National “Public” Radio has existed for more than 50 years as a publicity organ for the Democrats, and for the last ten or eleven, it’s certainly been Red Hot Anti-Trump Radio. MS NOW pundit Andrew Weissman – Robert Mueller’s deputy in the Russian collusion probe – was granted an hour of book publicity on the talk show Fresh Air on May 20. We’ve established that Fresh Air pretty much never grants any national publicity to conservative journalists or authors, but loves promoting Trump-trashing products. You could hear this from the get-go with NPR host Terry Gross: TERRY GROSS: Why can't you sue a president or a presidential candidate who knowingly lies to the public? After all, corporate executives can be sued for lying to shareholders. This question about our inability to legally hold politicians accountable for their speech, the threats that poses to our democracy and what we can learn from how other countries deal with these lies are the subjects of my guest Andrew Weissmann's new book Liar's Kingdom: How To Stop Trump's Deceit And Save America. During Trump's first term, The Washington Post tabulated over 30,000 false or misleading Trump public statements. Andrew Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether the Russians colluded with candidate Donald Trump and his campaign. Gross wasn't going to mention that Post "fact checker" Glenn Kessler abruptly stopped counting allegedly false statements by presidents when Joe Biden came in. Democrats apparently never lie, and the prospect of suing a sitting president for lying only applies to Republicans in the leftist bubble of NPR.  This was the only mention of Russia. There were no questions about Weissman failing to get Trump, or Robert Mueller's Bidenesque feebleness when he testified after the Mueller Report came out. Fresh Air also promoted Weissman's book about the Mueller probe back in 2020, and that transcript reads like Weissman wrote all the questions himself.  No, this was just organized publicity. Here's where Gross really let her hatred flow late in the hour:  GROSS: What are your concerns about if there's an authoritarian president and if Congress is going with an authoritarian president's wishes, and a lot of the courts, as well as a majority of the Supreme Court, seem to often take a cue from the authoritarian president or at least seem to agree with the authoritarian president -- how the laws you suggested could still be abused? WEISSMANN: There is the potential for abuse. And there's no doubt that if there is some weapon lying about, like a Chekhov gun, that Donald Trump or people like him will be tempted to use it. We are witnessing, in my view, a series of retributive indictments and the weaponization of the Department of Justice in the grossest way. And just to be clear, Terry, as you noted, I've worked in the Department of Justice for 21 years with Republican and Democratic administrations, and I've never seen that in any of those administrations. There just wasn't that -- directives coming from the White House to the Department of Justice. Oh, sure. They never weaponized or abused the DOJ under Clinton, or Obama, and certainly not the Biden DOJ going after Trump. This is the easiest way to establish a network is a Democrat Party echo. Gross's question neatly matched the Weissman book blurb by PBS omnipresence Ken Burns, another Democrat warrior:  "Though they thought constantly of posterity, our founders could not have imagined the assault on our founding principles that we find ourselves mired in today—the legislative and judicial branches subservient to an aggressively authoritarian executive. Fortunately, we have Andrew Weissmann to illuminate these dark times and to offer a roadmap back to sanity, a reinvestment in our age-old principles and a return to virtue." ―Ken Burns, filmmaker

Beware the Left when they start remembering when there was only "a handful of media outlets out there" that could control the public conversation, keep it within their comfort zone.  On her Friday afternoon show, MS NOW host Katy Tur longed for the days when the liberal elite media had a monopoly on fact-checking politicians as she spoke with MS NOW legal analyst Andrew Weissmann about his new anti-Trump book, Liar's Kingdom. The segment ignored the liberal media's history of neglecting to factcheck Democrats as the two focused on President Donald Trump and his supporters as the two conversed about how best to hold politicians accountable for deceiving the public. Setting up the discussion, the MS NOW host posed: Katy Tur Laments Legacy Media No Longer Have Monopoly on Factchecking pic.twitter.com/yGQ88kskA1 — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) May 24, 2026 And you're talking about something that we're really vulnerable to. And I don't know what the solution is. Part of the free speech in this country is that anyone can say anything, and that includes, to our dismay, our officials and the President of the United States. Tell me how he's using that and why it is so detrimental. After Weissmann cited examples of legal actions being taken against Trump supporters like Rudy Giuliani and Paul Manafort on some issues, he lamented that, unlike other countries, there are not always enough legal actions that can be taken on other cases of deception. Tur