You may recall the Elitist Media Evening News barely covering the attempted Antifa attack on a Texas ICE detention center last 4th of July. Surprising no one, they also neglected to cover the sentences of those involved.  First, a refresher. Here’s the initial story, as aired on the CBS Evening News on Tuesday, July 8th, 2025: This brief on the CBS Evening News was the sole item on the Antifa attack against the ICE facility at Alvarado, TX across the legacy network newscasts (a full report streamed on CBSEN+). pic.twitter.com/478JBo5i3j — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 9, 2025 MAURICE DuBOIS: Ten people charged with attempted murder after allegedly staging an ambush at an immigration detention center in Alvarado, Texas. Investigators say some of the suspects lured officers outside by shooting fireworks at the building and painting graffiti. An officer was shot and is out of the hospital. Authorities are investigating whether the July 4th attack is linked to a shooting yesterday at a Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas. That was it. 25 seconds on CBS, absolute donuts on ABC and NBC- another instance in a long pattern of bias by omission when it comes to leftwing violence, especially violence against federal law enforcement. Those defendants have now been sentenced to lengthy terms in federal prison. Per the Department of Justice: Today, the Justice Department announced that eight North Texas Antifa Cell operatives were sentenced for their roles in rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorists, obstruction, and the attempted murder of an Alvarado police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center on July 4, 2025. This is the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with Antifa following President Donald J. Trump’s executive order designating the group as a Domestic Terrorist Organization in September 2025. Benjamin Hanil Song, who was convicted of the attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. Together, the Prairieland terrorists received a combined sentence of 450 years in prison:  Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years in prison; Cameron Arnold was sentenced to 50 years in prison; Savanna Batten was sentenced to 50 years in prison; Zachary Evetts was sentenced to 50 years in prison; Bradford Morris was sentenced to 50 years in prison; Elizabeth Soto was sentenced to 50 years in prison; and Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in prison. “The sentences handed down today make clear that Antifa terrorists who attack law enforcement and federal facilities will face swift and uncompromising justice,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Their violent extremism has no place in our country, and the Department of Justice will continue to aggressively investigate, disrupt, and prosecute those who threaten law enforcement officers or undermine the rule of law.” In keeping with the earlier trend, there was zero coverage of the sentencings on any of the Elitist Media’s evening newscasts. Of course, there were other stories deemed more deserving of coverage.  Among them: A police RV chase near Orlando, Florida, an Amazon driver driving on a customer’s lawn, and a flipped 18-wheeler full of bees on ABC. On CBS: a 13-year-old who fell 50 feet after prematurely exiting a Disney ride, and a sad dog at a Miami Marlins game. On NBC: the aforementioned falling teen, ANOTHER item on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pond (ABC and CBS had given it a rest tonight), and the Miami Heat trading for Milwaukee Bucks star Giannis Antetokounmpo.  This story stands as yet another reminder that what the media don’t cover is often more important than what they do. That’s what makes bias by omission so insidious.  

