disobey illegal orders or something that goes against the Constitution.

Former White House press secretary and current MS NOW host Jen Psaki joined former NBC and CBS anchor Katie Couric on her Substack’s video show on Wednesday to claim that the current White House press corps is becoming “Kremlin-esque.” Both Psaki and Couric were too deep in their echo chamber to realize that Psaki’s previous sentence unwittingly highlighted just how absurd the claim was. Psaki lamented, “And what they've done is they have really, and I read the press briefing a lot because we do a little thing on our show about it sometimes, more and more of the questions in there are by sycophants, or by people who are not asking about news that the American people cares about, but they're asking about, I mean, literally a question has started more than once, why is Trump in such good shape, right?”     Yeah, having conservative reporters ask about President Trump’s fitness is too much. What the White House needs are reporters from traditional outlets to ask if the U.S. will hold free and fair elections, trash conservatives, or declare that “voting rights” have “collapsed.” Psaki’s double standards notwithstanding, she continued, “Or they are, you know, putting out conspiracy theories. There are people who, and they are getting a lot of the questions. There are some of the people who are in the press pools. This means that reporters who are there to cover MBS being at the White House or to cover Zelensky being at the White House or to ask these questions that Mary Bruce fortunately asked yesterday, there are fewer of them. And that is, you don't know that and see that unless you've lived there, but that's a huge, huge problem because it's becoming more of a Kremlin-esque press corps.” The fact that Bruce was there and allowed to ask those questions without worrying that she would soon be falling out of her window disproves any notion that the White House is creating a Kremlin-like atmosphere. Still, Couric wanted to act as if softball questions were the problem, “Right. And they've invited a lot of reporters from very right-wing media outlets, and you're right, they usually say, I forget there was one example, like, ‘Did you ever believe that you would be the peacemaker?’ I mean, just, so, and is it, I believe Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend.” Psaki and Couric’s big complaint is that conservative reporters exist and are allowed to ask conservative-leaning questions, so they cherry-pick certain ones to obscure the fact that conservative reporters can and do ask good questions and that they speak for a segment of the population that MS NOW and its like-minded fellow outlets do not. Here is a transcript for the November 19 show: Katie Couric Media 11/19/2025 JEN PSAKI: And what they've done is they have really, and I read the press briefing a lot because we do a little thing on our show about it sometimes, more and more of the questions in there are by sycophants, or by people who are not asking about news that the American people cares about, but they're asking about, I mean, literally a question has started more than once, why is Trump in such good shape, right? Or they are, you know, putting out conspiracy theories. There are people who, and they are getting a lot of the questions. There are some of the people who are in the press pools. This means that reporters who are there to cover MBS being at the White House or to cover Zelensky being at the White House or to ask these questions that Mary Bruce fortunately asked yesterday, there are fewer of them. And that is, you don't know that and see that unless you've lived there, but that's a huge, huge problem because it's becoming more of a Kremlin-esque press corps. KATIE COURIC: Right. And they've invited a lot of reporters from very right-wing media outlets— PSAKI: Yeah. COURIC: —and you're right, they usually say, I forget there was one example, like, “Did you ever believe that you would be the peacemaker?” I mean, just, so, and is it, I believe Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend. PSAKI: Yes.  