followed up: So what do you think it is? Is it that we were more idealistic when we founded this nation? The idea that we would have leaders that weren't -- they weren't corrupt kings or queens? We didn't have the history of that here. We were coming in, we were going to create something fresh and new, and the people that lead this country are going to be better than the old world? Is that part of the reason why we don't have it? After noting that politicians are reluctant to regulate themselves, Weissmann then complained that there are too many alternative media sources: ... the world of the media has changed so much, and it's so balkanized that the old view, which was, "Don't worry, a false statement will be corrected by a truthful statement and it will come out in the wash" -- we are seeing that there's so many media bubbles that that idea isn't something that we really can live bit -- live by now. Tur voiced agreement as she pined for the days when there were fewer news sources: Yeah. Part of the benefit of having gatekeepers and there's all sorts of benefits -- and there's pros and cons here -- but part of the benefit of having the gatekeepers and only a handful of media outlets out there was that you -- politicians were held accountable for their public statements. They couldn't just do an end run around us on social media or Twitter, and then have that amplified by their own supporters masquerading as -- as journalists. We've lost that, unfortunately. Weissmann concluded by warning that something must be done as he predicted that other politicians will emulate Trump in the future. Transcript follows: MS NOW's Katy Tur Reports May 22, 2026 2:34 p.m. Eastern KATY TUR: All right, Andrew Weissmann, you have a new book out. Let's discuss it. And you're talking about something that we're really vulnerable to. And I don't know what the solution is. Part of the free speech in this country is that anyone can say anything, and that includes, to our dismay, our officials and the President of the United States. Tell me how he's using that and why it is so detrimental. ANDREW WEISSMANN, MS NOW LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. So what I was looking at is this issue of why it is that we penalize some speech and not others. So political speech -- you are absolutely right -- we do not regulate that in a civil way or a criminal way. But let me just go over the ways, just really quickly, that we actually don't just say all speech is fine. If there is false speech -- not opinions, but false factual speech, you can be charged criminally and civilly in a whole variety of circumstances. I prosecuted Enron officials. The leaders of Enron made false statements about the Enron health of the company. They were charged criminally for that, and they were sued civilly. Roger Stone lied to Congress. Paul Manafort admitted that he lied to banks and to FBI agents, among others. Roger -- Roger Stone, as I said, pled -- was found guilty lying. Rudy Giuliani was found liable for defaming Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss -- a false statement. E. Jean Carroll proved that our current sitting President defamed her, and that was found by a jury. So there's all ways that we say that kind of false speech, if found and after due process, is not protected by the First Amendment. And the question I had was: Why is it when -- let's just take the -- what I think is a big lie, which is that there was material fraud in the 2020 election, that there is no legal repercussions. And I sort of looked at the law here, and then I looked at law overseas to see how do other countries deal with that and found, remarkably, Brazil deals with it, England deals with it, France deals with it. Even some of the states in the United States deal with that issue. And so that's sort of the thesis of what I was addressing in this book. TUR: So what do you think it is? Is it that we were more idealistic when we founded this nation? The idea that we would have leaders that weren't -- they weren't corrupt kings or queens? We didn't have the history of that here. We were coming in, we were going to create something fresh and new, and the people that lead this country are going to be better than the old world? Is that part of the reason why we don't have it? WEISSMANN: You know, I think some of the reason that it could be -- I think some of it also was that the people who would make the laws are politicians, so they would be applying the law to themselves as opposed to drug makers and businessmen. And, as opposed to lying to Congress -- that's a crime -- but lying by Congress, that's not a crime. The other is that the world of the media -- and here, you know, it's odd that I'm telling you this, but, as you know, the world of the media has changed so much, and it's so balkanized that the old view, which was, "Don't worry, a false statement will be corrected by a truthful statement and it will come out in the wash" -- we are seeing that there's so many media bubbles that that idea isn't something that we really can live bit -- live by now. TUR: Yeah. Part of the benefit of having gatekeepers and there's all sorts of benefits -- and there's pros and cons here -- but part of the benefit of having the gatekeepers and only a handful of media outlets