Former FBI Director James Comey was granted a 10-minute-long interview on the PBS News Hour Monday, ostensibly to discuss his new fiction thriller, but mostly to let host Geoff Bennett elicit condemnation of President Trump, in response to Comey’s indictment by the Department of Justice for his infamous, since-deleted 2025 Instagram post composed of seashells on the beach spelling out "86 47", which could be interpreted as an assassination reference. Bennett: On the DOJ case against you, the acting U.S. attorney general, Todd Blanche, as you well know, he says this case goes far beyond a single Instagram post of a section of seashells on the beach. Here's what he said on "Meet the Press" two weeks ago. Todd Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General: This is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And it's not the government, it's not the Department of Justice, it's not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment against James Comey. It's a grand jury. …. Bennett: Well, on that point, do you think the administration and President Trump, particularly, are they focused on securing a conviction or is the process itself a form of punishment? Comey: The last case, it struck me that the process was the punishment…. The PBS anchor cannot consider that this spin can be applied to Trump: that all the lawfare was a punishment for winning the White House -- and then for aiming to win it again. Bennett wondered why former attorney generals Merrick Garland (under Biden) and Bill Barr (under Trump) weren't standing up for Comey, asking "What do you make of their silence?" Comey replied that it was "dangerous to use the Department of Justice in the way they used it in charging me or in going after John Brennan." Former CIA Director John Brennan is hardly a Resistance hero; he allegedly lied to Congress regarding the debunked Steele Dossier, used to lay the groundwork for the phony accusation of Trump-Russia collusion. Brennan insisted on including the then-dubious, now wholly discredited document in the intelligence community’s official assessment, despite its scurrilous claims. Bennett got moralistic. Bennett: Do you think, is -- silence itself these days is a form of complicity? Comey: Well, it depends upon the reason the person is silent.... Bennett: How much damage under President Trump do you think has been done to the Justice Department? And is it irreparable? The host prodded Comey from the left about his decision as FBI director to reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation right before the 2016 election, which many Democrats claim handed the election to Trump. Bennett wondered if he was ridden with guilt over that decision. Bennett: ….Do you ever sit with the possibility that everything that you're going through now is an extension of that decision? After Comey defended his decision, Bennett continued to relitigate a 10-year-old election. PBS's Geoff Bennett: "At the same time the Clinton investigation was announced, the FBI...was also investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia...Voters went in knowing that Hillary Clinton was under scrutiny, not knowing about Trump. How is that not a thumb on the scale?" pic.twitter.com/nOy1y8hJvB — Clay Waters (@claywaters44) May 22, 2026 Bennett: At the same time the Clinton investigation was announced, the FBI, we later learned, was also investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia. You said nothing about that. Voters went in knowing that Hillary Clinton was under scrutiny, not knowing about Donald Trump. How is that not a thumb on the scale? A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 5/18/26 Geoff Bennett: Former FBI Director James Comey faces trial later this summer on charges he threatened President Trump's life. The case stems from this Instagram post a year ago, a photo of shell spelling out 8647. Prosecutors say the slang term 86 meant intent to do harm to Mr. Trump, the 47th president. It is the second indictment against the former FBI director in one of several investigations and lawsuits involving people President Trump sees as his political enemies. Comey also has a new crime novel out, "Red Verdict." It's a legal thriller centered on Russian espionage. I spoke with him earlier today. Former FBI Director James Comey, welcome to the "News Hour." James Comey, Former FBI Director: Great to be with you. Geoff Bennett: Yes. I want to start with your reaction to this DOJ announcement today. The department says it's creating a nearly $1.8 billion fund, taxpayer money, to compensate Trump allies who say they were unfairly targeted by the previous administration. What kind of precedent does this set? James Comey: I have never heard of it. And I first thought it was an Onion piece when I read about it. I don't know how it will work and how it will be administered. I kiddingly, want to know, do I get to apply? Do all victims of weaponization get to ask for attorney's fees? We will have to see. Geoff Bennett: Would you submit a claim? James Comey: I might, maybe just to be humorous about the whole thing. But if it's for people who've been targeted for reasons other than the normal standards of the Department of Justice, I'm ready to get in line. Geoff Bennett: On the DOJ case against you, the acting U.S. attorney general, Todd Blanche, as you well know, he says this case goes far beyond a single Instagram post of a section of seashells on the beach. Here's what he said on "Meet the Press" two weeks ago. Todd Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General: This is not just about a single Instagram post. This is about a body of evidence that the grand jury collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury. And it's not the government, it's not the Department of Justice, it's not Todd Blanche that returned an