President Donald Trump, master of schadenfreude? That was what MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow suggested on Monday’s episode of The Last Word. O’Donnell, under the influence of a new book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, claimed that the indictments of his political opponents were all that Trump cared about. “It comes down to - for Donald Trump, it comes down to, just get them indicted. That is the minimum that is good enough for him. He just wants to see them go through that pain,” O’Donnell proclaimed to Maddow during their hand off. In their coverage, the two so-called journalists missed one crucial fact present in these cases - the DOJ can only indict someone if they have some evidence that the person committed a federal crime. Trump did not sit on any of the federal grand juries that passed the indictments, and he was not the one facing his political rivals in court. That was the job of federal prosecutors. But that wasn’t the sense you’d get if you listened to Maddow’s assertion that these indictments were “a window into the wizened soul of Donald Trump and what he's trying to do as he attempts an authoritarian takeover of our country and the destruction of our Constitution.”      Article III, Section Two of the United States Constitution states that “the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases. . . affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls.” James, as New York Attorney General, counted as a “public Minister,” so she was indeed under the Constitutional authority of “the judicial Power.” Being a leftist and/or a woman of color didn’t make her immune to accountability, no matter what the Democrat Party may wish. Any administration that didn’t investigate or prosecute people like James merely because of political loyalties would be closer to destroying the Constitution than an administration that did.  Maddow, in a delightful example of myopic hypocrisy, also accused the Trump DOJ of bringing “vindictive prosecution[s].” Call her Dory, because she seemed to have already forgotten the vindictive prosecutions brought against Trump during the interim Biden period, when Democrats brought a myriad of charges against the then-former President solely in an attempt to smear him and prevent him from running for office again. The entire liberal media adored figures like Letitia James solely for her anti-Trump prosecutions, then they made her a martyr when the DOJ indicted her in 2025 for bank fraud. Her sainthood status has remained with her even after the charges were dropped. The leftist media will fall over themselves to lavish praise over anyone who positions themselves as anti-Trump. The list was endless -- Letitia James, James Comey, Fani Willis, John Bolton, and so on. Democrats would even defend real Nazis like Graham Platner and crackheads like Hunter Biden, as long as they subscribe to their radical leftist ideology.  Whatever “pain” these indictments may cause those who hounded Trump, they were the ones who unsheathed the sword with their own ruthless prosecutions for political purposes. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MS NOW's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/22/26 10:01:00 (...) LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: So, Rachel, you were talking about the strain, the difficulty of being indicted in the Trump universe that - by the Trump Justice Department.  In the new book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, which I'm going to discuss with the authors, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, they talk about exactly this. Inside the Trump White House when they're talking about getting the indictments on Letitia James. And people are saying 'It's impossible. You can't do it. You can't prove the case.' It comes down to - for Donald Trump, it comes down to, just get them indicted. That is the minimum that is good enough for him. He just wants to see them go through that pain. RACHEL MADDOW: Yeah, and if they're talking about it explicitly like that, it's potentially something that's admissible in a court motion for having a - having an indictment dismissed as a vindictive prosecution.  So it's not only a window into the wizened soul of Donald Trump and what he's trying to do as he attempts an authoritarian takeover of our country and the destruction of our constitution. It's also potentially legally actionable reporting in terms of Trump's enemies being able to turn that around and use it against them - use it against him to defend themselves. (...)

Amid the media tour for the new mega-book Regime Change by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, the pair of authors appeared on MS NOW’s Morning Joe to sell their new book on the Trump Administration. In part of the interview, co-host Jonathan Lemire posed a question on Trump’s feelings on “mortality,” especially after the Kirk assassination and, as Lemire described it, “the threats he perceived to be out there.” Haberman later insinuated that the aftermath of the Kirk assassination and the heightened security measures for government officials, including some now residing on military bases, led to the unrest and ICE-involved shootings in Minneapolis. About 30 minutes into the interview, Lemire turned to talk about recent political assassinations and the attempts on Trump, in a way he described as an “accelerant” to Trump actions. He also labeled the threats against Trump as “perceived”: And, Maggie, I want to ask you about the idea of how Trump is thinking about his own mortality. Which is an animating theme in this book, too. (...) But how that seems to be almost an accelerant - the threats on his life, the threats he perceived to be out there, the ballroom, yes, but a lot of what he's trying to do.   