Much of cable TV news these days is about filling as much space as possible with Trump Derangement slop. This rings especially true at CNN- particularly during the 10 PM hour and NewsNight with Abby Phillip. From time to time, though, hosts are reminded that people get sick of the constant politics when discussing the news of the day. Watch as Space Shuttle astronaut Clayton Anderson makes Phillip look ridiculous for even bringing politics into a question about the Artemis II mission: WATCH: Former space shuttle astronaut Clayton Anderson SHUTS DOWN Abby Phillip's Trump-deranged political question on the heels of the history made by the Artemis II mission ABBY PHILLIP: And, um, in your view, Clayton, um, does President Trump deserve credit for- he said today… pic.twitter.com/QGIfdWK4Ss — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 7, 2026 ABBY PHILLIP: And, um, in your view, Clayton, um, does President Trump deserve credit for- he said today that he was given a choice to shut NASA down or keep it going. Do you think he deserves any credit for keeping it going? CLAYTON ANDERSON: Well, I think the entire administration deserves credit. Uh, all the people that are involved picking Mr. Isaacman, uh, you know, the politics of it to me is, is, uh, kind of fluff. I think that the key thing is, is that we're doing it and that takes the efforts of a lot of different people. It takes appropriate budget money, as we all know. Uh, we hope that the budget money will continue to be there because it will be required for us to get, uh, to Artemis III and then Artemis IV. So, um, you know, everybody's taking credit. I'm taking credit by being on your show and saying, “Hey, I was an astronaut for a while. You know, I lived on the space station. Give me some credit!” so you know, so it's, it's kind of a, it's a humanitarian success. PHILLIP: 167 days in space. You get all the credit, my friend. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for your service. Clayton Anderson, thank you very much for being with us. ANDERSON: Thank you. Anderson rightfully makes Phillip pay for asking such a weird question in what was a segment breaking down the historic successes of the Artemis II crew as they circle the far side of the Moon and head back to Earth. “The entire Administration” means yes, but delivered in a subtle and non-argumentative way. Anderson then breaks down all the parts of what goes into funding NASA and missions, and then ends with a humorous flourish as Phillip sits there and squirms before laughing along uncomfortably. This segment very much encapsulates the problem with the Elitist Media. A historic moment is overshadowed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. You all know full well what the coverage of this launch would look like were the presidential administration (D)ifferent. To answer Phillip’s question: the Artemis II mission is an American success. I hope this helps. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip on Monday, April 6th, 2026: ABBY PHILLIP: Joining me also now is Clayton Anderson. He's a former NASA astronaut. He spent 167 days living and working in space on the International Space Station. Um, thank you for being here, Clayton. I- when you watch these astronauts on this journey, it's much shorter than the one that you were on. But, uh, what do you think is the experience of having that particular piece of human history in their pocket in this moment? CLAYTON ANDERSON: I think it's great for them. I'm very envious. I would love to be with them in that tiny little capsule. Uh, being so close to the moon. But it's very important. And I agree with what Miles (O’Brien) said, that we got to be the best. We got to be the leaders in space exploration. And so I love the fact that we finally have committed after 54 years to begin this journey again. Uh, it's going to take a lot of work, just like Miles said. But, uh, this is the way to go. And I think it's the right first step PHILLIP: And, um, in your view, Clayton, um, does President Trump deserve credit for- he said today that he was given a choice to shut NASA down or keep it going. Do you think he deserves any credit for keeping it going? ANDERSON: Well, I think the entire administration deserves credit. Uh, all the people that are involved picking Mr. Isaacman, uh, you know, the politics of it to me is, is, uh, kind of fluff. I think that the key thing is, is that we're doing it and that takes the efforts of a lot of different people. It takes appropriate budget money, as we all know. Uh, we hope that the budget money will continue to be there because it will be required for us to get, uh, to Artemis III and then Artemis IV. So, um, you know, everybody's taking credit. I'm taking credit by being on your show and saying, “Hey, I was an astronaut for a while. You know, I lived on the space station. Give me some credit!” so you know, so it's, it's kind of a, it's a humanitarian success. PHILLIP: 167 days in space. You get all the credit, my friend. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for your service. Clayton Anderson, thank you very much for being with us. ANDERSON: Thank you.  