indictment against James Comey. It's a grand jury. Geoff Bennett: So, you know how grand juries work. Without discussing your defense, what do you think the government is trying to prove here? James Comey: Yes, I don't know what he means. It would be great if he would bone up on the rules that govern out-of-court statements. I can't talk about the case. He shouldn't be talking about the case. We'll find out as the case goes forward. Geoff Bennett: Were you aware that you've been under investigation for nearly a year? James Comey: I can't answer that one. I'm tempted to, but I really can't. Geoff Bennett: Your lawyers, as I understand it, they're arguing selective and vindictive prosecution. There's a fairly high bar for that. Are you confident that a judge will dismiss this case or do you think it goes to trial? James Comey: Well, we'll see how this case plays out. In the last case that was thrown out, we made a vindictive and selective prosecution motion that I think was very strong. It didn't get a chance to be granted because of the other problems with the case. We'll have to see how this one goes. Geoff Bennett: Right. That case was thrown out on a technicality, not the merits. Are you concerned that the government in this go-round is being more careful and more intentional about how they prosecute this case? James Comey: Yes, I don't want to comment on how they're doing this case. Whether it's this case or something else, they're going to come after me as long as Donald Trump is obsessing about it and John Brennan and other people, his so-called enemies list. That'll go on until he leaves office. Geoff Bennett: Well, on that point, do you think the administration and President Trump, particularly, are they focused on securing a conviction or is the process itself a form of punishment? James Comey: The last case, it struck me that the process was the punishment. It didn't matter to them how it turned out. They sacrificed the careers of lots of good people who resigned, rather than be part of it, or got fired, and they still pressed on. So I think it feels more to me like it's about punishing. Geoff Bennett: President Trump has been publicly fixated on you for nearly a decade, since 2017. Do you have a sense of why? Does it extend beyond what has been publicly established about your role in the Russia investigation? James Comey: Yes, I don't know. But there's no doubt there's an obsession there. I'm kind of a relationship he can't get over it. It doesn't go both ways. I don't wake up at 3:00 a.m. thinking about him and needing to talk about him on social media. But I don't know what it is. People have said it's you're too tall or it's something else. I really don't know. Geoff Bennett: You've said that people with credibility and institutional standing should be speaking out. And yet we've heard nothing from Merrick Garland, from Lisa Monaco, from Chris Wray, from Bill Barr of late. What do you make of their silence? James Comey: I don't know, because I don't -- I'm not in their shoes. I don't know what the limitations their career or their family circumstances present to them. Everybody who can -- and I'm not saying they can, but everybody who can ought to be speaking, because it's dangerous to use the Department of Justice in the way they used it in charging me or in going after John Brennan. So everybody who has a voice and the ability to speak ought to. Geoff Bennett: Do you think, is -- silence itself these days is a form of complicity? James Comey: Well, it depends upon the reason the person is silent. But if you have the ability to speak and you're not speaking up and you know enough about how the rule of law matters, then it gets you into a zone of complicity. I've said, look, I need to someday tell my grandchildren when they're teenagers, what did pop do during this time? And I don't want to say he was afraid or he thought they would come after him. That's not something you can look your grandchildren in the eye and tell them. Geoff Bennett: How much damage under President Trump do you think has been done to the Justice Department? And is it irreparable? James Comey: Tremendous damage in the loss of talented people, in the demoralization of lots of people who are hanging on, in the reputation by taking off the blindfold that we like to use to depict Lady Justice and instead going after people for reasons that a Department of Justice never should. All of those things have damaged the Department of Justice. It's easily fixed. Once these characters are gone, hundreds of people, including some I'm related to, I expect will flow back in and it can be rebuilt, because we've done it before. It was done by Gerald Ford when he appointed Edward Levi, the president of the University of Chicago, to take over and become attorney general after one of the prior attorney generals went to jail. So we've done it before 50 years ago. We can do it again. Geoff Bennett: Easily fixed? James Comey: I think it is easily fixed, because it's all about the character of the people. Get a great leader in there, pick strong people, and show your work to the American people. That's what they did during Ed Levi's two years after Watergate, and it changed how people thought about the department. Geoff Bennett: You have become something of a symbol of resistance to some on the anti-Trump left, but there are lots of Democrats who believe that your decision to announce the reopening of the Clinton e-mail investigation 11 days before the 2016 election, that that decision ultimately handed the presidency to Donald Trump. You have said that you would make that same call again. Do you ever sit with the possibility that everything that you're going through now is an extension of that decision? James Comey: Yes, I have thought about it. Someone asked me, what -- did I create a Frankenstein that then