out there was that you -- politicians were held accountable for their public statements. They couldn't just do an end run around us on social media or Twitter, and then have that amplified by their own supporters masquerading as -- as journalists. We've lost that, unfortunately. So is there a fix? I mean, you're talking about how politicians have to be the ones to institute this. We're still in that same boat. Is Donald Trump so egregious that -- that we're -- we could be on the verge of politicians holding themselves accountable? WEISSMANN: Well, so, you know, that is a great question about whether there will be action taken. Where I am most hopeful is at the state level because when you look at what is happening in most of the states of this union, is they have taken action. So I'm from New York. In New York -- do you know -- if you are found guilty of any crime, any felony at all, you are automatically removed from public office, whether elected or not. There -- there are a whole variety of state laws that try to start addressing this issue. I am hopeful that what I'm thinking about is not what's going to happen now, because if you told me, you know, "Is Congress now going to do that?" there's no way. But we are going to have to deal with this in the 250th anniversary of our country. We are not going to be in a position where, even if Donald Trump were not the President tomorrow, there will be many, many people who emulate his style and the success of how he has spoken to the public. And so I really think even if people don't agree with this idea that we have got to think our way out of this because we're in deep trouble, and there are real models for us overseas and at the state level as to how we might be able to resurrect and sort of have to take the intelligence community phrase to harden the target so that our democracy withstands the sort of assault of authoritarianism for another 250 years. TUR: Andrew Weissmann, the book is called Liars Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. Good read. Thank you very much -- necessary read -- Andrew, for being here. Appreciate it.

On a day when Americans traditionally pause to honor the brave service members who made the ultimate sacrifice, MS NOW opted for a different approach: publishing an opinion piece accusing the U.S. military of wrongdoing in the ongoing conflict with Iran. In her Memorial Day article entitled "The Pentagon can honor our military dead this Memorial Day by committing to fight the right way," retired Air Force Lt. Col. and MS NOW contributor Rachel E. VanLandingham argues that the best way for the Pentagon to honor fallen troops is by “owning the mistakes” that have killed Iranian civilians, restoring the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response program allegedly dismantled under the Trump administration, and launching transparent investigations into U.S. strikes. VanLandingham highlights incidents such as a U.S. strike that reportedly killed nearly 200 Iranian schoolgirls and teachers, along with damage to approximately 22 schools and medical facilities. She criticizes the lack of formal U.S. acknowledgment, explanation, or apology for certain events, while citing estimates of over 1,700 Iranian civilian casualties. Notably absent is significant emphasis on American troops who have been killed and wounded in the Iran conflict. VanLandingham is no neutral military analyst. She has repeatedly and sharply attacked President Trump on military policy, rhetoric, and interpretations of international law. She has argued that Trump’s threats of “indiscriminate attacks” and bombing civilian infrastructure in Iran — such as power plants and bridges — could constitute war crimes under international and U.S. law. She has claimed such rhetoric creates a dangerous “stretching effect” in identifying lawful military objectives and increases civilian suffering. VanLandingham has also criticized Trump’s pardons of military personnel accused or convicted of war crimes, saying they dangerously intensify national misunderstanding of the laws of war. She has co-authored pieces protesting what she described as Trump’s “initial assault on the role and rule of law in the military,” including the firing of senior military officers. She has characterized Trump as employing "classic fascist strategy” to consolidate power through extreme nationalism by pitting the military against Americans. VanLandingham has discussed the ethical dilemma she believes Trump places on U.S. officers — forcing them to choose between disobeying orders or committing war crimes. She has also called “Trump’s War” in Iran unlawful and unconstitutional from its inception due to the lack of congressional authorization. This Memorial Day piece fits squarely into VanLandingham’s consistent pattern of using her platform to warn against the supposed dangers of Trump’s leadership over the military. Traditional Memorial Day observances focus on gratitude for American sacrifice — not litigating civilian casualties on the enemy side while downplaying U.S. losses. MS NOW’s decision to run this piece on the holiday itself underscores a persistent editorial priority: framing Trump-era military actions through a lens of alleged wrongdoing rather than remembrance and support for the troops.

