On Saturday evening’s The Weekend: Primetime, MS NOW gave Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) free rein to unload an anti-Trump rant without a word of pushback. It's considered essential MS NOW content as the Democrat  called Trump a “madman,” urged his removal via the 25th Amendment, and suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had effectively maneuvered him into war with Iran. Throughout, she returned again and again to one word: “rubble.” Six times, Dean invoked “the rubble,” at one point sounding less like a congresswoman than someone stuck in a Flintstones loop. It played like a pre-packaged line she was determined to deliver. Dean’s suggestion that Netanyahu maneuvered Trump into war veers into a familiar and ugly trope—casting Israeli or Jewish leaders as puppet-masters pulling American strings. Notably, there was no pushback on Dean’s “rubble”-fixated rant. Instead, the hosts quickly changed the subject, asking about the Eric Swalwell scandal. There, Dean displayed the same penchant for repetition—calling the allegations “extraordinarily serious,” saying she takes them “very, very seriously,” that she takes any woman who comes forward “very, very seriously,” and labeling the situation a “very, very serious distraction”—before urging Swalwell to end his campaign. MS NOW Gives Free Rein To Dem Rep’s ‘Rubble’ Rant pic.twitter.com/HRLQsAcpou — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) April 12, 2026 The hosts engaged on that topic—making their silence in the face of her earlier claims about Trump and Netanyahu all the more conspicuous. Not all of the liberal media is buying the Democrats’ Trump-as-“madman”/25th Amendment pitch. Over on CNN, host Michael Smerconish offered a different take, defending Trump against calls for his removal and arguing that what critics see as instability may instead be a deliberate “madman” strategy to keep adversaries off balance. Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend: Primetime 4/11/26 7:02 am EDT ELISE JORDAN: Joining us now, Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania. She sits on the Foreign Affairs and Appropriations Committee, and is also one of the many lawmakers calling on the use of the 25th Amendment.  . . .  MADELINE DEAN: Our allies cannot understand it, but I hope and pray they have a long view. They recognize this president won't be president forever. He's a wrecking ball right now. He's a madman. He should be removed, whether by way of the 25th Amendment, which of course makes perfect sense. And he should be impeached again, but I don't want to spend time on that having done two of those already. We'll do it again someday.  And I want to just make sure you understand something I noticed. This president will be remembered for the rubble. Notice how he went to war in Iran alongside Mr. Netanyahu, who left rubble Gaza.  Mr. Netanyahu came over to the Situation Room and said to our president, let's go to war in Iran. Go with me to war in Iran and Lebanon and in the theater. This is a president who will be remembered for the rubble and the children who are dead in the rubble, the futures who are extinguished in the rubble.  And to me, it's about the children in the rubble. 

We viewed NBC’s hyped announcement of a Kristen Welker interview with Cuban dictatorship puppet Miguel Díaz Canel with dread expecting very little in the way of tough questions, a lot of uninterrupted regime propaganda, and a nonzero percentage of obsequiousness. We regret to inform you that we were not wrong.  Here’s how NBC News touted the interview- as something Welker landed, like it was a huge get: "@MeetThePress moderator @kwelkernbc has landed a sit down with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, his first American television interview" "The interview was taped on Thursday morning in Cuba, with the first excerpt to be shown on Meet the Press NOW at 4 p.m. ET and on NBC… — NBC News PR (@NBCNewsPR) April 9, 2026 Our biggest concern was that the interview would turn into little more than a platform for regime talking points, with very little in the form of tough questions. U.S. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) shared those same concerns in a press release, and posed five questions Welker should have asked Díaz Canel. Surprising no one, none of those tough questions- on political prisoners, the slavery program known as “medical missions”, ties to foreign adversaries of the United States, compliance with the Helms-Burton Act as a condition of lifting the trade embargo, and on a commitment to free speech, were asked.  The most important portions of the interview were, in effect, Welker’s greeting and farewell (which did not air on Meet the Press), and the exchange that was hyped in order to promote the interview. The greeting was an ominous tonesetter. "GRRRRRACIAS:" NBC's Kristen Welker begins her interview of Cuban regime puppet Miguel Díaz Canel with an over-the-top display of obsequiousness. Not heartening for those who expected tough questions. pic.twitter.com/XSqkiPuR7h — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: President Diaz Canel, welcome to Meet the Press. Bienvenidos a Meet the Press.  MIGUEL DIAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. WELKER [IN SPANISH]: Thank you for inviting us to your beautiful country. It is an honor.   DIAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: It is a pleasure for us to having(SIC) you. WELKER [IN SPANISH]: Thank you very much. The greeting very much set the tone for the rest of the interview. There was the hint of obsequiousness, the hispandering with Welker’s gratuitous rollout of her conversational Spanish (note the excessive rolling of the r for her first “gracias”). Welker’s farewell further confirmed the obsequious tone. "WHAT AN HONOR...I HOPE WE CAN RETURN": NBC's Kristen Welker and Cuba's regime puppet Miguel Díaz Canel exchange a fond farewell that did not air on Meet the Press. pic.twitter.com/WcEWvn5Kvj — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: President Diaz Canel. Thank you so much for your time. MIGUEL DIAZ-CANEL: Many thanks to you. Many thanks to you. WELKER [IN SPANISH]: What an honor. Thank you very much. I hope we can return. Haha, yes. Welker is “honored” to sit down with the seniormost apparatchik of a communist dictatorship. What an embarrassment. This explains the substance of the interview.  Welker asked a total of 25 questions (half of which aired on Meet the Press. The questions mostly centered around a potential Trump-ordered decapitation operation similar to what occurred in Venezuela on January 3rd. There were four questions about the particular awfulness of Castro’s Cuba, and finally, there was an attempt to get to the Helms-Burton questions- which Welker asked apologetically. The final of those questions was the aforementioned promotional segment.  This moment, which NBC hyped, was the sharpest in the interview and came towards the very end- after Kristen Welker frittered away a bunch of time trying to cast Diaz Canel as a victim of Trump's aggression. KRISTEN WELKER: So I have to ask this last question: would you be… pic.twitter.com/USpCs0itnc — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: Would you be willing to step down if it meant saving Cuba? Esta dispuesto a dimitir con tal de salvar a Cuba, para la gente de Cuba? MIGUEL DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: You are a very important and recognized journalist — WELKER: – If the United States asked. If the United States asked – DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: – Have you ever asked that question to any other president in the world? WELKER: If it’s — because it’s one of the conditions the United States is asking for. Would you ever consider that? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Let me explain. Have you asked that question to any other president in the world? WELKER: I ask very tough questions to our own president, yes. DIAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Could you ask that question to Trump? WELKER: I ask very hard questions of President Trump. DIAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Is that a question from you, or is that coming from the State Department of the US government? WELKER: My question is — because it’s one of the things that we’ve heard the U.S. government talk about that they want political change here in Cuba. So my question for you — if they asked you, if they said this is one condition, would you say yes? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Because of your honesty, I’m going to assume that you’re asking that question because of those reasons. In Cuba, the people who are in leadership position is not elected by the U.S. government, and they don’t have a mandate from the U.S. government. We have a free sovereign state — a free state. We have self-determination and independence, and we are not subjected to the designs of the United States. It is worth noting that, despite an otherwise deferential interview, the tinpot despot can't help but crash out at the slightest bit of a probing question. And note Welker's temperament. She isn't incessantly cutting Diaz-Canel off or pointing at him with her pen, eyes bulging, as she often does when the subject has an R at the end of his or her name. Because of the prior courtesies and deference, this question came at the absolute end of the interview. Welker’s interview set never sought to confront or challenge Díaz Canel, instead choosing to cast him as the victim of Donald Trump’s hemispheric aggression. Trump was the true villain of this disgraceful interview, not the puppet leader of a communist dictatorship sitting just 90 miles away.  Click “expand” to view the transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, April 12th, 2026: KRISTEN WELKER: I want to start with President Trump because President Trump’s threats to take over Cuba come as the United States has removed President Maduro from power, has invaded Iran and killed its supreme leader. Do you fear you could be killed or arrested by the United States? MIGUEL DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: That is a very interesting question. Those of us who have leadership positions in the revolution have a strong commitment to our revolution and to our heroic people, and in this connection, our responsibility entails the conviction and the commitment that we’re willing to give our lives for the revolution and for the cause that we defend. So for me, that is not a matter of concern. If the time comes, I don’t think there would be any justification for the United States to launch a military aggression against Cuba, or for the US to undertake a surgical operation or the kidnapping of a president. If that happens, there will be fighting, and there will be a struggle, and we will defend ourselves, and if we need to die, we’ll die, because as our national anthem says, “dying for the homeland is to live.” WELKER: What you’re saying is very powerful. Are you afraid for yourself, for your family, or are you prepared to, as you say, make the ultimate sacrifice if you are attacked. DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: I have no fear. I am willing to give my life for the revolution. Of course, I would like — I wouldn’t like that to be the attitude of the U.S. government. WELKER: Is Cuba actively bracing for the possibility of a military attack by the United States? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Like I’ve always said in previous meetings and previous interviews, and when I also address the Cuban people, it is evident that there are threats out there. It is part of the rhetoric of the U.S. government. Cuba has done nothing to offend the U.S. Cuba has never said about attacking the United States or interfering with the United States affair — affairs. However, you hear that Cuba is next, that Cuba is going to be next, that there are, there’s a way out, that they’re going to take over Cuba. So from the position of responsibility within the leadership of the country, that is a warning. And we need to responsibly protect our people, protect our project and protect our country. So we are preparing ourselves for defense. But what is the concept of our preparation for defense? We have a doctrine which is entirely defensive. It is not aggressive, it doesn’t pose a threat. In addition, we also believe that as we prepare ourselves, to defend is the best way to avoid war and the best way to preserve peace. WELKER: Let’s discuss the situation here in Cuba. The people of Cuba are suffering right now. Your power grid has failed. Food and energy are running dangerously low, and these problems existed in some form before the blockade was put into effect. Do you take any responsibility for the pain Cubans are experiencing? Ustedes, el Presidente, no se siente responsable? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: The Cuban people is suffering, and this can be seen in two areas, in the national aspect and also at the family level, because everything takes place on a daily basis. But what is the main cause for that suffering? Has it been the mistakes that I myself have made, or, like I said, a collective leadership, or is that suffering — or the government — or is that suffering is the result of the policy of intensified blockade that the United States have maintained? I think that the people can provide that answer. So these are a number of restrictions which are not applied to any other country in the world. Therefore, we lack financing in order to buy food, to buy supplies for our main productions and services, in order to have the medicines that we need and to carry out the repairs that we need for our national energy system and our industrial factories. How does that reflect on our people now? WELKER: And yet the people of Cuba say you cannot solely blame the United States, because you can trade with other countries. The economy has been in decline for the past 10 years. Hundreds of thousands of people have left Cuba over the past decade, many of them who are young entrepreneurs. Is that a sign that the Cuban economy and government has failed the people of Cuba, la gente de Cuba? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Like I said, when you see that at the family level, how does that happen? There is a scarcity of food, scarcity of medicine. The nights become a very long working night when you’ve been 20 hours with a power outage and the light comes on — WELKER: This is before the blockade – DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: – that’s when you need to do the house, house chores – WELKER: – People were suffering before the blockade. DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Let me explain. Let me explain. There’s a confusion in terms of the approach. For example, we were living under the blockade conditions, but the blockade was intensified and further tightened and became qualitatively different in the second half of 2019 with implementation of 240 measures and with Cuba’s inclusion in the list of countries who supposedly sponsored terrorism. So everything became worsened. So we have the accumulated effects of the blockades, plus the effect of the tightening of the blockade, and now the effects are caused by this energy blockade. And I can say this responsibly to you, this is not the fault of the Cuban government. WELKER: We saw it with our own eyes. Los vimos con nuestros ojos, people living in severe poverty, sufriendo in the streets of Havana, the capital city. Is it time for Cuba – DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Agree. KRISTEN WELKER: – to take some responsibility, to look in the mirror and to change its economic system for the people of Cuba who are suffering here? Estan sufriendo? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: We conduct very self critical analysis and assessments of our reality, and we’re trying to constantly transform and change what we do in order to improve what we do. But that’s got nothing to do with the political system. It is not our political system that is embracing that inability to move forward. Our political system is serving people, is serving social justice and making everyone advanced. And it seems that it bothers other people around the world because of what it represents, because it is our system for ourselves, not that we want to impose our system on anyone else, and they try to block it like this. WELKER: Let’s talk about the path forward. We understand that there are conversations between Cuba and the United States. Do you think it is possible to get a deal with President Trump? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: I think we can have an approach in terms of what is possible and what is difficult. I think dialogue and deals with the U.S. government are possible, but they’re difficult. Cuba has always stood by its commitments, and the United States have not fulfilled its part of the deal. In the present, the U.S., the U.S. has been engaged in talks with other countries, and while these negotiations are underway, they have attacked those countries, and all of this creates a lot of distrust. And we know that inside the United States, there are forces that whenever they see that there’s a possibility to engage in discussions, to engage in a dialogue, they try to undercut and boycott those talks. WELKER: Are you talking directly to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and do you trust him? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: We have engaged in talks and we will be in talks, as long as the United States agrees to, with the U.S. representative, that they decide in order to have this relationship with us, about the — these talks are very complex processes. First, you have to establish a channel for dialogue. Then, you need to build an agenda for the discussions, including both, both common interest. WELKER: But have you spoken to Secretary Rubio? Yes? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: I haven’t spoken to Secretary Rubio, I don’t know him. WELKER: Let’s talk about some key demands the United States has. It includes releasing political prisoners, scheduling multi-party elections and recognizing unions and a free press. Are you willing to commit to any of those conditions that the United States has laid out? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Well, no — nobody has make those — nobody has made those demands to us and we have established that respect to our political system or constitutional order are issues that are not under negotiations with the United States and we need to overcome, Kristen. WELKER: They’re giving me the hard wrap. So let me, let me get these questions out. There are still more than 1,200 political prisoners, including one of the most high profile political prisoners, Cuban rapper Maykel Osorbo, who’s been in prison since 2021 for writing a protest song that won two Latin Grammys. Will you commit to releasing him and the other political prisoners? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: That’s another issue in which you can see all of these bias and all these prejudices. They speak about political prisoners in Cuba. Like you said, where the people is going through a very difficult situation. There are people in Cuba who are not in favor of the revolution. There are people who do not support the revolution and they manifest themselves on a daily basis against a revolution and they’re not in prison. This narrative that has been created, that image that anyone who speaks against a revolution is thrown into jail, that’s a big lie, that’s a slander, and that’s part of that construct, in order to vilify and to engage a character assassination of the Cuban Revolution. WELKER: Would you be willing to step down if it meant saving Cuba? Esta dispuesto a dimitir con tal de salvar a Cuba, para la gente de Cuba? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: You are a very important and recognized journalist — WELKER: – If the United States asked. If the United States asked – DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: – Have you ever asked that question to any other president in the world? WELKER: If it’s — because it’s one of the conditions the United States is asking for. Would you ever consider that? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Let me explain. Have you asked that question to any other president in the world? WELKER: I ask very tough questions to our own president, yes. DIAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Could you ask that question to Trump? WELKER: I ask very hard questions of President Trump. DIAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Is that a question from you, or is that coming from the State Department of the US government? WELKER: My question is — because it’s one of the things that we’ve heard the U.S. government talk about that they want political change here in Cuba. So my question for you — if they asked you, if they said this is one condition, would you say yes? DÍAZ-CANEL [TRANSLATED]: Because of your honesty, I’m going to assume that you’re asking that question because of those reasons. In Cuba, the people who are in leadership position is not elected by the U.S. government, and they don’t have a mandate from the U.S. government. We have a free sovereign state — a free state. We have self-determination and independence, and we are not subjected to the designs of the United States. On the other hand, Cuban leaders are not here representing an — a need of power. You can see my background, where I was born, my family, what I’ve done throughout my life. We are elected by the people, although there’s a narrative trying to disregard that. Any one of us, before we become part of a leadership role, we need to be elected at the grassroot level in our electoral district by thousands of Cubans, and then those who represent the Cubans at the National Assembly of the People’s Power elect those leadership positions and those offices like it happens in many other countries around the world. So we have an election system on the basis of people’s participation. So whenever we take this responsibility position and this leadership position, it’s not out of our personal ambition or a corporate ambition, or even a party ambition. We do that as a mandate by the people, and the concept of revolutionaries giving up and stepping down, it’s not part of our vocabulary either. If the Cuban people understand that I am — I’m not fit for office, that I am not at the — risen to the occasion, then I should not be holding this position of president. I will respond to them. But you need to realize that you should not focus only on the president of the country, because we have a collegiate leadership which is very closely linked to the people. But it’s not the United States that can impose anything on us. [END TAPE] WELKER: You can watch my full interview with President Díaz-Canel on MeethePress.com. When we come back, Republican congressman Byron Donalds joins me next.  