National Public Radio recently aired two frankly sexist episodes of its race-based podcast Code Switch , hosted by B.A. Parker and Gene Demby. The April 1 edition was titled “'Mar-a-Lago face': MAGA's aesthetic loyalty test.” Anti-Trump sexism is acceptable in "public" radio.   HOST B.A. PARKER: So, Gene, you've probably noticed that a lot of people in Trump world, particularly the women - but not just the women - have a certain look. INAE OH: Dramatic sort of makeup. Heavy on the eyeliner. Almost all of them have this, like, long flowing hair. The outfits tend to be very close to the body.... …. PARKER: I spoke to the journalist Inae Oh from Mother Jones, and she wrote an article called "In Your Face: The Brutal Aesthetics Of MAGA." And the internet has described this aesthetic as Mar-a-Lago face. This sexist angle, which NPR surely wouldn’t tolerate from the right, was barely skimmed by the hosts the guest author from left-wing magazine Mother Jones. DEMBY: But to be clear, there's always been a lot of scrutiny for the way that women in public life present themselves. You know what I'm saying? Whether that's in politics or elsewhere. Like, the way they dress and their bodies, obviously. PARKER: That's true. And I know that talking about these things is really touchy for a lot of people. But the reason I want to get into this is that appearance is also used as a very specific way that people in power get to signal some important ideas about what they care about. It’s evidently acceptable to objectify the bodies of Trump-supporting women, apparently. OH: ….It's not about, you know, like, oh, my goodness, like, look at how perhaps ridiculous some of these people look, but it's more about how aesthetics are used to -- yeah, to gain power and to gain favor with the president of the United States. PARKER: So today's episode, we talk to Inae about the evolving appearance of those within MAGA and what that suggests to Americans about how people, specifically women, are supposed to look in this country, and what that tells us about which performances of race and gender are encouraged. The podcast descended into bad taste quickly by focusing on the beauty routine of recently widowed Erika Kirk, including “heavy eye makeup….That dark, smoky eye with the long blond hair.” PARKER: And I remember as she was crying with, like, her very, like, blue eyes, and she's wiping her tears away and, like, so much jewelry on the hand as she was wiping her tears. And I was like, oh, this is a lot happening in this image. The nasty insults continued, without a single acknowledgement of Kirk’s tragic widowhood. OH: You know what comes to mind? I don't know if you saw the Washington Post story about the AI-generated ideal, like, MAGA woman. But she - I mean, she looks like essentially a photocopy, in my opinion, of Erika Kirk…. After noting Kristi Noem’s tenure as DHS secretary (“having a woman really enact a very cruel - what came to be a very cruel agenda.”) Oh perversely managed to turn Trump’s installing women in positions of influence into a self-administered antidote to his misogynistic reputation (as if NPR would ever credit Donald Trump for caring about his reputation among feminists). OH: What they want to signal to the public is like, look, this is an administration that cares about women. This is an administration that supports women, that empowers women, that wants to see women in - you know, embracing sort of these high positions of power. And no one can deny that. And I think that that's also a function of the fact that this is a president who has been accused of misogyny. Well, yeah, if I can say so, it has misogynistic tendencies and is sexist and has also been accused credibly of sexual assaults and definitely harassment. And I think for him, it only - it can only serve him to put -- you know, to sort of, like, decorate his administration with these women in power to sort of rebut that -- those accusations of sexism, while also at the same time, enacting laws and policies that are just so anti-women at the same time…. The April 4 “Code Switch” followed up with a different author, Elizabeth Bronwyn Boyd, and an even more provocative premise: “From the Confederacy to the White House: How Southern beauty traditions went MAGA.” Boyd went on a hysterical historical rant. ELIZABETH BRONWYN BOYD: The whole idea of MAGA, Make America Great Again, is based on nostalgia for something that never was, because when were we great? Was it during the removal of the first Americans? Was it when we held human beings in bondage? "America was never great." It's an apt slogan for NPR. 