The Friday night Week In Politics segment of the PBS News Hour is almost always focused on blasting Trump, week after week. So it was shocking when they took up the DNC “autopsy” of their 2024 losses, allowing MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart to lecture Democrats to stop internal fighting…minutes after he mocked the Republican resistance to Trump as a “one-cell organism.” WILLIAM BRANGHAM, host: We also saw this week this very ham-handed release of the DNC's autopsy. This is basically an unfinished document that -- I mean, if a high school or college student had submitted this thing, you would give them an F if you were feeling generous. What does this tell you about the Democratic Party? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, what this tells you is why the Democratic chairman didn't want to release it. I just called it a trash can of warmed-over conclusions with none of the introspection of, say, the autopsy of 2012 when Mitt Romney lost to President Obama. Recall that Donald Trump won in 2016 by ignoring the general conclusion of the 2012 RNC report, that the GOP had to work harder to appeal to minority voters, for example. Then came the lecture: PBS News Hour surprisingly asked Jonny Capehart about the DNC's awful autopsy, and he lectured Democrats to stop internal fighting…minutes after he mocked GOP resistance to Trump as a “one-cell organism.” They root for internal warfare among Republicans, and discourage it in… pic.twitter.com/0HxH19zI4Y — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 25, 2026 CAPEHART: I think right now what Democrats need to do is stop with the fighting with each other, looking at this at this terrible -- whatever this is, this autopsy, such as it is, focus on the here and now. And what the leadership of the Democratic Party should be doing is figuring out how to channel the anger, the palpable anger among Democrats into what their priorities are going to be if they take back the House and maybe even if they take back the Senate, and then how they're going to drive that to '28. PBS also interviewed former Bernie Sanders strategist Faiz Shakir on Thursday’s News Hour, but it had that sound of two Democrats hashing out how to fix things. Bennett introduced him as "our friend." Shakir talked about the need for “hard conversations,” but they weren’t having them. Bennett opened by noting this report “does not mention Mr. Biden's age or the war in Gaza and how opposition to it may have depressed Democratic enthusiasm,” but they didn’t discuss Biden scandals or Harris failures or leftist extremism turning voters to back Trump. Bennett's questions were just conversation starters:  PBS anchor Geoff Bennett asked leftist Dem strategist Faiz Shakir friendly questions about the awful autopsy by the DNC, such as: "Is part of the problem here that Democrats are facing a Republican Party that rewards power and grievance and not traditional policy arguments?" pic.twitter.com/wzOISAshdL — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 25, 2026 There's a striking line in this report suggesting that Democrats became too dependent on what is called in this report negative partisanship, essentially asking voters to fear Republicans rather than believe in Democrats. Is that a fair criticism? ….Kamala Harris could not be accused, though, of not having policy prescriptions. I mean, it is part of the problem here that Democrats are facing a Republican Party that rewards power and grievance and not traditional policy arguments? ….But how do Democrats move forward from here? And frankly, do they need a DNC, a strong DNC to win the presidency? The DNC -- Barack Obama didn't rely on the DNC much at all. Naturally, a socialist is going to advocate more socialism a la Mamdani as the winning formula against what he called the "Epstein class":  SHAKIR: The way you choose to decide what are your values, what you care about is when you say to Jeff Bezos, we're going to tax the rich. And then Jeff Bezos gets very angry and upset about it. [As if Bezos doesn't pay billions in taxes.] And you see what's going on with Zohran Mamdani in New York City. Why is his popularity increasing? Because he is comfortable in the friction. He is saying, here's a vision. Here's how we can increase taxation. Here's how we can provide childcare. Yes, some people can take me on. But are you with me or are you with the corrupt class? And that is a kind of a leadership that I think we need more of across the country.