In continuation of the ‘Regime Change’ book tour, Jonathan Lemire posed a question on Trump’s feelings on “mortality,” especially after the Kirk assassination and, as Lemire described it, “the threats he perceived to be out there.” Co-author Maggie Haberman later appeared to… pic.twitter.com/mVmLftabaw — Nick (@nspin310) June 23, 2026   Haberman responded with the reported line on how Trump found out about the assassination through his son, Barron Trump, someone who was attacked by the host of the first stop of the Haberman and Swan book tour for not enlisting in the military. Haberman said the assassination reminded Trump of his “mortality,” and made a connection of Trump actions to the reaction of the Kirk assassination. She said it was Trump’s “impulse,” along with Stephen Miller’s and others, that “it’s time to crack down on the left. We have to actually start going after people who are going after us.” The NYT writer then rhetorically scoffed at the whole situation and increased threats against cabinet members, as she briefly called the post-Kirk assassination reaction something that “escalated this siege mentality that they are under.”  Haberman’s large insinuation that she ended her comments on connected the high security of cabinet members with Secret Service details and, sometimes, residences at Military bases, led to an isolation from the world that led to the Minneapolis ICE activities and ensuing unrest: But you are talking about an administration where so many of these officials are living on military bases now. There are so many officials who have Secret Service details, who have intense security, and that just separates them further from the city they're living in and from the government that they're serving and the public that they're serving. And so it was another point in our reporting. And again, we spent a fair amount of time on this, on how it becomes an escalation that in some ways helps get closer to what we saw in Minneapolis later in the year. Lemire’s “perceived threats” line and Haberman's blame on Minneapolis unrest on needed security for officials who have been under threat, partially due to language by the media that labels Republican officials as fascists and Nazis, seemed to try to minimize the now three assassination attempts against Trump and all of the threats of violence against him and other conservatives. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe June 23, 2026 7:29:01 AM Eastern (...) JONATHAN LEMIRE: And, Maggie, I want to ask you about the idea of how Trump is thinking about his own mortality. Which is an animating theme in this book, too. There's Butler, of course, but also the Charlie Kirk assassination, you know, and that's some new reporting here that we've never heard before, how he sort of learned about that, you know, frankly, flashing anger at Kash Patel about that investigation. But how that seems to be almost an accelerant - the threats on his life, the threats he perceived to be out there, the ballroom, yes, but a lot of what he's trying to do. MAGGIE HABERMAN: Yeah, there's no question that the security aspect of this comes up over and over and over again in the book, in our reporting has for some time, the day that Charlie Kirk was killed was - it was not a turning point for this White House, but it was something of a demarcation line. So, in our reporting, he hears about it because his son, Barron, calls and was very upset watching what had happened. And it is a reminder, A, of mortality. It is a reminder of everything that people see in the lives of elected officials and this White House, many of whose members were close with Charlie Kirk, are learning about it in real time. There's a Signal group chain where people are texting, you know, “Charlie, are you okay?” Because they've heard there's a shooting and he doesn't respond.  And Trump is sort of spending the day absorbing it. But his impulse was, we are going to - and the impulse of others in the White House, to be clear. And it was not just Stephen Miller, which is often the view on that one. There were others who really agreed that it's time to crack down on the left. We have to actually start going after people who are going after us.  It emphasized putting that part aside about, you know, whether they were focused on the people who are actually, you know, going after Trump and his advisors or not. It escalated this siege mentality that they are under. There are a number of aides who have had real threats against them. There are others where we’re less clear about what the security threats are.  But you are talking about an administration where so many of these officials are living on military bases now. There are so many officials who have Secret Service details, who have intense security, and that just separates them further from the city they're living in and from the government that they're serving and the public that they're serving. And so it was another point in our reporting. And again, we spent a fair amount of time on this, on how it becomes an escalation that in some ways helps get closer to what we saw in Minneapolis later in the year. (...)