A full meltdown ensued on MS NOW following President Trump’s press conference on the Iran War and heroic rescue of a U.S. airman as Katy Tur Reports with guest-host Antonia Hylton turned into full war-crime mode. One guest, former JAG officer Margaret Donovan, claimed Trump would order the military to kill every Iranian civilian after he set a deadline for 8 p.m. Tuesday for the Iranian political bureau to make a deal. Hylton, normally the host of The Weekend: Primetime on MS NOW, spent the aftermath of the press conference with questions almost exclusively about potential war crimes to all her guests. She then posed a question to Donovan which asked “how is this supposed to work?” in terms of selecting targets.   MS NOW suggests when Trump says we're going to take out all of Iran in a single night, he literally means destroy every inch and kill all the civilians and tells service members not to follow orders: "When you make statements like, 'we're going to take out the entire country in… pic.twitter.com/hbz5UuzLYT — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 6, 2026   Donovan first stated that in “certain circumstances” some targets were “legally targetable.” But after giving her factual analysis, she called the president “incoherent” and claimed the military would now try to figure out how to legally hit targets set out by the president because, of course, the military takes their direct orders from mid-day press conferences. Donovan then took the President very literally and suggested the president was going to order the military to “take out the entire country in a single night” as in killing every person, civilian or not: When you make statements like, ‘we're going to take out the entire country in a single night’, that's a per se war crime. And if that is the commander-in-chief ordering his commanders underneath him in the chain of command to do that, they should understand that that is a blatantly unlawful order. And a lot of what he has said today would constitute a blatantly unlawful order that they would be obliged not to follow. So you're right, they can be targetable in the circumstances that the president has laid out. She doubled down on her unhinged comments a few minutes later.   Truly insane claims. Former JAG Corps Captain Margaret Donovan claims the U.S. is "going to engage in basically indiscriminate killing tomorrow of Iranian civilians." pic.twitter.com/voLh4FQIni — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) April 6, 2026   Hylton compared the U.S. to global villains like Russia and China and asked: “What happens to us if on the world stage, we get the reputation, the kind of reputation that China and Russia have, that we just violate norms, we cannot be trusted. What happens to us?” Donovan’s response claimed everyone in Iran was going to die: It's a pretty terrifying thought because if we are going to engage in basically indiscriminate killing tomorrow of Iranian civilians or structures that are going to wreak havoc on the civilian population there for an indefinite period, right? There's no plan to rebuild any of this. She then proclaimed international law before she said the hypothetical “intrinsic horror” would break U.S. law and tear our alliances: So, I think that it would be just a complete game change in how the United States is viewed. And, you know, apart from sort of the intrinsic horror that will happen on innocent civilians based on what the president is threatening here, we also stand to lose extremely valuable international alliances because no country is going to trust us, even for agreements that have been signed and ratified by our own domestic legal apparatus. It’s not a surprise that a frequent guest of The Bulwark would be his unhinged, but there might need to be a check on someone who felt the military would wanton kill all civilians. Also, they, most definitely, should not be an “expert” on cable news, but that’s just what the network wanted. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Katy Tur Reports April 6, 2026 3:08:29 PM Eastern (...) MARGARET DONOVAN (FMR. JAG CORPS CAPTAIN): Sure. So that's exactly right, that at times, civilian infrastructure, bridges, even power plants, in certain circumstances could be legally targetable. But we see these types of targets get engaged after significant analysis and a really formal determination that it is going to offer some type of military advantage.  And so the president's statements, which I agree with with Max and Sam's concerns here, these are the statements of basically an incoherent commander-in-chief. And so now you have commanders down the chain of command trying to figure out how to lawfully engage these targets. And the plan that the president has laid out in that press conference of simply claiming every power plant in the country, every bridge in the country is targetable. That just does not pass any relevant tests that you would be looking at in order to properly engage those targets.  