What do you get when a “No Kings” rally meets an aging, TDS-laden rock star? A sweaty Bruce “Screamsteen” delivering a teleprompter-fueled rant at Nationals Park in the nation's capital on May 27, while posing as a moral crusader. Only it was giving less, “I have a dream,” by a respected leader preaching against injustice and more, “I have a grievance list,” by a multimillionaire railing against the rich. The entire “Land of Hope and Dreams” tour exists because Trump lives rent-free in the Boss’s head. Springsteen declared himself the “cavalry” riding to save America from “dark, disturbing and dangerous times” and a “wannabe king” who is attacking freedom, democracy and the constitution. Sure, Jan. In DC, which was the last stop of the tour, the 76-year-old wasted no time calling Trump “racist, incompetent, and treasonous” before he even sang the first song. He later launched into a roughly six-minute rant recycling every leftist talking point.

Saturday's episode of The Weekend: Primetime on MS NOW pretended to present a balanced discussion between a Republican and a Democrat strategist in cowboy hats about the Texas Senate race between James Talarico and Ken Paxton. Co-host Elise Jordan introduced one of the guests this way: “Joining us now is Mark McKinnon, former advisor to George W. Bush and John McCain… Mark, you have a long career advising Republicans in Texas.” In reality, McKinnon’s Republican credentials are extremely thin and dated. His last significant Republican work was on John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, which he quit because he wanted Barack Obama to win, saying Obama’s election “would send a great message to the country and the world.” Rather than a "long career" advising Republicans, McKinnon has a far longer history working for Democrats, including Ann Richards, Lloyd Doggett, and others. During the segment, McKinnon made a point of saying he and [fellow] Democrat strategist Chuck Rocha “worked for the last Democratic governor, Ann Richards,” before he “crossed the bridge with George W.” McKinnon clearly enunciated “Democratic governor Ann Richards,” but then noticeably stumbled and failed to complete “Bush” at all, trailing off after “George W.” Both McKinnon and Rocha proceeded to bash Ken Paxton and express strong optimism about Democrat James Talarico’s chances, with McKinnon declaring it a “perfect storm” for Democrats in Texas. MS NOW’s Phony 'Balance': Passes Off Mark McKinnon as a Republican Strategist pic.twitter.com/fPnpnEs7ms — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) May 31, 2026 Rocha claimed that whereas the Republican strategy is to divide people, “James Talarico’s whole campaign is about bringing people together.” Ya mean, like all six genders? Passing off McKinnon as a Republican was as phony as his cowboy hat. MS NOW presented viewers with what was essentially a conversation between two left-leaning voices while dressing it up as a balanced “Republican vs. Democrat” discussion. Here's the transcript. MS NOWThe Weekend: Primetime 5/30/26 7:00 pm EDT ELISE JORDAN: Welcome back to The Weekend: Primetime. It's a hundred and fifty-seven days to the midterms, and one of the most closely watched races of this cycle is certain to be the high-stakes face-off between James Talarico and Ken Paxton, which could determine control of the Senate. And that Texas showdown is the subject of tonight's Primetime focus. Republican Ken Paxton survived almost everything politics can throw at a person, from his own doing, but now his own party is asking, can he survive a general election? The scandal-plagued Texas Attorney General defeated four-term incumbent John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary, knocking out one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington with the help of a critical endorsement from President Trump.  Here's everything Paxton has survived to get to this point. First, felony security fraud charges indicted in 2015, charges were later dropped. An FBI investigation into bribery and abuse of office, no charges were brought. His own senior aides reporting him to federal investigators, impeached by his own party in the Texas House, but later acquitted by the Senate. His wife filing for divorce on, quote, "biblical grounds," and a settlement requiring him to pay nearly three hundred thousand dollars in restitution. Now Republicans have to decide that they keep spending heavily to defend Texas, a state that hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate in thirty years, and concede other battleground states like North Carolina, maybe Georgia. Joining us now is Mark McKinnon, former advisor to George W. Bush and John McCain, and Chuck Rocha, Democratic strategist and senior advisor to the James Talarico campaign. So, Mark, you have a long career advising Republicans in Texas, and when you saw Paxton — his win and the margin on Tuesday night, what was your first reaction about how this is going to play out? MARK MCKINNON: Well, my first reaction is that it's the worst possible outcome for Republicans. John Cornyn was a long-standing, respected, Republican senator who had been attorney general, on the Supreme Court, and he was right out of central casting if he'd been nominated, Republicans could have spent money on races that are much more needed.  I mean, the fact that a Republican Senate race is competitive in Texas at all is — it tells you a lot because the last time a Democrat won the Senate seat was 1988. Chuck and I worked for the last Democratic governor, Ann Richards, before I crossed the bridge with George W. --.  But there's just no question that this is gonna be a very tough race for Paxton, and given what we saw in 2018, I'm usually one who taps the brakes, but that Beto race was close, three points. I think that now Talarico's already polling better than Paxton, so, again, I've always been the one to tap the brakes, but I'm saying this is a perfect storm lining up for Democrats. CATHERINE RAMPELL: Chuck, before I ask you my actual question, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the two of you have definitely raised the bar for headwear on our show. PABLO TORRE: Yeah, I feel naked right now. RAMPELL: All of us should have worn our matching hats. We'll coordinate for the next show.[laughter and brief banter about But the actual question for you is about how you think the Republican party is going to potentially message around this, let's say, flawed candidate? CHUCK ROCHA: There's gonna be a real big contrast, and thank you for the compliment on the brand-new straw cowboy hat I got at Cavender's today. I'm in Austin, doing some work. But there's two big differences. One is, the Republicans are gonna run on division. You have a party saying they want to separate people, and not talk about the economy. They want to talk about this social issue. They want to take a comment out of context. They want to splice things together. They want to make James Talarico be non-Texan. While James Talarico wants to bring people together. To my good friend Mark's point: even Republicans, independents, Latinos, who are normally drop-off voters in an off year. James Talarico's whole campaign is about bringing people together.

