The Elitist Media never rests when it comes to pursuing partisan narratives that may help their preferred political tribe win an argument or a news cycle. Some of the angles they pursue are so transparently dumb and shameless, though, that you have to wonder. Watch as CNN’s Manu Raju builds a weird reality TV angle only to bankshot it into a cheap shot against Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy (click “expand” to view transcript): PEAK JOURNALISMING: Watch as CNN's Manu Raju works a weird reality TV angle into a cheap shot of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy pic.twitter.com/cxejgND3Qy — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 10, 2026 CNN INSIDE POLITICS 5/10/26 11:53 AM MANU RAJU: Reality TV stars have found a way into our politics. Just look at the current occupant of the Oval Office. So could one now be the next mayor of the nation's second largest city? Well, Spencer Pratt, a former star of the reality show The Hills, has rocketed to the forefront of the Los Angeles mayoral race after repeatedly taking on the current mayor, Karen Bass, in a debate this past week. Pratt’s a Republican running in the nonpartisan race, and he hit her particularly hard on her response to last year's wildfires. SPENCER PRATT: I blame this person for burning my house and my parents’ house and my town, and all my neighbors’ down. I am not working with Mayor Bass. RAJU: Ahead of the June 2nd primary, Bass responded to that criticism on CNN last night. KAREN BASS: Let me just say that as the mayor of the city, the buck stops with me. That is very, very clear. What was true of our city, but not just our city, our region, our county was that we were not prepared. RAJU: And Spencer Pratt’s not the only reality TV star trying to gain political traction. Luke Gulbranson from the show The Summer House is running to represent northern Minnesota in the House of Representatives. He's running as a Democrat in a district President Trump won by 14 points in 2024.  And it's not just current candidates. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who appeared on a pair of MTV reality shows in the 1990s including The Real World, said this week that for the past seven months, he and his family have been filming for a Trump-approved show called The Great American Road Trip that is set to air on YouTube. SEAN DUFFY: So I want to lean into America's 250th birthday. Rachel and I actually met on a road trip on a reality TV show. And so over the course of seven months, we just kind of found these moments where I might be able to do some work. I could take the kids with me, do a road trip. RAJU: But the project has raised some ethical concerns since its sponsors include several companies whose businesses inters- interests intersect with the agency that Duffy oversees. And yesterday, Duffy attacked what he called the, quote, “radical, miserable, left” for criticism of the project and said it was fully within ethics rules as reviewed by federal officials. But no one can dispute that it’s perhaps not the cheapest time to go on a road trip. The segment started with a mention of President Donald Trump before transitioning to Spencer Pratt, whose L.A. mayoral candidacy is surging after a solid debate performance and a series of viral videos. That alone could have been a segment, but Raju quickly moves on to Luke Gulbranson and his congressional race before settling on his real target: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Duffy has long been a target of Official Washington, seething at the fact that Duffy exposes how very bad his media-loved predecessor was. Duffy is targeted because of his recently-announced show The Great American Road Trip, which ties into America’s 250th anniversary celebration. In order to make this tenuous segment work, Raju leaves out the fact that Duffy was a prosecutor and was elected to Congress where he served for four terms. Those inconvenient facts don’t bolster the “reality show star” narrative, though. So viewers get this slop instead.