He had another line in the conference about something. I think the entire country could be taken out in a single night. A lot of scholars in this area have been a little bit hesitant to just outright say that taking out a bridge is a war crime, taking out a power plant is a war crime. Because, as I just explained, that isn't always the case. There could be circumstances where they can be legally targetable.  When you make statements like, ‘we're going to take out the entire country in a single night’, that's a per se war crime. And if that is the commander-in-chief ordering his commanders underneath him in the chain of command to do that, they should understand that that is a blatantly unlawful order. And a lot of what he has said today would constitute a blatantly unlawful order that they would be obliged not to follow. So you're right, they can be targetable in the circumstances that the president has laid out. ANTONIA HYLTON (GUEST HOST): So, Max, if you are one of the service members who may be called to be engaged in some of this tomorrow night, what should you do? You know, I understand that the president can pardon people. Certainly, people have already floated the possibility Hegseth may need one by the time this is all said and done. But if you are down the chain of command and the president doesn't know who you are, but you are across this, what risk are you facing being engaged? MAX ROSE: Look, this should not fall on them, Low-level service members, who are directly on the front lines. They have to worry about not only their own lives, but the lives of those they have been entrusted with protecting and leading. But this should certainly fall on, one, the highest level generals who are just standing by and letting this pass.  Think about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, whose constitutional job - his obligation, right. The job that he swore an oath to do is to provide unvarnished military guidance about risks. Where was his voice when it came time to the Commander-in-Chief establishing regime change as an objective and basically, for all intents and purposes, saying, we're going to win the Super Bowl, but not bring a quarterback on to the field, not matching strategic goals with operational resources. Where was he?  Where was the Republican members of Congress, particularly the Republican veterans who have just stood by and been fully owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump and MAGA Inc., and not kept in mind the oath that they swore to the Constitution as elected officials and previously as service members themselves. Where are they? They all ran for office saying they put the country first. Those are the folks that I'm thinking about. We should all stand behind the people on the front lines, and they shouldn't think that they're going to go to court over this. (...) 3:13:55 PM Eastern HYLTON: Margaret, I want to ask you a sort of 30,000-foot view, bigger picture question here. What happens to us if on the world stage, we get the reputation, the kind of reputation that China and Russia have, that we just violate norms, we cannot be trusted. What happens to us? DONOVAN: It's a pretty terrifying thought because if we are going to engage in basically indiscriminate killing tomorrow of Iranian civilians or structures that are going to wreak havoc on the civilian population there for an indefinite period, right? There's no plan to rebuild any of this.  You're just talking about blasting them back to the so-called ‘stone ages’ indefinitely. That is a real sea change. That is a game changer of how the United States conducts warfare. And it would be basically ripping up international agreements, which, by the way, we are bound by the Geneva Conventions, NATO, the UN Charter, those have been signed and ratified by Congress, okay? So they are not optional. They are basically tantamount to domestic law. And the Constitution under the supremacy clause treats them the same way.  So, I think that it would be just a complete game change in how the United States is viewed. And, you know, apart from sort of the intrinsic horror that will happen on innocent civilians based on what the president is threatening here, we also stand to lose extremely valuable international alliances because no country is going to trust us, even for agreements that have been signed and ratified by our own domestic legal apparatus. Nor would they ever want to be fighting alongside us if we also cannot commit to following the law of armed conflict. So, I think it would be internationally sort of catastrophic to the United States standing. (...)