On Monday’s Good Morning America, ABC co-host and former NFL player Michael Strahan sucked up to socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s pick to lead the city’s Department of Corrections who’s been tasked with not only closing Riker’s Island, but reframing prison time for the dangerous and violent as patients “in our care” in need of “rehabilitation” while suffering from mental health crises. Following two fluffy teases, Strahan boasted in the last half-hour the show would “turn down to one man’s hopes and changing the system” and stating he “sat down with Stanley Richard, the newly appointed Department of Corrections Commissioner here in New York City and Stanley is breaking barriers as the first formerly incarcerate person to be appointed to the job.” “Beyond these gates is a jail known as one of the world’s most dangerous, Rikers Island. There have been complaints of neglect, abuse, and overcrowding...Stanley Richards, the new commissioner of New York City’s Department of Corrections, is tasked with improving conditions,” he gushed. WILD: Yesterday on ABC's 'Good Morning America, Michael Strahan sucked up to Zohran Mamdani’s pick to lead the city’s Department of Corrections, who wants to reframe prison time for the dangerous and violent as patients “in our care” in need of “rehabilitation” while suffering… pic.twitter.com/68hTStNrtF — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) June 23, 2026 This gave way to flowery back-and-forth about “reform” and “possibilities” in the prison system: STRAHAN [TO RICHARDS]: There have been task forces and independent commissions, the oversight bodies that have called for, you know, fix the problem at Rikers to no avail. Is reform even possible there? RICHARDS: Oh, absolutely. So, I don’t see the dysfunction. I see the possibilities. Will it be hard? Yes, step by step, decision by decision, strategy by strategy.  Of course, Strahan focused on the time Richards spent at Rikers: “After losing his mother at age 10, Richard says he searched for a sense of belonging and purpose, finding it in gang life, a path that led to repeated arrests for drug offenses and robbery, ultimately resulting in a four-and-a-half year prison sentence.” Asked about why he’s the right person for the job, Richards said he’s “learned.... could be a facilitator of hope to help people understand that they don’t have to live the life of cycling in and out of jail in prison.” Richards then flirted with the far-left’s dream of prison abolitionism under the guise of reform and viewing criminals as health care patients (click “expand”): RICHARDS: So, I see my work as bringing my experience to bear on a system that has been forgotten, and that means making sure that when the judges decide that someone needs to come into our care, we can center our work on dignity, humanity, normalization and reentry, making sure that our officers are valued and cared for and elevated. STRAHAN [TO RICHARDS]: Yeah, because it seems to be when you think about it one side against the other, here you’re trying to show humanity to both sides.] RICHARDS: To both sides. If I don’t see the humanity in our offices, how can I see it in the people in our care? If I don’t see the humanity in the people in the care, how can I see it in my community? Strahan joined in on promoting the soft-on-crime mentality: “He sees the corrections system that across the country is failing its inmates, one that is too focused on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation, leaving little room for growth, hope, and change.” Richards cited letting inmates decide what food they’re served and gardening classes as examples of how prison sentences could be of better use, telling Strahan the public fails to understand “the entire system.” “[B]y the time they get to jail or get to prison, we probably missed multiple opportunities to intervene on the school level, on the mental health level, on the drug treatment level. The country’s pursuit of punishment has created a system that misses those opportunities,” he argued. Sounding like a true Democratic Socialist, he lamented people “demonize” those behind bars and that the public has made it “easy to justify the pain and suffering and punishment we inflict on them, but if you see them as your brother, your sister, your cousin, your community member, you see them based on the humanity.” Americans like Laken Riley were unavailable for comment. Here was the only sort of pushback or allusion to Americans supporting law and order:  STRAHAN [TO RICHARDS]: People say, well, there’s people who have done some heinous crimes. RICHARDS: Accountability should be a centerpiece of our justice system. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be accountable. Here’s some actual pushback, courtesy of the New York Post back on March 30 (click “expand”): Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push to mindlessly free perps held at Rikers is a carbon copy of the de Blasio-era drive that immediately sent crime rates soaring; New Yorkers have zero reason to expect a different result. (....) And the folks who’d get sprung are not the low-level offenders that the “criminal-justice reform” crew always pretends. As veteran Queens prosecutor Jim Quinn notes in The Post, 95% of those now jailed at Rikers awaiting trial face felony charges, mostly for murder or another violent offense. (....) The last few years should have taught the whole city that a relatively few recidivists are responsible for nearly all major crime; keeping repeat offenders off the streets is vital to public safety. (....) Yet Mamdani has made Richards the first ex-offender to head the city’s jail system; he says he’s working to “responsibly” reduce the number of people in custody by expanding supervised release, work release and alternatives to incarceration: Watch out. The interview concluded with Richards emphasizing prisons need to better incubators of “providing people with the tools that when they get out, they could have a place to live and get the resources they need[.]” Someone tell that to the victims of sex offenders. Back live, Strahan said that, along with Rikers having to be shut down by next year, Richards told him “60 percent of the people incarcerated at Rikers had mental health issues, which guards aren’t trained to deal with,” so guards need better training and pay. Co-host Robin Roberts was enamored: “Well, I hope that people really listen to his perspective because he has one unlike many in that position.” “He’s an example. He’s been on both sides. He’s been in Rikers, and now he’s on the outside in the law enforcement side,” Strahan replied. Exit question: Since ABC sucked up to a pro-criminal mindset, when will they do a puff piece with, say, Angel Moms? To see the relevant ABC transcript from June 22, click here.