consumed me or something? I don't think in that lyrical way, but it was -- yes, I mean, it's a decision that I would make today. Would give anything not to have been involved and make it at all. And I kind of doubt, after seeing 2020 and then 2024, that we had an impact on the election, but we went into it assuming that it could. And it was just less bad than the other option. Geoff Bennett: At the same time the Clinton investigation was announced, the FBI, we later learned, was also investigating the Trump campaign for ties to Russia. You said nothing about that. Voters went in knowing that Hillary Clinton was under scrutiny, not knowing about Donald Trump. How is that not a thumb on the scale? James Comey: That's actually us being consistent in the way we're treating these things. The Clinton investigation was a criminal investigation that was not only public. It was closed by us publicly. And then I and the attorney general defended the work all summer. The Trump-related investigation was a counterintelligence investigation that had just begun in the summer of 2016, where the candidate was not the subject of the investigation. And so, actually, I don't remember any conversation about whether we ought to be publicizing a classified early investigation. So they're just very different things. Geoff Bennett: Let's talk about this book. This new book, "Red Verdict," it centers on Russian counterintelligence, institutional vulnerability. How much of it is fiction and how much is rooted in genuine concern about the country's ability to defend itself right now? James Comey: Well, the work is a work of fiction. So the stories I tell are made up. What it is real in capturing is the nature of the people involved, sort of the zeitgeist of the counterintelligence work that they do, and the continuing threat from Russia. And our adversaries in the counterintelligence space overwhelmingly were and are China, Russia and Iran. And so here I have chosen to write about a fictional, but all too real threat from Russia. Geoff Bennett: You know, in speaking with you prior to this interview and watching some of your other interviews, there is an optimism that you have. I wonder what accounts for it, despite the firing, the indictments, your own family's sacrifice. What gives you confidence that any of this comes back? James Comey: Because I believe in the people who make up these institutions. I just came from talking to a room full of college students who are burning to get involved and to make a difference. And I know a little bit about our history, how screwed up America has been in my lifetime and before, and I believe America's line is a jagged line. We make progress, we retreat, we make progress. Our progress always exceeds the last retreat. And so we're about to see a U-turn in this country that will make Hungary look like a pimple. We are going to have a tremendous releasing of energy and progress. And then, probably while I'm still alive, we will have another retreat, and then it will go on and on. That's the American story. Geoff Bennett: Former FBI Director James Comey, his new book, a crime novel, is called "Red Verdict." Thank you so much for speaking with me. James Comey: Thanks for having me.

On Friday, Obama-appointed Federal Judge Waverly Crenshaw dismissed the human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but NBC’s Saturday Today co-host Laura Jarrett simply referred to him as “a federal judge.” Naturally, she also omitted that Crenshaw had donated around $43,000 prior to his appointment. During a quick rundown of the day’s headlines, Jarrett simply declared, “A federal judge in Tennessee now dismissing all criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Friday, who became associated with President Trump's deportation campaign.”   Let's play a game of Name That Party. NBC's Laura Jarrett reports, "A federal judge in Tennessee now dismissing all criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Friday, who became associated with President Trump's deportation campaign. The judge finding that the Trump… pic.twitter.com/5WqbJmWWPB — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 23, 2026   Jarrett then doubled down on the omission, “The judge finding that the Trump administration brought human smuggling charges against him only to justify the government's decision to deport him to El Salvador back in April of 2025.” She also recalled, “The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had to bring him back because a 2019 court order prevented him from being deported to his home country in the first place. Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. The Justice Department plans to appeal.” It is interesting that Crenshaw’s ruling on the presumption of vindictiveness did not actually address the substance of the charges. It was not that long ago that various Democratic local prosecutors were running around campaigning on the idea of indicting Trump. For the media, that was also mostly a non-issue. However, when it comes to judges and justices doing things liberals don’t like, the media suddenly becomes a fan of labeling. Here is a transcript for the May 23 show: NBC Today 5/23/2026 7:31 PM ET LAURA JARRETT: A federal judge in Tennessee now dismissing all criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia on Friday, who became associated with President Trump's deportation campaign. The judge finding that the Trump administration brought human smuggling charges against him only to justify the government's decision to deport him to El Salvador back in April of 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had to bring him back because a 2019 court order prevented him from being deported to his home country in the first place. Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. The Justice Department plans to appeal.