On CNN’s State of the Union, the weekly panel discussion predictably veered to the redistricting war. Liberal panelists were still processing a brutal week for Democrats, and watched some of their arguments blow up in their face in real time. Watch as Scott Jennings baits liberal CNN commentator Ashley Jennings into admitting that black people always have an enfranchised choice at the ballot box, regardless of whether they live in a racially gerrymandered district: TWO-FER: @BradOnMessage points out Dems' hypocrisy on redistricting, @ScottJenningsKY gets his liberal co-panelist to concede there is no racial disenfranchisement resulting from redistrictings in TN and elsewhere pic.twitter.com/8dRMnljcBr — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 10, 2026 BRAD TODD: This is selective outrage from Democrats. North Carolina has redrawn their lines about six times in the last six elections. Why? Because Democrats always go to court and always try to get new lines that are favorable to them. Sue 'til blue. That's the mantra that they use. JAKE TAPPER: Sue 'til blue? TODD: Sue 'til blue. Democrats will sue on any map until it's blue. They do their mid-decade redistricting in the courts. And we have seen it for many years. And that is what's happening here. They've gone to Utah this cycle and sued to get the map drawn for themselves. Like, partisan redistricting is a fact of life. And now... ASHLEY ALLISON: This isn't partisan. SCOTT JENNINGS: What is it? ALLISON: Racial redistricting. TODD: On the campaign...  (CROSSTALK) ALLISON: You literally are taking Memphis, which is a city that -- with black voters, and you split it in three, stretching 3,000 miles. JENNINGS: Who's the current Democrat congressman there? What -- is it a black congressman? ALLISON: Just because -- black people are allowed to elect people that don't look like them? JENNINGS: Exactly. And that is the point I wanted you to make, because just because you're not going to have a black congressman, why is it that a Republican can't do just as well representing black voters as a Democrat? (CROSSTALK) ALLISON: Because they aren't electing... JENNINGS: Why does your race determine your politics? ALLISON: It doesn't. It doesn't. No. Just be -- you're making my point, actually. The assumption is black people... JENNINGS: I think you're making my point. ALLISON: No, no, no. The assumption is black people will only elect black people. No, black people are smart enough to elect... (CROSSTALK) ALLISON: No, let me finish. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Just let Ashley finish. ALLISON: Black people will elect people who will actually represent them, who have their best interests at heart. And what Republicans have done in Tennessee is dismantle the power for black people to have their voice. They did the same thing in Texas, because they said they thought Latinos were going to swing for Republicans. There are black people that are represented. I'm black and I got a Republican president right now. Black people don't elect black people based on race. They elect people that are aligned with their morals, their belief in justice, and Republicans just took that away from them in Tennessee and in other states. JENNINGS: I just disagree that the only person, the only kind of a politician who can elect black people in Congress must be a Democrat. This is just an artificial... ALLISON: That's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: ... for the Democratic Party. Black voters are still fully franchised and go vote for whoever they want. ALLISON: That's not what I'm saying. JENNINGS: It just doesn't have to be a Democrat. It bears noting that On Message founder Brad Todd set this exchange up by pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats who normally achieve their mid-decade redistrictings in the courts, citing the “sue till blue” strategy. It also bears noting that these efforts never get questioned by the Elitist Media. Instead, they cheer it as “defense of Democracy™”, unless Republicans do the same in which case it is covered as rank disenfranchisement. It’s (D)ifferent like that. Also lost in this exchange is how Virginia sued the state Supreme Court into refusing to weigh in on the proposed constitutional amendment and referendum results until AFTER the special election, which per some estimates is turning out to be an $80 million decision. The focus of this panel was solely on Republicans. Exit question: If this is how the left and the media are caterwauling now, what do you think the 2032 midterm is going to look like? Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, May 10th, 2026: (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK WARNER: Today, justice was not served. We have to recognize that they will use every tool, legal or illegal, to try to stop Americans from saying this is not the direction we want to go. If there's ever a time for us to double down and speak up and stand up louder and more forcefully, it's now. (END VIDEO CLIP) JAKE TAPPER: Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia on the Virginia Supreme Court's decision to strike down the redistricting plan voters had just passed. It would have given Democrats four new House seats, taking it from a six-to-five Democrat to Republican House representation tool, 10 to one. Now it's back to six to 5. Kate Bedingfield, it does look like Republicans are definitely winning these redistricting or gerrymandering wars, maybe anywhere from one to 11 seats, depending on, A, how everything susses out, and then also, B, whether or not things actually go as projected. For example, in Texas, the idea was Latino voters are going to go Republican. We don't know that that's actually going to happen. KATE BEDINGFIELD: Right. Well, I think we're looking -- based on where things stand right now, we're looking at potentially R-plus five netting out from all of this, so significant at a time when the House is decided by two or three seats. But I do think it's important to recognize that we are in a political environment that is very challenging for Republicans. There are 13 House Republicans who won their districts by fewer than five points. Democrats have won special elections since 2024 at a plus-13 rate. So, if you're looking -- if you're somebody who won your district by five points and you're looking at the environment, it's not a great one for you if you're a Republican. So I think the other kind of piece of this, while I would not dispute that the court decision in Virginia was not a good one for Democrats, I do think across the board this issue broadly, this redistricting issue, has been driven by Trump. It's been tagged to Trump. It is not popular. And it contributes, in an environment where Republicans -- where people are not eager to vote for Republicans because they're frustrated with the president for any number of reasons, this is another kind of albatross political issue around his neck. And I think Democrats can drive that as they're working to turn their voters out. SCOTT JENNINGS: Kate, I hate to ruin your morning, but it's going to be more like R-plus 10. BEDINGFIELD: I assure you, you will not ruin my morning, Scott Jennings. JENNINGS: It's going to be more like 10 or 11, I think, after all of this, because not only do you have the Virginia case. You have got Louisiana redrawing, Tennessee. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Let's put up the map, if we can there, just to show the redistricting push. We calculate that Republicans have figured out a way to pick up about 14 seats, Democrats about six. So that's in net eight. JENNINGS: But you haven't -- but Louisiana is still yellow. That's going to be another. TAPPER: Yes. Yes. It's all in flux. JENNINGS: Alabama is another one. South Carolina mayor -- we will see what happens in South Carolina So the point is, this is -- and, look, don't take it for me, "Washington Post," "New York Times," the math and the map totally upended. So, just a few days ago, Republicans were in the doldrums about the midterms. Now, because of Virginia, because of the redraws after the Voting Rights Act case, you have got Republicans feeling resurgent. The map looks good. The money looks good. The candidates look good. So we actually have a real race here, where just a couple of weeks ago Republicans were in despair. BEDINGFIELD: But Republicans still have to win those seats. ASHLEY ALLISON: Yes, I mean, the political map, like, you all are cheating. OK, just accept it. JENNINGS: How is it cheating? ALLISON: Let me just finish. Let me finish. You're cheating, and because you -- politically, are not favorable right now. And so this is the only way you would actually win the House is by drawing maps. But let's say you were politically favored. The reality is, these maps, from the origin story of when Texas was being redrawn and hurting one group of voters, and that is black voters, black voters were losing power in Texas. The Voting Rights Act was gutted. In less than a week, you all took power away from black people in Tennessee and South Carolina and Louisiana. So perhaps maybe this cheating might work out in your favor. But let me tell you, there is one group of voters that will not be silenced in this moment. There is one group of voters that always have realized what that make America great was. And you have really erupted the sleeping giant that has passively been looking and seeing what this administration is doing, not even, like what I say Trump administration always does a Whac-A-Mole. They have surgically attacked black voters since day one, from cutting DEI and now to the Voting Rights Act. And I want to see what they do in November. BRAD TODD: Well, let's rewind the tape. In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is partisan and elected at the ballot box and majority Democrat, redrew Pennsylvania's map to help Democrats take over Congress in 2018. Democrats were not outraged by that. Mark Warner, who just decried this Virginia decision, the decision was written by Justice Arthur Kelsey. You know who put him on the appellate bench? Governor Mark Warner. This is selective outrage from Democrats. North Carolina has redrawn their lines about six times in the last six elections. Why? Because Democrats always go to court and always try to get new lines that are favorable to them. Sue 'til blue. That's the mantra that they use. TAPPER: Sue 'til blue? TODD: Sue 'til blue. Democrats will sue on any map until it's blue. They do their mid-decade redistricting in the courts. And we have seen it for many years. And that is what's happening here. They've gone to Utah this cycle and sued to get the map drawn for themselves. Like, partisan redistricting is a fact of life. And now... ALLISON: This isn't partisan. JENNINGS: What is it? ALLISON: Racial redistricting. TODD: On the campaign...  (CROSSTALK) ALLISON: You literally are taking Memphis, which is a city that -- with black voters, and you split it in three, stretching 3,000 miles. JENNINGS: Who's the current Democrat congressman there? What -- is it a black congressman? ALLISON: Just because -- black people are allowed to elect people that don't look like them? JENNINGS: Exactly. And that is the point I wanted you to make, because just because you're not going to have a black congressman, why is it that a Republican can't do just as well representing black voters as a Democrat? (CROSSTALK) ALLISON: Because they aren't electing... JENNINGS: Why does your race determine your politics? ALLISON: It doesn't. It doesn't. No. Just be -- you're making my point, actually. The assumption is black people... JENNINGS: I think you're making my point. ALLISON: No, no, no. The assumption is black people will only elect black people. No, black people are smart enough to elect... (CROSSTALK) ALLISON: No, let me finish. (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: Just let Ashley finish. ALLISON: Black people will elect people who will actually represent them, who have their best interests at heart. And what Republicans have done in Tennessee is dismantle the power for black people to have their voice. They did the same thing in Texas, because they said they thought Latinos were going to swing for Republicans. There are black people that are represented. I'm black and I got a Republican president right now. Black people don't elect black people based on race. They elect people that are aligned with their morals, their belief in justice, and Republicans just took that away from them in Tennessee and in other states. JENNINGS: I just disagree that the only person, the only kind of a politician who can elect black people in Congress must be a Democrat. This is just an artificial... ALLISON: That's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. (CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: ... for the Democratic Party. Black voters are still fully franchised and go vote for whoever they want. ALLISON: That's not what I'm saying. JENNINGS: It just doesn't have to be a Democrat. TAPPER: Kate. BEDINGFIELD: Well, I think, Brad, to your sue 'til blue, were Republicans not just celebrating a Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act on racial grounds, but also embraced partisan gerrymandering? That was part of the actual reasoning given behind the decision, was that districts should be drawn from a partisan perspective. (CROSSTALK) TODD: Partisan districts have always been allowed by the Supreme Court. It's always been a criteria allowed. We delegate this responsibility to the states. Now, by the way, it wasn't always the case. We used to elect some members of Congress statewide. You could go back to that if you wanted to do that right now; 1967 is the Single-Member District Act that you could repeal. But we have always allowed courts, majority liberal courts, majority conservative courts have always allowed partisanship as a criteria. TAPPER: All right, everyone stick around.