The Elitist Media’s Sunday shows wasted no time in giving airtime to the recent lurid allegations that have surfaced against Congressman and California Gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell (D-Fang Fang). But their coverage itself seeks to avoid some of the broader substance of the issues. Per The New York Post: Within 24 hours, the Bay Area congressman went from Democratic frontrunner for California governor to facing pressure to not only end his campaign but resign from Congress — while now being the subject of a criminal sexual assault investigation into allegations by a former staffer she was raped while drunk at an April 2024 charity gala. Three other women have made claims about sexual misconduct ranging from inappropriate messages or unwanted contact. The women have claimed they have documented visits to the hospital and contemporaneous messages with friends and family about the incidents. One staffer has also claimed she woke up naked next to him in a hotel room in 2019 after a heavy night of drinking and didn’t remember what happened but felt physically like they’d had sex. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office launched a criminal probe into the woman’s rape claim. These are pretty serious charges, the specific details of which did not get mentioned on the Sunday shows. The most thorough recitation of the allegations aired on CNN’s State of the Union: WATCH: The most substantive Sunday show coverage of the Swalwell allegations was on CNN State of the Union- Dana Bash offered a brief recitation of the allegations along with Swalwell's denial as an introduction to the panel discussion segment. DANA BASH: A growing chorus of… pic.twitter.com/dzu0lzGbyx — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 DANA BASH: A growing chorus of Democrats are denouncing Congressman Eric Swalwell this weekend after CNN reported that four women made accusations of sexual misconduct against him. Those accusations range from inappropriate messages and pictures to unwanted kissing and touching, and, in one case, rape. Here's Swalwell's response. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC SWALWELL: These allegations of sexual assault are flat false. They're absolutely false. They did not happen. They have never happened. And I will fight them with everything that I have. I have certainly made mistakes in judgment in my past. But those mistakes are between me and my wife. And, to her, I apologize deeply for putting her in this position. This recent tranche of sexual allegations has been bifurcated from the allegations of financial impropriety which, along with his cease-and-desist letter to the FBI demanding the agency not release files detailing his interactions with the aforementioned Fang Fang. CNN’s Dana Bash centers squarely on the rape allegations. On ABC’s This Week, co-host Jon Karl closed out the show’s in-studio panel segment with a quick question to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on the anodyne and non-specific “serious sexual misconduct allegations.”  WATCH: The Sunday shows immediately cover the rape allegations against U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy describes how he tried to get rid of Swalwell since the Fang Fang days. JON KARL: We don't have much time left, but I wanted the- the allegations against… pic.twitter.com/mFXWNaJ1RO — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 JON KARL: We don't have much time left, but I wanted the- the allegations against Eric Swalwell, which have not been independently confirmed by ABC, he's denied them all- but serious sexual misconduct allegations. And now you have a, you know, an army of Democrats, uh, abandoning his, uh, his campaign for governor. He was the leading candidate, uh, Democratic candidate for governor. And now he's facing calls to drop out from people like Nancy Pelosi. KEVIN McCARTHY: Listen, let me be very clear. I tried to get rid of Swalwell six, eight years ago when I got the briefing, when I became leader with the FBI- Nancy Pelosi was in the room. I turned to her and said, how can you keep him on Intel? Intel is a select committee that only the leaders put on, that you know all the secrets that the members do not. I made a motion... KARL: But- is this about sexual misconduct allegations or… McCARTHY: It was a combination with the Chinese spy and it led to all that. Every member in Congress knows not to- not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It- it’s- it's not a secret there. There's a reason why you didn't want those two people around. He was the leading candidate for governor. He probably could have won the primary and gotten there. But this all came forward. And these young women deserve justice. DONNA BRAZILE: I agree…  KARL: Donna, should he drop out? BRAZILE: His campaign is in a free fall right now, with top staffers leaving. And let me just say this, as someone who knows at least one of the victims that have come forward, I’m very concerned. KARL: Thank you, Donna. Karl did not follow up on the obvious point made here, which is that Swalwell was a known quantity. What did Pelosi and other leaders know, and when did they know it?  