Ahead of America 250, PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson penned an article chronicling what he considered to be eleven instances where presidents “shaded reality as they shaped US history.” Unfortunately for Jacobson, in some instances it was he who did the shading, especially when he considered some of the nation’s most defining foreign policy moments. The first time Jacobson got himself into trouble was talking about President James Polk and the Mexican-American War. Jacobson wrote: The path to war began months before the fighting, when Polk ordered Gen. Zachary Taylor (who would succeed him as president) to ‘station his men on the banks of the Rio Grande in an area under dispute between the­ still-independent state of Texas and Mexico,’ Eric Alterman, a Brooklyn College historian and professor of English and journalism, wrote in ‘Lying in State,’ one of two books he’s written on presidential falsehoods. The casualties in this area became the spark for the war. He further added, “Despite knowing that the land was disputed, Polk framed it as blood shed on U.S. soil, justifying a military attack. Polk ‘would eventually go so far as to admit that the battle had taken place on ‘disputed’ rather than American soil,’ Alterman wrote, but that was after the war concluded.”  That’s a bit silly. The Mexican-American War began in 1846 after Texas became a state and the U.S. assumed its disputed border. Every country that has a territory dispute considers the disputed territory their own. Next, Jacobson turned to the origin story of the media’s Main Character Syndrome, “In 1898, the USS Maine exploded in Cuba, killing 261 crew members. Pushed by a war-hungry media, William McKinley leveraged the incident into the Spanish-American War, even though historians generally believe the explosion was an accident, not an act of sabotage.” Jacobson is correct that the explosion was likely an accident, but that does not mean McKinley was influenced by the press, as he suggested, “Even though ‘it’s hard to locate an obvious lie among his explanations for the need for war in Cuba,’ Alterman said, ‘McKinley caved into the hysteria manufactured by an increasingly irresponsible press.’” Serious Spanish-American War historians do not consider yellow journalism to be the reason why the U.S. went to war with Spain. A lot of the stories usually cited to support such a claim simply do not have supporting evidence. The less exciting truth is the court of inquiry that was set to investigate the Maine concluded the keel’s inverted V shape suggested an external explosion. The next wartime president to find himself on Jacobson’s bad side was Harry Truman, “In 1945, Harry Truman announced the United States’ deployment of the world’s first atomic bomb by saying it was ‘dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.’ It was a seminal moment for the world on the brink of the nuclear age, and it wasn’t the whole story of who would be affected.” He tried to rebut Truman by claiming, “Precise comparisons of military and civilian deaths are not available, but there’s broad agreement that most of the 66,000 deaths and 69,000 injuries were civilians, not troops.” However, even Jacobson was forced to concede, ‘Hiroshima was the command center for southern Japan, which made it ‘a significant military target,’ [Albany Law School emeritus professor of legal history Paul] Finkelman said.” Even when PolitiFact goes back to 1846, 1898, or 1945, it can’t help itself. While Jacobson may not have taken out the truth-o-meter, his nitpicking or, in McKinley’s case, flat-out incorrectness shows the perils of a website that is famous for such a rating system.