On Friday, PolitiFact writers Samantha Putterman and Maria Briceno gave Secretary of State Marco Rubio a “half true” rating for his claim that the United States is not the reason that Cuba is experiencing 22-hour blackouts. According to Putterman and Briceno, it is true that economic mismanagement—the words “communist” or “socialist” appear nowhere in the article—has led to the decay of Cuba’s energy system and the original blackouts. However, in the “If your time is short section,” they write, “The U.S. government’s oil blockade has worsened the situation. The U.S. cut off Venezuela’s oil shipments to Cuba and threatened tariffs and sanctions on other countries seeking to send fuel or do business with the island.” One hand-picked expert the authors selected was William LeoGrande, who said, “The length of the blackouts has gotten worse since the oil embargo was in place, so that is clearly, unquestionably, a major part of the problem," and “To claim blackouts are solely the (Cuban) government's fault is simply disingenuous." Of course, Putterman and Briceno declined to mention that LeoGrande is a former Democratic staffer who is ideologically opposed to a hardline approach to Cuba. PolitiFact’s other experts echoed Leo Grande. For instance, Bert Hoffman, “a Latin America expert at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies,” declared, “While there have been frequent blackouts in the past, they now are on a very different scale.” The U.S. began seizing Venezuelan oil in December 2025, but in August 2025 CNN—not exactly a Trump administration-friendly outlet—was running headlines about Cuba’s 20-hour blackouts. Yes, Rubio said 22 hours, but that is the high end of the usual 20–22- hour range. PolitiFact also cited Rubio as saying, “They haven't spent a penny in fixing their energy production, their electrical grid. They don't spend any money on that stuff. They pocket it.” That is true and should have led to PolitiFact putting Rubio’s claim fully on the true side of the truth-o-meter. The recently indicted Raul Castro somehow managed to amass a net worth of $150 million in the communist country, while Fidel was once estimated to be worth $900 million. Therefore, PolitiFact has confused correlation for causation because it is only logical to assume that even if the U.S. didn’t start seizing Venezuelan oil, Cuba’s energy system would only further decay over the last six months.

On her eponymous Monday show, MS NOW host Chris Jansing presided over a discussion of GOP efforts to redraw South Carolina's congressional districts in which her Democrat guests claimed that blacks are being "disenfranchised" in South Carolina and that white Americans refuse to vote for black candidates because of "racism." It was not mentioned at all in the 11-minute segment that one of the state's two U.S. Senators -- Tim Scott -- is black and had even previously been elected in one of the state's white-majority congressional districts. But he's a Republican. Jansing gave a melodramatic introduction: MS NOW Panel Claims SC Blacks to Be 'Disenfranchised' by GOP pic.twitter.com/OxvhflsYw8 — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) May 19, 2026 JANSING: Today a dramatic warning about voting rights from one North Carolina state senator who told Politico the entire South is on fire. The latest example, South Carolina, where lawmakers today are launching into what is expected to be a long and heated discussion about new congressional maps. Republicans are looking to erase the state's lone Democratic seat that's held by civil rights icon James Clyburn. After bringing aboard her guests -- strategist Julie Rosinsky and State Rep. Kambrell Garvin (D-SC) -- she turned to Garvin and posed: "Jim Clyburn accuses Republicans of creating Jim Crow 2.0. Is he right?" The South Carolina state legislator declared, "Absolutely," and went on to claim that it feels like it's 1966 again.  When Roginsky got to speak, she complained that Chief Justice John Roberts has long wanted to "gut the Civil Rights Act," declared that black voters are being "disenfranchised," and asserted that the U.S. is no longer a democracy: "And to have that state be so disenfranchised and those black voters be so disenfranchised is just -- it is astonishing that we are living in what is called a democracy, but clearly is not anymore." Garvin further went over the top by claiming that his children will have fewer rights than their great-grandparents and that blacks may go 100 years without having a "voice."  