On NBC’s Meet the Press, Kristen Welker both-sidesed the Swalwell allegations by adding the Tony Gonzales allegations into her questions. She first engaged Rep. Byron Donalds: WATCH: NBC's Kristen Welker addresses the Eric Swalwell allegations in a throwaway question to U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds- not on substance but via the whataboutism of whether he will also vote to expel Tony Gonzales. (Still no mention anywhere of Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick)… pic.twitter.com/1K7e00vVhW — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: All right. Final question, I want to ask you about Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California who is facing allegations of sexual assault and misconduct from former members of his staff, allegations he denies. One House Republican has filed a motion to expel Mr. Swalwell from Congress. On the other side, Democrats say they're going to respond with a motion to expel Congressman Tony Gonzalez of Texas who is being investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct. Will you vote to expel Congressman Swalwell and will you vote to expel Congressman Gonzalez? BYRON DONALDS: If the vote comes to the floor, I would be voting yes on both measures. These allegations are despicable and they demean the integrity of Congress. These things are just completely unacceptable and as far as I'm concerned, both gentlemen need to go home. WELKER: All right. Congressman Donalds, thank you for being here on a jam-packed morning. We really appreciate it. DONALDS: Thank you. Welker also engaged Rep. Pramila Jayapal on the Swalwell allegations: WATCH: Congresswoman Jayapal, on NBC's Meet the Press, is asked about the Swalwell allegations- says she would vote for expulsion of Swalwell and Gonzales. KRISTEN WELKER: I do want to ask you about your colleague Congressman Eric Swalwell. You heard me discussing this with… pic.twitter.com/o71vUIvGw7 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 12, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: I do want to ask you about your colleague Congressman Eric Swalwell. You heard me discussing this with Congressman Donalds. He's facing allegations of sexual assault from a former staff member which, we should say, which Swalwell says are completely false and politically motivated. Notable, though: House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Adam Schiff, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi are calling for Swalwell to end his run for California governor. Do you think that Swalwell should drop out of the gubernatorial race? PRAMILA JAYAPAL: I absolutely do. This is- as you know, I've been very vocal on behalf of survivors of the Epstein scandal, and I think that what we are seeing now is an emergence of women across the country who have been dismissed, told to shut up, told to move on, who have been abused by men in powerful positions. This is not a partisan issue. This cuts across party line, and it is depravity of the way that women have been treated, and I'm just inspired by the courage and the bravery of the women who came forward. This is clearly a pattern. I've already called for Congressman Swalwell to drop out of the gubernatorial race, and I think we have to hold everybody accountable. WELKER: Do you think- you just heard Congressman Donalds say he would vote to expel Eric Swalwell. Will you vote to expel Eric Swalwell? JAYAPAL: And Congressman Gonzales. I would. I've already said that I think that these things, these charges and allegations and the pattern of abuse and in Congressman Gonzales' case he actually admitted to the affair with the- or to the, you know, harassment with his staffer. This is also important for staffers across the Capitol to see that their bosses don't get to do this to them. So I do think that both of them need to step down from Congress, let these investigations happen, you know, but I think that this is very important that we believe women and that we show people across the Capitol and across the country that we will not accept this kind of behavior. CBS's Face the Nation made no mention of l'affaire Swalwell. This narrow coverage begs the question: why now, and why is this (D)ifferent from the serious ethics allegations against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), which has drawn ZERO coverage whatsoever from the Sunday shows? The latter is not a top candidate for governor in California’s “jungle” primary, wherein the top two vote-getters advance to a runoff regardless of party affiliation.  A wounded Swalwell might manage hang on and draw votes from the Steyers, Porters, and Becerras of the world- and give a Republican a shot at winning the California governorship for the first time in a generation, which would be catastrophic to the left. Better to clear the deadwood and consolidate. The press aids and abets this ruthless effort against someone who was formerly one of their darlings. At the end of the day, this is not about journalistic integrity but about assisting Democrats in their efforts to seize and hold power.  