After much hype centered around her handling of questions about President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, CBS Sunday Morning aired its interview with former First Lady Jill Biden. This was a bifurcated airing, with part running over the air and another online. Here are some if its interesting moments. Here’s Jill Biden discussing her role as First Lady. A more inquisitive interviewer would’ve brought up the comparisons to Edith Wilson, given President Biden’s obvious decline. No such followup here. WATCH: Jill Biden on her role as First Lady which, given Joe's obvious cognitive decline, was thought of to be something similar to Edith Wilson. She affirms she gave input, but Joe made the final calls. RITA BRAVER: You also say, um. You have been accused of either having been… pic.twitter.com/FWjY6ot7wS — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 31, 2026 RITA BRAVER: You also say, um. You have been accused of either having been too involved in your husband's presidency or too hands off. Why? JILL BIDEN: Well, I think, uh, toward the end, I think people, uh, pushed me to take more of a role to, um, get Joe to step down. But Rita, it was always Joe's decision. I mean, he had to make those decisions. He had to make the decision to run or not to run, um, so, but people thought, well, you need to say this or you need to say that, no. You know, Joe, Joe and I discussed probably everything, but in the end, on those matters, he was the one to make the decision. BRAVER: Um, so what did you see as your role in the administration? BIDEN: Uh, oh, my role. Oh my gosh. I guess my role was um- I saw myself really as the American woman in that I was working full time. I'm the first-First Lady to have a, a paying job outside The White House…  BRAVER: Outside the White House,. BIDEN: …and I taught, uh, English at a community college and, um, which I loved, and then I had my role as First Lady, so, uh, I guess it was just trying to, I don't know, balance it all. The conversation would shift to the downturn Biden’s approval within months of his taking office. The big catalyst for this was the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Real Clear Polling average had Biden at 50% until about two weeks before the ISIS-K terror attack at Hamid Karzai International Airport. Jill Biden blames the downturn on a lack of civility. WATCH: Jill Biden blames a lack of civility within the Republican Congress for the crash in Joe's approval- as opposed to the disastrous Afghanistan pullout. RITA BRAVER: You talked about many of your husband's successes, the Build Back Better, um, passing the first, uh, major… pic.twitter.com/PPOQGv8ouW — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 31, 2026 RITA BRAVER: You talked about many of your husband's successes, the Build Back Better, um, passing the first, uh, major gun legislation in 30 years. Um, you also say “when Joe and I moved into the White House in January 2021, it felt as if though we had the wind at our back, and then within a few months the wind shifted.” There were lots of things that happened in that time. There was Afghanistan, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and why do you think it shifted? JILL BIDEN: Because of the reasons you just named. BRAVER: Also, was there a shift in Congress, do you think? BIDEN: Oh my gosh, yes, I mean we had, you know, a Republican Congress and um, well, it was, let's just say- when Joe started in politics, all during his Senate years and even some into the vice presidency, Republicans and Democrats respected one another. You know, yes, they had differences of opinion, but they never let it get personal. There were never personal attacks on one another, and I think that's a big change of, you know, what we see today where it's so personal and so mean and vindictive a lot of times and- and why is that necessary? I- I didn't grow up like that. Joe didn't grow up like that, um. You know, these are the people we elected, and I think um there has to be more civility. The interview was little more than book promotion fluff, and it shows here. One immediately recalls the slew of Biden speeches wherein he declared half the country to be enemies of Democracy™, and the civility take merited such a follow-up. Next, Jill Biden claims she had to walk out of the room as Vice President Kamala Harris pressed Joe to give her his endorsement after dropping out of the 2024 presidential race. WATCH: Jill Biden says she had to walk out of the room after Kamala Harris pressured Joe Biden to endorse her immediately after dropping out of the 2024 presidential race RITA BRAVER: So he decided that it was- he was going to drop out. JILL BIDEN: That’s right. BRAVER: It… pic.twitter.com/4bbjIN6gmd — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2026 RITA BRAVER: So he decided that it was- he was going to drop out.  JILL BIDEN: That’s right.  