In a wildly inflammatory segment on Saturday's edition of The Weekend: Primetime, MS NOW analyst Basil Smikle declared Republican-led redistricting and other moves tantamount to “an American version of apartheid.” In his view, forbidding the use of race in redistricting is "the removal of the civic opportunity, civic engagement, for black people." Earlier in the segment, law professor James Sample admitted that the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Democrat mid-decade power grab was “probably right on the law” — before declaring it a “disaster for our democracy” anyway. Yes, really. Professor James Sample: “The decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, I think, is a disaster for our democracy. It’s probably right on the law, and it’s actually a pro-voter protection decision.” Basil Smikle: “This is going to be tantamount to an American version of apartheid… restricting black civic engagement… That to me rings very true to an American version of apartheid.” The panel then pivoted from that explosive claim to wallowing in doom and gloom, repeatedly declaring the situation “very, very grim” and suggesting Democrats have almost no legal recourse. WATCH: MS NOW Analyst: GOP Moves = 'American Version of Apartheid' pic.twitter.com/LyN9aFR8xe — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) May 10, 2026 The striking admission that the Virginia Supreme Court got the law right — combined with the immediate pivot to hysterical “apartheid” rhetoric — perfectly captures the modern Democratic/liberal media mindset. Even when the other side follows the rules and wins fairly, it’s still illegitimate, racist, and catastrophic. This is what happens when your side loses on the merits: You don’t reconsider your position. You just crank the apocalyptic language up to eleven and scream “apartheid!” The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Democrats spent months ramming through a procedurally flawed mid-decade referendum (after over a million Virginians had already voted early), and when the court correctly called them on it, the response is to compare it to the most notorious modern example of white segregation. Welcome to the resistance, 2026 edition. Note: At the end of the segment, MS NOW Republican Elise Jordan admitted that from the jump, the law was against the Virginia Democrats' attempt to push through the redistricting, but it was "a valiant effort" to motivate their base. Funny: we didn't hear much of that honesty earlier, when the Dems and the liberal media were extolling the referendum as manna from heaven! Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend: Primetime 5/9/26 6:04 pm EDT ANTONIA HYLTON: So James, you and I had a conversation the other day about all of this as I was processing these rulings in real time. You do a very good job of bringing us back down to earth. You called the Virginia decision a quote, “defensive, or defensible ruling,” an “indefensible landscape.” Break that down for me. PROFESSOR JAMES SAMPLE: What I mean by that, Antonia, is that the ruling in Virginia is defensible — and from the very beginning, as far back as October, as far back as a couple of weeks ago when the district court in Virginia came up with seven grounds on which the district court found the process problematic, I said that this one ground, the ground on which it was ultimately held to be unconstitutional under the state constitution of Virginia, was at the very least a credible — serious, non-frivolous argument. And let’s be clear, Virginia put in place state constitutional provisions that were intended to safeguard and to be structural protections that make it difficult to amend their constitution as a matter of state constitutional law. They didn’t put that in place for this, it’s been in place for decades. And the basic synopsis of why this was held to be unconstitutional under Virginia law is that in order to amend the Virginia State Constitution, you need to pass an amendment through the House of Delegates, through the Assembly. There needs to be a general election for the House of Delegates, and then it needs to pass again, so you have two different legislatures pass the same amendment. What happened here is that voters started voting for the legislature in September of 2025. Forty percent of the voters who cast a vote in the general House of Delegates election voted prior to the amendment being passed in the House of Delegates in late October. To be clear, the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, I think, is a disaster for our democracy. It’s probably right on the law, and it’s actually a pro-voter protection decision. . . .  BASIL SMIKLE: I said this when Texas entered the fray to try to do their redistricting, and I said, this is going to be tantamount to an American version of apartheid, because it’s not just about congressional seats — what the congressional seats allows states to do is then redistrict state legislative seats, city council seats, all the way down to even school board elections, right? So when you think about the removal of the civic opportunity, civic engagement, for black people, the fact that the president reclassified certain jobs where there are concentrations of women, particularly women of color, as professionals, making it difficult to get student loans, restricting now with the Supreme Court’s help, who can go to college and what colleges they can go to, and then how many hundreds of thousands of African American women lost their jobs. So there’s also an economic attack on African Americans here.  