It didn’t take long for the tweeters to notice this New York Times book-review headline and insist it was the Real Deal, even if it seems like too bizarre for the Babylon Bee: To Topple the Patriarchy, These Women Have Sex With Vegetables Times book reviewer Sadie Stein underlined that this might be the next book that public librarians will champion as a “free speech” moment to influence your children: Let’s start with the content warnings. Hexes of the Deadwood Forest, the best-selling Polish author Agnieszka Szpila’s first book to be translated into English, includes the following: adult themes, adult content, adult language, violence, suicide, sexual assault, torture, murder, genocide, bestiality, cruelty to children, sex with moss, sex with grass, sex with mushrooms, sex with lichens, sex with feathers, sex with rotten vegetables and sex with frozen dirt. Your final warning? All this gets weirdly tedious. Europeans can be deeply weird people. The plot is something like this: “In a wealthy suburb of Warsaw, the monstrous C.E.O. of an equally monstrous oil company, Anna Frenza,” was living the dream of success. “But when Frenza is who goes viral for passionate, painful sexual congress with the trunk of an oak tree, she’s thrown into a mental hospital.” Transported by either psychosis or mystical connection to the 16th-century Silesian ecclesiastical duchy of Neisse, Anna finds herself inhabiting the body of Mathilde Spalt, leader of the Earthen Ones, a pagan sect devoted to replacing patriarchal penetrative sex with a devotion to Nature…. Back in her present-day psych ward, Anna/Mathilde rallies her fellow inmates (mostly troublesome feminists or environmentalists) against what the narrator calls “a Polish Gilead, but without any of the well-tailored red dresses and cloaks.” Since this uber-horny phantasmagoria is populated almost exclusively by grotesques — not merely the universally hideous men, but also women characterized only by their Valerie Solanas-level fundamentalism — by the novel’s end, the reader begins to understand the appeal of inanimate moss (if not bark). Solanas was a radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968 and was institutionalized for several years.  None of this sounds like a book you'd like to read over a weekend. But that’s not to say that Stein doesn’t love the book. This is the last paragraph: “I thank all women who, in their fight for equal rights and the well-being of our planet, are not afraid to use their madness as a political weapon,” the author writes in the acknowledgments. By these standards, this novel certainly deserves all the plaudits.

At the end of Friday’s Inside Politics with Dana Bash, there was a brief documentary feature from CNN’s John King, the former host of the show, from North Carolina, as he pushed Democrats to find voters in rural America. The segment acted as a lesson to Democrats, as the King segment made brief jokes about Democrats while he promoted rural-acting Democratic candidates. King reported from areas of western North Carolina hit hard by Hurricane Helene in 2024, with most of the segments off the farm taking place in Marshall, North Carolina. King introduced a farmer and voter, Ed Winebarger, who had a harsh reality for Democrats as he worked on a farm with his hands in dirt: “This right here, getting it under your fingernails. Democrats have a hard time with this. They can't show a connection to the working class.” At the end of Friday's Inside Politics, former host John King highlighted Democratic losses in Rural voters by going to western North Carolina. The segment acted as a lesson to Democrats from King, as the segment made brief jokes and promoted rural Democratic candidates. pic.twitter.com/4yccEAuhCX — Nick (@nspin310) April 10, 2026   King framed the Iran War as an economic hurt for rural North Carolina. He described how Democrats have lost much of the rural vote across the entire country since Jimmy Carter’s election: Here are 1322 counties where at least 75 percent of the population live in rural areas. 50 years ago, 1976, Jimmy Carter carried 798 of the 1322.  (...) And in 2024, a rural red tsunami. Kamala Harris won just 79 of the 1322 counties and just 25 percent of their votes. The then and now is stunning. Winebarger connected the Democratic losses to “anger” and said rural Americans “feel represented by that anger.” To end, King connected the reconstruction from Helene to the possible bud of growth for Democrats in the midterms if they court rural voters: “18 months of struggle and remarkable resilience. Seven months more until we learn if all the rebuilding here extends to the Democrats.” pic.twitter.com/QmgXpNiLpQ — Nick (@nspin310) April 10, 2026   King pushed for more Democratic outreach to rural voters, as he shared it would put more states in play and listed dream pickups for Democrats that they have yearned for years, with little success: Again, be skeptical, but even a modest rural