The Elitist Media don’t often pass up on an opportunity to convey their disappointment in the American people, which is part of what makes them the Elitist Media. Memorial Day is no different, as CBS’s Margaret Brennan closes out an interview of two Medal of Honor recipients by trying to get them to bash America. But our heroes rebuff this weak enticement, and instead offer a glimpse of the kind of character our nation needs to see more of: WATCH: CBS's Margaret Brennan tries to goad two Medal of Honor recipients into bashing America, gets rebuffed MARGARET BRENNAN: And before I let you go, we are coming up on this 250th anniversary of the American experience. I know I can't ask you a question like, are you… pic.twitter.com/X24S8YWmmc — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 24, 2026 MARGARET BRENNAN: And before I let you go, we are coming up on this 250th anniversary of the American experience. I know I can't ask you a question like, are you optimistic? There's no way that two Medal of Honor winners could say they're not optimistic. So what specifically makes you optimistic? Because this country, at times, can feel dark, these days, there's a lot of darkness. What makes you feel optimistic? WILL SWENSON: Well, ultimately, because we're in Washington, D.C., and everything revolves around politics, we have to remember that politics aren't everything. American lives continue on. Children are born, children go to school. Lives are achieved. Dreams are achieved. This country is a great place. It's not politics. It's not just what's the news bites coming off of media. Ultimately, we continue forward as a country, continually imperfect, continually evolving forward, always trying to achieve a more perfect union. That's what's important to remember, what we can achieve aspirationally. No other place in history, time or on this planet have ever gotten to where we are today. We need to be proud of that, and we need to remember that is what we stay focused on, what we can be.  BRENNAN: What we can be, and the promise of it. What makes you optimistic? MATT WILLIAMS: You know, I agree with Will. I think, you know, it's- it's so important to remember who we are as a country, and take an opportunity to celebrate that, and think about all the- the challenges that we've overcome, how far we've actually come. You know, I think if you- if you frame it that way, you think very deeply about our trials and tribulations from beginning to today, we've made tremendous strides. Our country is, you know, we're a super- global superpower. Our economy is doing well. All those things are great. And- and take politics aside out of this whole conversation. Just talk about our communities, that- that we live in, and the people that you surround yourself with, and your families, and the opportunity to be free and, you know, choose what school you go to, and where you want to live and do what you want to do, and what career path you go down or don't if you want to, you know, I mean, there's so much to be positive about. And I think the opportunity to celebrate America's 250th birthday, you know, over the course of this next year is- is amazing. There's so many great places to visit. You know, the National Mall is going to be full of Americana. And what we're going to- celebrating ourselves, which I think we should take the time to do. I think it's very important. You know, across the country, you know something we're very passionate about at the National Medal of Honor Museum in Arlington, Texas, is- is a- is a phenomenal beacon that stands to- to talk about and house our, not only our story, the story of the Medal, and what the Medal represents itself. And I would challenge people to go there and celebrate our history as well. You know, it's so important. There's so many great things to go do and great things to visit and don't just take part in it, because it's something to do on a weekend, right? Think about why you're doing it, and when you're there in the crowds and you're- you're enjoying yourself, and you're taking your family to go talk about our country and celebrate our country, actually celebrate it. Be grateful for what you've got and the opportunity that was provided for you. If you do that, I don't see how you can't be optimistic about our future. BRENNAN: Well, thank you. Thank you both, and thank you for your service. WILLIAMS: Thank you. BRENNAN: We'll be back. “Politics aren’t everything,” isn’t that the truth. Much-needed perspective from Lt. Colonel (RET) Will Swenson, who instead appealed to the greatness of our country. Swenson gave a powerful reminder that, warts and all, America is the greatest country in the world. Command Sergeant Major (RET) Matthew Williams offered an equally eloquent response, reinforcing the idea of America as a land of opportunity and freedom. Likewise, Williams made a call to celebrate our nation’s history. America has always seen her fair share of turbulence, going back to the Founding. And at each and every stage of our history, there have been heroes that have stepped up above and beyond the call of duty. Some, as noted by President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, giving “their last full measure of devotion” to the defense and preservation of our fundamental freedoms.  Brennan’s evocation of dark times fails to take this into account, which is why it was so dissonant. Our patriots were right to shut it down.