On Monday afternoon, President Trump held a briefing alongside senior military officials and CIA Director John Ratcliffe about the daring, unprecedented mission to rescue two American heroes trapped behind enemy lines in Iran. He also took questions from the press corps, including one from The New York Times on whether escalating attacks on Iran would constitute war crimes and another from Agence France-Presse (AFP) citing “critics” who believe Trump’s tough talk is proof he’s mental unstable. Times White House reporter Zolan Kanno-Youngs barely got a word out before the President demanded to know which outlet he represented: “Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law.” New York Times reporter Zolan Kanno-Youngs: “Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law.” Trump: Who are you with? Who are you with?” Kanno-Youngs: “I’m with The New York Times. Zolan from The New York Times. Are you… pic.twitter.com/qsnwyBTdJk — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 After sharing he’s “Zolan from The New York Times,” Trump began tearing into him: “Uh-huh. The failing, the failing New York Times. Circulation way down at The New York Times.” Kanno-Youngs finished his question amid the cross-talk: “Are you concerned — are you concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to war crimes?” Trump demurred: “No, not at all. No, no, I’m not. I hope I don’t have to do it. But again, I just said 47 years they’ve been negotiating with these people, they’re great negotiators.” When Kanno-Youngs restated his question, Trump torched The Times for siding with and believeing the “mentally...disturbed” and “sick of mind” people in the Iranian regime should be allowed to have nuclear weapons (click “expand”): KANNO-YOUNGS: [Inaudible]. But why would that attack not violate international law? TRUMP: And because they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon, and if somebody that takes my place someday is weak and ineffective, which possibly that will happen because we had numerous presidents that were weak, ineffective, and afraid of Iran. We’re never going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And if you think it’s okay for people that are sick of mind, that are tough, smart and sick, really sick ideological, you know, from — from a policy standpoint, from a standpoint, any which way you want to say mentally, these are disturbed people. If you think I’m going to allow them and powerful and rich to have a nuclear weapon, you can tell your friends at The New York Times not going to happen. KANNO-YOUNGS: Even if it means violating international law? Even if it means violating international law? TRUMP: Quiet, quiet, quiet. You no longer have credibility with The New York Times because The New York Times said, ‘oh, Trump won’t win the election.’ And I won in a landslide. I won every swing state. New York Times said, ‘oh, Trump won’t win the election.’ New York Times has no credibility. The credibility they have is it used to be all the news that’s fit to print a great — the Old Gray Lady, it was great. But they’re running on past fumes and you can’t keep doing that. You have to be able to give the correct news. And people like you who I know are fake. You’re fake. A few minutes later, AFP’s Danny Kemp asked this in light of Trump’s Truth Social post about calling the Iranians “crazy bastards”: “[W]hat is your response to critics who say that it is your mental health that should perhaps be examined as this war continues?” AFP’s @DannyCTKemp: “You called — yesterday in your Truth Social, you called the Iranians crazy bastards.” Trump: “True.” Kemp: “What is your response to critics who say —” Trump: “I don’t care about critics.” Kemp: “— what is your response to critics who say that it is your… pic.twitter.com/YT9Q7t3q4F — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 Trump had a surprisingly short answer, but he made it count in this latest cheap shot at his mental stamina: “I haven’t heard that, but if that’s the case, you’re going to have to have more people like me because our country was being ripped off on trade, on everything for many years until I came along. So, if that’s the case, you’re going to have to have more people [examined].” Towards the beginning of the Q&A, ABC’s chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce wondered if Trump’s threats to blow up Iranian infrastructure sites would be “punishing Iranians for the actions of the regime.” Trump replied Iranians are willing to put up with a lot “in order to have freedom” from the “violent, horrible world” they’ve been trapped in for 47 years, including threats of being killed for simply protesting the government: ABC’s @MaryKBruce: “You’ve said Iranians would be mad if you stopped these attacks, but why would they want you to blow up their infrastructure to — to cut off their power? Wouldn’t that be punishing Iranians for the actions of the regime?” President Trump: “They would be… pic.twitter.com/cIIhnD6ePq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 