Hmmm. Where oh where did those pesky Republican Presidents go on the cover of TIME magazine? On newsstands now is a possibly oldish TIME special that I just noticed on my local go-to Barnes & Noble newsstand. An edition labeled for display until mid-February of 2026. It is titled as follows:                  Best of PERSON of the YEAR               Leaders Who Made a Better World Dominating the cover is a sparkling Taylor Swift on stage somewhere, with guitar, arms flung wide open, big smile on her face as she apparently is singing one of her hit songs. Just below her are six previous TIME Person/Man of the Year covers from over the decades. They feature: “The Guardians and the War on Truth: The Staff of the Capital Gazette on December 9” - Prominently listing the murder of journalist  President-elect  Jimmy Carter (in January of 1977 for 1976, the year Carter came from political nowhere to win the presidency) Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono as “The Good Samaritans” for 2005 The American Soldier featuring three uniformed soldiers in fighting gear for 2003. Greta Thunberg: The Power of Youth in 2019 President-elect Barack Obama in 2008  (It must be noted that the staff of the Capital Gazette are featured because they were subjects of a murderous assailant who disliked something that appeared in the Gazette. Five staffers were killed, two were wounded.)  Beneath the images of these six TIME covers are photos, although not on TIME covers, of Britain’s young Queen Elizabeth II, Astronaut Frank Borman and his two Apollo 8 colleagues, and last a color photo of President John F. Kennedy standing in front of an American flag as he gives a speech. Open this “Best of Person of the Year” issue and there is immediately something curious to be seen. Of the 48 people listed inside over the decades as “Person of the Year” or “Man of the Year” - there are seven Presidents of the United States. They would be Presidents FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Carter, Obama and Biden. Other than the GOP’s Eisenhower, those selected by TIME are Democrats one and all. Again curiously, while Dwight Eisenhower is included, his picture and a good bit of the bio material accompanying his story focuses not on Ike’s presidency but on his time as the commanding General on D-Day and in World War II. His presidency - he was a Republican - is not in major focus. Amusingly, Russia’s President Mikhail Gorbachev was named Person of the Year in 1987. But, again curiously, in this issue that celebrates Gorbachev there is zero mention - none - that Gorbachev’s accomplishments on the international scene were made possible in the first place because of U.S. President Ronald Reagan seeking him out as a partner in ending the Cold War. Reagan made a point of negotiating in person with Gorbachev three different times, on one occasion inviting him to the White House to sign a nuclear agreement Reagan had negotiated with the Russian. That was a big deal - and as a young Reagan staffer in the day I was lucky enough to witness the Gorbachev arrival at the White House for myself. In fact, Reagan was selected more than once during and after his White House tenure as a TIME Man of the Year. Surely that would be a reason to include him in this TIME round up of “Leaders Who Made a Better World” over the decades. But alas, Reagan is nowhere to be found in this issue. Neither, for that matter are the Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, George H. W. and George W. Bush. Every one of whom, like their Democrat presidential colleagues, had some contribution to make during their time in office. Indeed, the back cover of this issue features the images of 42 TIME covers from over the years. Among them are covers featuring Democrat Presidents Obama, Carter, Biden, Kennedy, Roosevelt and Truman. The only GOPer present is Eisenhower, and the main focus there is Ike as World War II General, replete with photo of a uniformed Ike in World War II talking to American troops getting ready to go into battle. But appearances by GOP Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan or either of the Bush Presidents? Much less the currently sitting GOP President Trump? All of whom more than arguably easily rank as “Leaders Who Made a Better World” in their time in office? Nothing. Are you kidding? That makes six GOP Presidents completely ignored by TIME in this issue, with recognition of six Democrats from FDR to Biden. Yet it is very safe to say that the group of former GOP Presidents from Nixon to the Bushes have indeed made the world a better place during their individual tenures. Whether launching a roaring economy or winning the Cold War, GOP Presidents have seriously made a better world in their times in office. That’s an awful lot of American history being ignored for what cannot help but be seen as decidedly partisan reasons, a national “news” magazine put together by a staff of “journalists” whose job is supposedly to revolve around the facts. Just the facts. But in reality, as this edition clearly shows, the TIME journos are clearly more involved with boosting Dems and freezing out Republicans. One thing can be said of this collective “Best Person of the Year” issue: TIME loves the Left. And can’t stand Republicans. Suffice to say: “Message received.”

Before CBS Saturday Morning officially headed off into its uncertain future, co-host Michelle Miller used her final episode to interview German author Daniel Kehlmann about his recent novel about G.W. Pabst, the silent film director who originally fled the Nazis only to return and make propaganda movies. Naturally, much of the conversation was about life in a dictatorship, but unnaturally, towards the end of their conversation, Kehlmann would compare the current United States to the East Germany his wife grew up in, and Miller offered up little resistance to the crazy idea. Miller declared that “Kehlmann splits his time between Berlin and New York with his teenage son and his wife, an international human rights lawyer who grew up under East Germany's communist rule. For them, this subject feels very personal.”     Kehlmann insisted that “she sees a lot of what she experienced in her childhood in the GDR happening in America now.” Miller could only shake her head and weakly offer, “A lot of people would disagree.” Doubling down, Kehlmann proclaimed that, “I mean, what I would say to that is it really depends where and who you are. For us, visa holders, free speech is practically suspended. Our lawyers are telling us 'be very careful, they can take away your visa, so don't go to demonstrations,' don't say, for example, what I just said to you.” As the duo laughed at the last part, Miller wondered, “Why are you saying what you just said to me?” “Well, because someone has to. Someone has to,” Kehlmann insisted. One annoying aspect of comparing Trump’s America to East Germany or Nazi Germany is the sense that the people making the analogy don’t actually believe it. Despite the timing of CBS’s interview, Kehlmann’s book has been out for months, and he’s done plenty of interviews where either he or his host suggested or flat out declared the U.S. is in a similarly dark place. Ironically, the reason Miller interviewed Kehlmann now was because he was in New York to be honored by the New York Public Library because despite all his warnings about not having free speech, he keeps speaking, and nothing bad has happened to him. Here is a transcript for the November 22 show: CBS Saturday Morning 11/22/2025 8:49 AM ET MICHELLE MILLER: Kehlmann splits his time between Berlin and New York with his teenage son and his wife, an international human rights lawyer who grew up under East Germany's communist rule. For them, this subject feels very personal. DANIEL KEHLMANN: She sees a lot of what she experienced in her childhood in the GDR happening in America now. MILLER: A lot of people would disagree. KEHLMANN: I mean, what I would say to that is it really depends where and who you are. For us, visa holders, free speech is practically suspended. Our lawyers are telling us "be very careful, they can take away your visa, so don't go to demonstrations," don't say, for example, what I just said to you. MILLER: Why are you saying what you just said to me? KEHLMANN: Well, because someone has to. Someone has to.