rebound for the Democrats would greatly expand their map, their targets, the possibilities in this critical midterm year. House races here in North Carolina, for example, and in places like Texas, Montana, Iowa, and elsewhere. Another voter, Josh Copus, described as helping his old friend run for Congress in North Carolina's 11th District against GOP Rep. Chuck Edwards, said Democrats “have lost their way” and need to run people like his friend Jamie, “because he is off this place, like he is our people.” To end, King connected the reconstruction after Hurricane Helene to the possible bud of growth for Democrats in 2026 midterms if they court rural voters: “18 months of struggle and remarkable resilience. Seven months more until we learn if all the rebuilding here extends to the Democrats.” The rural voters of America have been ignored and, sometimes, attacked by Democrats for years, as it reminds of a book promoted on MS NOW (then MSNBC) titled White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. It was difficult to gain voters when they were called racist and threats to democracy. Nevertheless, John King has taken to the moment to promote Democrats in rural America and push national Democrats to the same. It is interesting how so many journalists fall into Democrats' dreams of winning elections in mostly rural states, like the dream of a blue Texas as seen in previous media surges for Beto O’Rourke and the current media push of James Talarico. The transcript is below. Click "expand": CNN’s Inside Politics w/ Dana Bash April 10, 2026 12:48:00 PM Eastern DANA BASH: The North Carolina Senate race is one of the seats Democrats are really pushing to turn blue in this year's midterms, but they're going to need to win back the rural voters who have abandoned the party during the trump era. CNN's John King went to North Carolina for his latest installment of “All Over the Map.” (...) 12:48:56 PM Eastern JOHN KING: The fall harvest will be not long before the midterm election, and North Carolina has a Senate seat within reach for the Democrats. Plus, maybe, just maybe, a House seat or two. But Weinberger sees the party as still missing a critical ingredient. ED WINEBARGER (NORTH CAROLINA VOTER): This right here, getting it under your fingernails. Democrats have a hard time with this. They can't show a connection to the working class. KING: Rural America is synonymous with Trump Country. But Weinberger says Trump policies are making a tough economy worse. First tariffs, now Iran. (...) 12:49:50 PM Eastern KING: North Carolina's success could help the Democrats make a good midterm year great. But it would require reversing five decades of rural decline. Take a look.  Here are 1322 counties where at least 75 percent of the population live in rural areas. 50 years ago, 1976, Jimmy Carter carried 798 of the 1322. See all that blue, and won 54 percent of the vote in them. In 2000, though, Al Gore carried only 213 of the 1322. His share of the vote in rural counties dropped to 37 percent. And in 2024, a rural red tsunami. Kamala Harris won just 79 of the 1322 counties and just 25 percent of their votes. The then and now is stunning. Here in North Carolina, that rural shift from blue to red looks like this. It's been 11 years since North Carolina was represented by a Democrat in the U.S. Senate. And the state's House delegation in Washington, right now, just four Democrats and ten Republicans. WINEBARGER: There's a lot of anger with, uh, with the voting base. And America has traditionally gone after the angry candidate. They feel represented by that anger. Democrats need to do more to connect rural America. KING: Again, be skeptical, but even a modest rural rebound for the Democrats would greatly expand their map, their targets, the possibilities in this critical midterm year. House races here in North Carolina, for example, and in places like Texas, Montana, Iowa, and elsewhere.  And the party is hoping to find Senate pickups, U.S. Senate pickups. Where would they look? Texas, Ohio, Alaska, Montana, Iowa, and right here in North Carolina. (...) 12:53:55 PM Eastern KING: So, why do Democrats struggle so much here? JOSH COPUS (NORTH CAROLINA VOTER): I think we lost our way. I don't know, like we got caught up doing something that didn't connect with the people in rural America. And that's why we need to run candidates like Jamie, because he is of this place, like he is our people. So, I don't think it's a lost cause. (...) 12:54:47 PM Eastern COPUS: I get it, you know, I know why people like voted for Trump around here because, you know, everyone feels like it's stacked against them. But that hasn't changed like that. I don't think any of those people are like, oh, we're doing better now than we were because we're not. KING: 18 months of struggle and remarkable resilience. Seven months more until we learn if all the rebuilding here extends to the Democrats. John King, CNN. Marshall, North Carolina. (...)