In addition to blasting reporters for lacking the courage ordinary Iranians have, he mocked the left’s refusal to side with Iranians while screeching about so-called “women’s rights” and rights for “gays” in America (click “expand”): And a lot of the — the news doesn’t talk about they talk about, oh, women’s rights. You want to see women’s rights, you’re not going to see it there. It’s amazing when I see some of the stupid people like AOC plus three, all that group they talk about, oh, freedom for Iran. They don’t tell you the real facts. Women, men, gays. How about gays for Iran? They kill the gays, they throw them off buildings. So, I wonder what — what’s going on? I can only say this. They want us to keep bombing, even if it jeopardizes, because their life is in much greater danger. They want freedom for Iran, but it’s very hard for them to protest. I actually tell them, I said, don’t go out. I fully understand. Nobody in this room would go out. I don’t think there’s any because frankly, it’s not a question of bravery. We’re all brave, right? You’re brave. I’m brave. We’re all brave, but we’re also intelligent. If you have people shooting at you, expert shots with the best rifles you can get and hitting you right between the eyes every single time, and you’re looking here and you’re seeing and you’re looking here, you’re out of there. I don’t care who you are.  On the substantive side, Fox’s Mark Meredith wondered whether anyone in the administration advised against the rescue mission: Fox’s @MarkPMeredith: “Was everyone on board with the operation or were there people that were trying to talk you out of going through with the operation this weekend?” Trump: “Not everybody was on board.” Meredith: “Somebody else within?” Trump: No. There was military people,… pic.twitter.com/dYCQdUrZXo — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 Trump made sure to CNN’s Kristen Holmes knew she was with “fake news” before she asked about the importance of Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz to a deal (and a subsequently lengthy answer), but he cut right to the chase with CBS’s Weijia Jiang: WATCH: President Trump nukes Jim Acosta’s girlfriend, PBS White House correspondent Liz Landers... Landers: “How is it taking care of the Iranian people if you’re bombing their energy infrastructure?” Trump: “Yeah, who are you with? Who are you with?” Landers: “PBS.” Trump:… pic.twitter.com/TLiYusnGQP — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 The Washington Post’s Natalie Allison brought up Trump’s Truth Social post in which he said “glory be to God” in the war as a segue to whether “you believe that God supports the United States actions in this war and have you sought His direction.” The Washington Post’s @Natalie_Allison: “You said, ‘glory be to God in this conflict.’ do you believe that God supports the United States actions in this war and have you sought His direction?” President Trump: “I do, because God is good and I — because God is good, and God… pic.twitter.com/oUBNaAUYvu — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 Skipping ahead to after Kemp’s question embracing the left’s worldview that Trump is mentally ill, Politico’s Dasha Burns restated Kanno-Young’s question, but did so without the war crimes bit: “You said that very little is off limits in Iran as far as targeting, including power plants, bridges. You’ve mentioned those. Are there certain kinds of civilian targets, though — I’m thinking, schools or hospitals that you would say is off limits?” Politico’s @DashaBurns: “You said that very little is off limits in Iran as far as targeting —” Trump: “Yeah.” Burns: “— including power plants, bridges. You’ve mentioned those.” Trump: “Very little is off limits.” Burns: “Are there certain kinds of civilian targets, though —… pic.twitter.com/XUoEkboYO9 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 The final question of the Q&A went to The Hill’s Julia Manchester, who drew a lengthy and newsy answer from the President about his recent complaints about NATO: .@TheHill’s @JuliaManch: “You voiced your displeasure with NATO in the past. Is there a danger to the U.S. not being the de facto of the leader of the alliance and then other powers within the alliance then getting the decision making when it comes to wars and nuclear weapons?”… pic.twitter.com/mHJBhqIBzo — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 Just hours before the Briefing Room appearance, Trump took questions at the White House Easter Egg Roll, where tore into Liz Landers, formerly of taxpayer-funded PBS: WATCH: President Trump nukes Jim Acosta’s girlfriend, PBS White House correspondent Liz Landers... Landers: “How is it taking care of the Iranian people if you’re bombing their energy infrastructure?” Trump: “Yeah, who are you with? Who are you with?” Landers: “PBS.” Trump:… pic.twitter.com/TLiYusnGQP — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 6, 2026 To see the relevant transcript of the April 6 briefing (including even more Q&A), click here.