GARVIN: So you're talking about an over 100-year period where black folks in South Carolina did not get a chance to have a voice, did not get a chance to have a seat at the table. And now we are facing a situation where it might be another 100 years where African Americans will not be able to have a voice. And the sad thing about it, Chris, is that my generation, as a 35-year-old, my kids are going to have less rights than their parents as well as their grandparents and their great grandparents. As no one acknowledged Senator Scott or other blacks who have been elected in majority white parts of the country, Roginsky cried racism: ROGINSKY: And for anybody who says, "Well, you know, white voters can still vote for black representatives," come on. Come on. There's a reason why the Civil Rights Act existed -- there is a reason why you are now about to see a complete eradication of black power in Congress. It is precisely because of these kinds of places. White voters will not vote for black representatives. You could call it racism. You could call it whatever you want. I call it racism. Chris Jansing was not "fact checking in real time."  Transcript follows: MS NOW's Chris Jansing Reports May 18, 2026 1:34 p.m. Eastern CHRIS JANSING: Today a dramatic warning about voting rights from one North Carolina state senator who told Politico the entire South is on fire. The latest example, South Carolina, where lawmakers today are launching into what is expected to be a long and heated discussion about new congressional maps. Republicans are looking to erase the state's lone Democratic seat that's held by civil rights icon James Clyburn. (...) JANSING: Jim Clyburn accuses Republicans of creating Jim Crow 2.0. Is he right? STATE REP. KAMBRELL GARVIN (D-SC): Absolutely, Chris, and thank you for having me. We in South Carolina and the South Carolina House of Representatives are fighting regressive policies. And we've been doing that for, Chris, for the last couple of days, and we will continue to do that as well throughout the day and well into the night, Chris. What we see today and what we've been seeing throughout the South is an attempt to take us backwards. I have a quote that I often like to say, and that is that it's starting to feel more like 19 -- 1966 and not 2026. (...) JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You also have a Supreme Court where the chief justice has been working since the Reagan administration to gut the Civil Rights Act, and he's done it. And the reality of that means that black voters in the South who have been disenfranchised for the history -- the entire history of this country, who were given an opportunity to have equal representation back in the 1960s, now are going back to a time, as the representative said, that I certainly have never lived through, and I think most people in this country have never lived through. It is a -- it is just astonishing what's happening. We're about to have no black people represented -- no black representatives, excuse me -- in South Carolina, where the black constituency is tremendous. I mean, Jim Clyburn is about to potentially lose his seat. And, as a Democrat, I will say South Carolina delivers the Democratic nomination every single time for every single Democratic candidate. They did it for Barack Obama -- they did it for Joe Biden. They will do it again for the next Democratic President. It is much more important than Iowa and New Hampshire. And to have that state be so disenfranchised and those black voters be so disenfranchised is just -- it is astonishing that we are living in what is called a democracy but clearly is not anymore. (...) GARVIN: So you're talking about an over 100-year period where black folks in South Carolina did not get a chance to have a voice, did not get a chance to have a seat at the table. And now we are facing a situation where it might be another 100 years where African Americans will not be able to have a voice. And the sad thing about it, Chris, is that my generation, as a 35-year-old, my kids are going to have less rights than their parents as well as their grandparents and their great grandparents. (...) ROGINSKY: It is deeply concerning. And for anybody who says, "Well, you know, white voters can still vote for black representatives," come on. Come on. There's a reason why the Civil Rights Act existed -- there is a reason why you are now about to see a complete eradication of black power in Congress. It is precisely because of these kinds of places. White voters will not vote for black representatives. You could call it racism. You could call it whatever you want. I call it racism. But the reality is the reality, which is that we are going to have many, many, many fewer representatives of color. We are not a white country. We're about to be a majority minority country. And yet our Congress, because of the design of the Republican party and, most importantly, the Supreme Court, which is obviously predominantly white, is making this a minority rule country that is about to rule the majority of the people who are no longer white. That is a massive problem. Look at your history. This is how empires collapse because democracy no longer exists.