So when you put those two things together, to me it says you’re trying to, through centralized, you’re trying to centralize through our entire federal bureaucracy and have it trickle down to the states, the restriction of black civic engagement and economic, that to me rings very true to, you know, of an American version of apartheid that is not easily unshakable [sic] in the near term. AYMAN MOHYELDIN: So the question is, do the Democrats have any legal recourse here with all of this redistricting that’s taking place? They’re trying to level the playing field, or is it just gonna come down simply, at the ballot box that they’re going to have their best and final chance at regaining power? JAMES: I don’t think they have much legal recourse. They certainly don’t have legal recourse in Virginia. This is an independent and adequate state ground, which means that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t really have jurisdiction to overturn what happened.  . . .  I am less optimistic than many people. I don’t know that, I think that we could end up with sixty percent of the vote producing forty percent of the seats. Let’s be, I mean, this is very, very stark, and Antonia said I bring her down, but realistically -- SMIKLE: I agree. SAMPLE: That's what I was talking about earlier. It is not just grim, it is really, really, grim. SMIKLE: But now we're in a situation where things do look very, very grim. . . .  ELISE JORDAN: Like you said, like I think that James’s point, he’s addressing reality. The law was against them [the Virginia referendum promoters.] And it was a valiant effort, in the sense that they mobilized their supporters, they got to show the energy, and they get to see what’s there and who’s there to fight, but it just wasn’t gonna go to the finish line.

On Friday, The New York Times published what was basically a press release for ABC lawyers headlined “ABC Accuses Government of Violating First Amendment.” They accused the FCC of a “chilling effect” for daring to investigate them on equal-time grounds. That doesn’t take much of a probe. It’s obvious that show is a unanimous hootenanny dedicated to trashing Trump and the Republicans. It has zero interest in equal time as a principle. On Saturday, The Times posted a more balanced article titled “How ‘The View’ Landed at the Center of a Free Speech Battle.” Times reporter Jim Rutenberg talked to us about the show: “The View” draws 2.7 million viewers a day, more or less the audience it has had for a decade, according to Nielsen. “It would be easy for our side to say, ‘Who watches that junk?’” said Tim Graham, a senior leader of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that has long been critical of the show. “But the answer is: Many people.” We weren’t quoted talking about how the show is a feverish anti-Trump mess with no pushback. There’s no opposing view even saying “I’m not sure Trump is Hitler.” Instead, The Times asserted “The show’s panel has long included a conservative presence to balance the progressivism of its longstanding hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.” In reality, the most adversarial co-host was Meghan McCain, and they viciously drove her off the set. The Times cited our study as they acknowledged current reality: The two Republicans on the panel — a first-term Trump spokeswoman, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and the longtime strategist Ana Navarro — are frequent Trump critics. And the anti-Trump critics are even tougher. Conservatives accuse the show of interviewing mostly Democrats. This spring, the Media Research Center released a report titled, “The View Kicks Off Midterm Year With 27 Liberal Guests to 1 Republican.” (The study included celebrities in its tally.) In its filing with the F.C.C., ABC noted that guest appearances did not reflect the full range of invitations. The network said the show had invited numerous Trump allies over the past two seasons, including Vice President JD Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Lindsey Graham, Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — all of whom declined. This doesn't include the point we made to them -- that we only count liberal celebrities if they are making political comments. In our last study, we didn't count Robert DeNiro, since politics didn't come up in his interview. But it's a classic defense to say Trump administration figures declined interviews. That doesn't mean you can't find conservative pushback all over the place, and we have certainly volunteered to appear.  The Times repeated the ABC lawyers.  “Of course, government officials are free to express their own views about The View,” ABC’s lawyers said in the filing. “But they cannot utilize the coercive powers of the state to punish viewpoints with which they disagree.” Merely investigating this program's contents is not "coercive" or punitive. It's ABC that punishes dissenting viewpoints. The View suggested conservatives usually don’t live up to their “certain caliber of guest.”  These people often don't live up to being serious. The Times could have included Nick Fondacaro's routine findings that the show unloads crazy disinformation, like Whoopi Goldberg claiming racists are still siccing dogs on black voters at polls in the South, or their ravings that Donald Trump is going to cancel elections and refuse to leave the White House.  Liberal journalists were fine with Big Tech banning Donald Trump accounts for "disinformation," and none of them found First Amendment lawyers to scream "chilling effect." They were fine with the Biden administration censoring opposing views all over the place, even creating a "Disinformation Governance Board." They're only free-speech warriors for their own speech. 