On Monday’s CNN This Morning, the panel on the Audie Cornish-hosted program started with more accusations of U.S. war crimes from panelist Sarah Fitzpatrick of The Atlantic and Kim Dozier, a CNN Global Affairs Analyst. Fitzpatrick said the US will be “turning off incubators for babies,” while Dozier claimed the US is about to violate the Geneva Conventions like Russia had in Ukraine. Furthermore, at the end of the hour-long morning show, a discussion ensued between Cornish and Fitzpatrick, which worried almost only about the “cost” of the rescue mission of a U.S. Military pilot. In the opening salvo of the show, Cornish asked if the original “sense” of the U.S. and Israel’s desire to preserve the infrastructure of Iran had shifted, and Fitzpatrick turned to the "ramifications" of possible strikes.   WATCH: On Monday's CNN This Morning, The Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick decried the "death of expertise" amid the war, as she accused the U.S. Military and Sec. @PeteHegseth of not receiving or ignoring information on possible "legal" and "military ramifications" of some strikes. pic.twitter.com/FeKxkMgTSC — Nick (@nspin310) April 6, 2026   Fitzpatrick said military and security officials “choose not to strike certain targets because it's just not worth it” because “it might be a war crime.” She also implied that Secretary Hegseth either has not received or has ignored information about targets, not just what the "legal ramifications could be but the national security and the military ramifications.” Fitzpatrick said the US would be “turning off incubators for babies and things like that” if they carried out strikes. Unsurprisingly from a The Atlantic employee, Fitzpatrick was upset with what she described as “the death of expertise” amid this war.    In the same panel discussion, CNN Analyst Kim Dozier turned to claim the US might violate the Geneva Conventions, like Russia has in the years-long failure of their “special military operation” in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/YQATc6sXtu — Nick (@nspin310) April 6, 2026   Dozier, one of the other panelists, now turned to Hegseth’s comments of “no mercy, no quarter,” something she also discussed in a prior show, to turn to claim the U.S. might violate the Geneva Conventions like Russia has in their years-long failure of their “special military operation” in Ukraine: DOZIER: You can, militarily, under the Geneva Conventions, hit some parts of the power grid if they're purely for military purposes. (...) But if you do it on an extended basis, and you add in things like desalination plants, which is what Trump is threatening to do, that gets you straight into the territory of war crimes. The U.S. helped write the update of the Geneva Conventions after World War II to go against this kind of action. Thank you Dozier for demonstrating what the death of expertise looked like! While they were busy trying to claim Trump was going to commit war crimes, they ignored or were ignorant of the fact that the U.S. had weapons that could disrupt power but not destroy the power plants; weapons such as graphite bombs, which uncoil long filaments of metal wires which as designed to be deployed over power lines and cause them to short circuit. The lines being much easier to replace than an entire power plant.   In the final segment of the show, the panel finally had a large discussion on the pilot rescue mission in Iran. Cornish and Fitzpatrick took the moment to worry about the “costs” of the rescue. https://t.co/oIQ7XLcufC pic.twitter.com/aROc5ZQkqe — Nick (@nspin310) April 6, 2026   In the final segment of the show, the panel finally had a large discussion on the pilot rescue mission in Iran. Cornish and Fitzpatrick took the moment to worry about the “costs” of the rescue. Cornish started: “And so, I don't - I am glad that this mission was successful. The question is, are we putting ourselves in the position to have to do more of these?” Fitzpatrick almost worried only about the “costs”: Absolutely. And what are the potential costs? I mean, we're all so happy that this worked out, but had this not, it could have been a huge loss of life. Think about how many people were involved in this operation. I mean, this is in a substantial - any time you go into, you know, enemy theater, you are exposing yourself. But also the enemy is learning a lot about