Following the final episode of CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Thursday night, MS NOW’s Morning Joe lavished praise upon the disgraced host Stephen Colbert. Despite the cancellation announcement going out in July of 2025, The Late Show was permitted to run for almost another year before finally keeling over on May 21, and afterwards, its only mourners were the legacy media. After playing a cringe-worthy portion of the final Late Show episode, Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski, Jonathan Lemire, and Willie Geist, who were filling in for Joe Scarborough, welcomed author and historian Jon Meacham, columnist and former Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson, and Puck News journalist and podcaster Matthew Belloni on air to simp over Stephen Colbert. “Stephen is an architect of the culture,” Meacham began the Colbert worship service that Morning Joe and many other mainstream outlets had devolved into after The Late Show officially ended. He compared Colbert to musician Paul McCartney, the special guest on the series finale, suggesting the show was “a hinge in the cultural life of the country and of the West,” because Colbert happened to tape from the same Ed Sullivan Theater that The Beatles played at in 1964. Moreover, Meacham claimed that Colbert had an "enormous audience,” despite the fact that The Late Show was losing tens of millions of dollars every year and not getting enough views to justify the massive cost, which he ignored. Despite the utter failure of Stephen Colbert and his show, Meacham still lamented his loss from the airwaves: And here Colbert was as the capstone and one of the few things that could bring a lot of people together in this media climate, and I think we're going to miss him, miss his insight. And for those who say, 'Oh, he was too political, too partisan,' you know, always worry when they come for the comedians.      The liberal elitist media loves to harp on Colbert’s cancellation as an issue of politics and free speech. Immediately following Meacham’s remarks, Brzezinski suggested exactly that: I mean, there is - this is amidst a backdrop that is a little bit depressing for members of the media and people who believe in free speech. Robinson then touted Colbert as “such an amazing” and “talented man,” and The Late Show as “a touchstone in our cultural life,” before Lemire brought it back to politics: Yeah, pretty - pretty ideal closer last night. And, yeah, Colbert didn't mention Trump by name, but of course, the Trump and the pressure on CBS and Paramount, you know, was noted throughout the week.   Of course, President Trump, though he criticized Colbert and other media figures, held no real power over CBS’s hosts, and the decision to terminate The Late Show was much more financial than political. Belloni acknowledged this point, but then continued to speculate about Trump’s involvement: And yet, there is this kind of stink of politics that has been around this cancellation … Trump has gone after late night and Colbert in general. So the speculation is that, well, maybe there was some, the financial motivations were real. The politics of the situation had to at least play into the minds of the decision makers.  According to the panelists of Morning Joe, everything must be Trump’s fault, no matter the external circumstances. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. MS NOW's Morning Joe May 22, 2026 6:06:20 (...) JONATHAN LEMIRE: You know, Jon Meacham, I know you know Stephen Colbert very well over the years. And there had been speculation, of course, that the Pope might be there, Colbert having fun with that. But the real hope, I think, from a lot of people was that maybe, just maybe, Paul McCartney would show up and bookend the Beatles 1964 Ed Sullivan Theater performances by closing things out for Stephen last night. And there he was, just extraordinary. JON MEACHAM: Yeah, you know, it's - Stephen is an architect of the culture.  And it - and on reflection, of course, the theater itself is that. The '64 arrival at Ed Sullivan changed global culture in 1964. In some ways, it's a hinge in the cultural life of the country and of the West.  And what Colbert has done, beginning with his character, Stephen Colbert, and his attack on truthiness, and really kind of the prescient ability he had to see where so much of our public life was going back in his Comedy Central days. And then he brought that to this enormous audience - what passes, certainly, for an enormous audience in this atomized world. That's another thing to think about, is think of how many people had to tune in to Ed Sullivan in 1964, because there weren't that many other options. And here Colbert was as the capstone and one of the few things that could bring a lot of people together in this media climate, and I think we're going to miss him, miss his insight. And for those who say, 'Oh, he was too political, too partisan,' you know, always worry when they come for the comedians. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, yeah, that's for sure. Eugene Robinson - EUGENE ROBINSON: Yeah - BRZEZINSKI: Your thoughts? I mean, there is - this is amidst a backdrop that is - ROBINSON: Yeah - BRZEZINSKI: - a little bit depressing for members of the media and people who believe in free speech. ROBINSON: You know, yeah. It's, you know, I mean, nothing lasts forever. But Stephen Colbert was such an amazing, and such - he is such a talented man. I was on his Comedy Central show once, and we had a lovely conversation in the green room before. And at the end he said, 'Now when we go out there, I'm not me. I'm that character.' And we got on the show and he was just perfect as the - BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. ROBINSON: - you know, with all his truthiness.  And - now what a bookend, though, to have McCartney, anyone my age or older remembers that night in 1964 on that very stage when indeed the Beatles and, you know, Paul McCartney right there did change the culture. And it's a - it's a very different world, now. There's something comforting about that to me, actually. It's a touchstone in our cultural life and - LEMIRE: Yeah, pretty - pretty ideal closer last night. And, yeah, Colbert didn't mention Trump by name, but of course, the Trump and the pressure on CBS and Paramount, you know, was noted throughout the week. Springsteen explicitly so a few days prior.  But as Colbert, it's not - he's extraordinarily talented, extraordinarily smart, a very decent man with a big heart. And that - that heart really filled last night, but the entire run of The Late Show, and I also think it is a safe bet; though this chapter closed, this is not the last we have seen of Stephen Colbert.  BRZEZINSKI: Yes, it'll be interesting - LEMIRE: He will do many brilliant things going forward, mhm. BRZEZINSKI: - It'll be interesting to see what he does with this. Our next guest says Stephen Colbert's final show marks 'The beginning of the end for late night TV.' Let's bring in founding partner of Puck, Matthew Belloni. He's the author of Puck's flagship newsletter, 'What I'm Hearing,' and the host of the podcast The Town. He's also the former editor of The Hollywood Reporter.  So, let's exercise our free speech and talk about what really is going on here: why he's leaving, what this is the backdrop of, what's coming in its place, and what this does mean for late night television? Matthew. MATTHEW BELLONI: Well, that's a lot there. And the fact of the matter is - is that The Late Show was losing money. I mean, according to my reporting, it was tens of millions of dollars that the show was losing each year. And yet, there is this kind of stink of politics that has been around this cancellation.  The move was made by the former owner of CBS. However, it was right as the sale to the Ellison family was going on, and obviously the Trump administration was very involved in that. They had been saying that they don't like the content on CBS, particularly, Trump has gone after late night and Colbert in general. So the speculation is that, well, maybe there was some, the financial motivations were real. The politics of the situation had to at least play into the minds of the decision makers.  And yet they gave him a year, they gave him an entire season of the show to go out on this run, and to have people like Springsteen on the show, to essentially bash the ownership on their own network. And I think that says something about the owners that they, yes, maybe they were doing this to appease Trump, but at least they kind of let him go out saying what he wanted to say. WILLIE GEIST: And we're - remind people of the timeline. They announced in July that Stephen's show had been canceled, and one week later to the day, that deal was approved for Paramount Skydance.  So, Matthew, your piece, you say this is the beginning of the end of late night TV. Obviously, Jimmy Kimmel has come under withering fire almost weekly, it seems, from President Trump. He's been suspended and come back to his job, there were calls a couple of weeks ago after the Correspondents' Dinner for him to be fired. He has not been.  So where do you see late night comedy going from here? It's been an institution going back to, you know, Jack Paar in this country. BELLONI: Yeah, I think that these current hosts, both Kimmel and Fallon and Meyers at CBS or at NBC, I think they will be the last to host these shows.  The economics of late night TV are just not there. The audience is not tuning in. They are on streaming platforms. They are on their phones. The habit of watching these late night shows after the local news is not there.  And, at least at CBS, they had not figured out the model to make money on the clips and the YouTube shows. They were making some, and Kimmel and Fallon make a lot more money on the digital application of those shows than CBS did. So I think that saves them for a little bit longer, especially now with Kimmel, that Trump has gone after him explicitly. Disney, which owns ABC, has now decided to fight the FCC on this. And this is a big deal, because they could have just bowed to Trump and said, 'okay, we'll take Kimmel off the air.' And they're not doing that. They suspended him in the fall for a couple nights around that Charlie Kirk joke that he made. But ultimately, the backlash was so swift, they brought him back and they figured out a way to deal with the station groups that air the show. But I do think that given the economics of late night, these hosts will be the last late night hosts. BRZEZINSKI: Founding partner of Puck, Matthew Belloni, thank you. We know it is an extremely early morning for you out on the West Coast, thank you so much for waking up for us.