It's become all too predictable over the past two plus months, since the start of the Iran War, tune into the liberal media and watch as Donald Trump, the United States, and Israel are presented as the bad guys, while our enemy Iran, is given a pass. Friday on Fox News's The Five, token liberal Jessica Tarlov followed that script, and she was called out hard by Jesse Watters. The segment began with a clip of Kamala Harris ripping President Trump, using the word, "Bull****". HARRIS CLIP: When you look at this war in Iran which the American people do not want, which was not authorized by Congress, but even if it was, it should not have been initiated. He talked about obliterating, and then he said oh he didn't. It's all just [bleep].... I'm not going to dismiss him as being an idiot. He is dangerous. I guess she would know if he were an idiot. Kayleigh McEnany then pointed out the hypocrisy in Harris's statement, before Tarlov came to Harris's defense. McENANY: In an October 2024 60 Minutes interview, Kamala Harris was asked who the greatest adversary to the world was and she said Iran. And now it's just BS. TARLOV: No, the way Donald Trump is going about taking away Iran's nuclear capacity, which we haven't seen that come to fruition is what she's saying is B.S. Not that Iran isn't a real threat. Everyone knows Iran is a real threat. They have been for 47 years. We know that Netanyahu pitched the same war to Joe Biden and Barack Obama and he only got Donald Trump to bite.. That's what she's  saying here. No, in fact Harris said absolutely none of what Tarlov claimed she said in that clip. Then came her obligatory Trump bashing. TARLOV: The idea that we are in the midst of a ceasefire because it's just a love tap isn't backed up by reality. Iran says we are not in a ceasefire and it does take two to tango with a ceasefire.... And now apparently we may get a 30-day pause so that we can hopefully get a bigger deal. I hope that that's the case. We hear from our administration, Iran, they're on the back foot, all this economic sanctions are being totally crushed. They are going to fall tomorrow, no, the next day, the next day. Now there is a new CIA report  that Iran could survive a naval blockade for three to four months....They have dug in....We know that China can prop them up. They can certainly give them the money they need to keep surviving here....I hope we get a compromise.... But the imminent collapse of Iran that we were promised, has not come to fruition. Tarlov's source for the CIA report was apparently The Washington Post. When Watters had his turn, he challenged her point by point. WATTERS: Jessica says China's gonna give them money. How, Jessica? There's a blockade, you can't get anything in or out. It is a fragile ceasefire but we are going to defend ourselves.... The New York Times is reporting they're leaking oil all over the Strait. It's an environmental catastrophe. Where's Al Gore? Isn't it funny, you don't hear any Democrats complaining about Iran. You listen to Jessica and she doesn't say anything about Iran. All talk's about how  Donald Trump's the bad guy here. They're slaughtering women, they're polluting the Strait. They have blocked the Strait which has caused energy prices to rise, and they are lobbing missiles at civilian targets, and they're always like "Donald Trump this, Donald Trump that." Last week it was this war cost too much. They said it was $25 billion. Guess what, we just sold $25 billion of weapons our allies....Read the news Jessica, 25 billion. Tarlov's response was pathetic. TARLOV: That doesn't include the repairs that we have to make to all of the equipment that they destroyed. WATTERS: You also said that we're running out of missiles. How we're running out of missiles if we are selling all of the missiles to our friends in the Middle East? Another leak from the CIA, anonymous sources during the Trump administration. Iran has 75% of their missile still. Really? We're still going to buy anonymous leaks from the CIA deep state to hurt Trump? They have four to six months left. Really? Tarlov protecting Harris, bashing Trump, ignoring Iran's atrocities -- nothing new to see here from Tarlov.