what you do and how you do it. So, it's not without cost here. Discussions like these on CNN This Morning reflect why there was, as Fitzpatrick called it, a “death of expertise.” The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN This Morning April 6, 2026 6:09:04 AM Eastern (...) AUDIE CORNISH: Before, there was a sense that the U.S. and Israel wanted to preserve something of Iran's infrastructure. Do I have that right? SARAH FITZPATRICK: Absolutely. CORNISH: Is that shifting? FITZPATRICK: Absolutely. And I - but I think we see it to  the points that we've been making here, in a quarter reckless way, in a way that's not really thinking strategically about what are going to be the ramifications of doing this. I was with a former NSC official over the weekend, and they were explaining that sometimes you choose not to strike certain targets because it's just not worth it - one, it might be a war crime. And in these cases, I think this is a very legitimate question to be a thing about. What kind of information is Pete Hegseth getting about what targets they're choosing and what the legal, not just the legal ramifications could be but the national security and the military ramifications.  And I've spoken to so many officials who say, like, infrastructure like this for the whole population, when you are going to be turning off incubators for babies and things like that, that is a much, much more serious question to have. And that should be a topic of discussion with expertise. I think this - we're also seeing in this war kind of the death of expertise. Where are the experts who are coming in and saying, this may not be legal or this may not be the right thing? I don't think those people are getting - CORNISH: Right. And with that initial strike that landed on a school. There was like, oh, what's - Okay, maybe it's the early start now. We're deep in. And you have even people like Ann Coulter saying online, I really wish legal experts hadn't screamed bloody murder about every little thing Trump did, so they could speak with authority now that he's actually committing war crimes. KIM DOZIER: Yes. Hegseth saying that no mercy, no quarter towards the forces. And also now talking about, you know, there are international criminal court judgments against Russia for doing this in Ukraine. You can, militarily, under the Geneva Conventions, hit some parts of the power grid if they're purely for military purposes. CORNISH: Right. DOZIER: But if you do it on an extended basis, and you add in things like desalination plants, which is what Trump is threatening to do, that gets you straight into the territory of war crimes. The U.S. helped write the update of the Geneva Conventions after World War II to go against this kind of action. CORNISH: And never mind that they're struggling with the Strait of Hormuz right now, right? So, as you try to expand knowing Iran will retaliate in every direction. (...) 6:55:45 AM Eastern CORNISH: And just to let people know, inside that mission you had the airman hiding in the mountains, as we mentioned. And he had a pistol. He had a tracking beacon. And then the U.S. launches this rescue, multiple agencies, right. And special ops and Navy SEALs. And so, I don't - I am glad that this mission was successful. The question is, are we putting ourselves in the position to have to do more of these? FITZPATRICK: Absolutely. And what are the potential costs? I mean, we're all so happy that this worked out, but had this not, it could have been a huge loss of life. Think about how many people were involved in this operation. I mean, this is in a substantial - any time you go into, you know, enemy theater, you are exposing yourself. But also the enemy is learning a lot about what you do and how you do it. So, it's not without cost here. CORNISH: Trump has said to Axios that the U.S. military had beeping information about the officer's location, the tracker he mentioned. And that after a radio message, officials suspected he might be Iranian captivity and that the Iranians were sending false signals to try to lure U.S. forces into a trap. Is that a thing? BECCA WASSER: Well, deception is always a thing in any military operation. And in fact, this is very much what the us was doing with the CIA essentially having a false decoy mission over in a different part of geography in order to safely secure the airmen. (...)