BRAVER: It was Sunday, July 21st, 2024. Before your husband made the announcement. he called Vice President Harris to tell her what he had decided, and you said almost as soon as he gave her the news, she demanded that he endorse her right away, and he- he, I mean, did you think something was off about that? BIDEN: You know, I'm sure she thought about it. You know it wasn't like a call out of the blue. I'm sure with everything happening at that time it had to cross her mind so I think, um, I think that's what- BRAVER: When you said it was back and forth because she wanted him, um, to endorse her at the same time he announced that he was dropping out and he wanted to just make the announcement of the dropout first, right? BIDEN: Oh yeah, sure. BRAVER: And you said you even walked out of the room because it was- got too tense maybe? BIDEN: Well, it was just, I'm telling you, it was so hard. I mean this is what Joe had worked for all his life. He loved being a statesman. Um, he loved the job of helping the American people and to give it up. I mean Rita, he did it for over 50 years of his life. That's a long time. And so at some point when all of this is going on. It gets a little overwhelming, and yes, I had to walk out. Moving to the broadcast portion, it began with a question on the change of pace going from Washington to Wilmington, and Dr. Jill claiming White House medical team missed President Biden’s cancer diagnosis. WATCH: Jill Biden blames The White House's medical team for missing Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis RITA BRAVER: So is it a big change? You were in The White House and you are living kind of a quiet life in Delaware? JILL BIDEN: Well, it's not exactly a quiet life. I mean, we are… pic.twitter.com/khvdCKizAx — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2026 RITA BRAVER: So is it a big change? You were in The White House and you are living kind of a quiet life in Delaware? JILL BIDEN: Well, it's not exactly a quiet life. I mean, we are still doing a lot of things, writing, traveling, speaking. But then we come home and this is our peaceful place, let's put it that way. BRAVER: But there has not been a lot of peace for the Bidens.  Just four months after leaving office, President Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of stage four prostate cancer that had traveled to his bones. BIDEN: Yes. BRAVER: How is the president doing now? BIDEN: He is doing well. But it was a shock. I mean, Rita, honestly, I can remember getting the diagnosis, and it was just, it was shocking. BRAVER: Do you think that someone, when he was in The White House, should have discovered it, given him a test? BIDEN: Well, you know, the doctors said that according to the American Urological Association, that men over 70 don't need a PSA, a blood blood test anymore because it's a slow-growing cancer. I have to say, Rita, I do feel we had amazing care in The White House, but somehow that was missed. BRAVER: So you're a little bit tense when it comes to his health, huh? BIDEN: I don’t know if the word is “tense”, but I’m vigilant. Next, comes the cognitive decline portion of the interview. Watch as Braver takes her first two passes at the question: WATCH: Jill Biden offers four denials and two deflections on the cognitive decline portion of her interview that aired on TV RITA BRAVER: But there is another essential question that many Americans have about President Biden's mental health when he was in The White House. Did… pic.twitter.com/YTOtVv4AE7 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2026 RITA BRAVER: But there is another essential question that many Americans have about President Biden's mental health when he was in The White House.  Did you ever see signs that he was falling into cognitive decline? JILL BIDEN: No. BRAVER: No.  BIDEN: No.  BRAVER: Truly. BIDEN: No. BRAVER: I mean, I have spoken to many people who saw the president, especially during the last two years of his term, and they said they thought he was slipping. BIDEN: Oh, he was definitely aging. I mean, we are all aging, Rita. I mean, so, yes, he was slowing down. BRAVER: I mean, people were saying he wasn't the same Joe Biden. BIDEN: Well, I don't think that's true. He was the same -- the essence of the same Joe Biden, but, yeah, he was slowing down. He was getting older. I mean, we all observe that. When, you know, it's a very intense job. I think it ages you quickly. Look at the other presidents. I mean, look in comparison when they started in office and got out of office, and it was natural aging. BRAVER: From the start of the administration even, some polls were showing that many Americans were questioning the president's mental fitness. I asked you about it when I interviewed you, and you said there’s nothing to it. BIDEN: And I still say that. That’s four denials and two deflections. And then, more denials not aired on TV: WATCH: An additional round of cognitive decline denial for viewers of the online portions of CBS's interview of Jill Biden RITA BRAVER: Um, I wanna ask you this one more time because I just want to get the sense. I, I, as I said, I think this is the essential question that… pic.twitter.com/shOM1IUxTk — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2026 RITA BRAVER: Um, I wanna ask you this one more time because I just want to get the sense. I, I, as I said, I think this is the essential question that people are going to want to know from you is- Have you ever seen signs of mental decline in your husband? Mental decline, not physical. Mental. JILL BIDEN: No. No. I mean I've seen aging. I've seen him slow down like I said, but no. Watch as Biden mourns the construction of the White House Ballroom, and works it into a plug for the book she is currently promoting: WATCH: CBS's Rita Braver and Jill Biden work the construction of the White House Ballroom into a plug for her new book. RITA BRAVER: Now, Dr. Jill Biden has written a book about her time in The White house. It's called "View from the East Wing," a place where generations of… pic.twitter.com/kPPMo61fv9 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2026 RITA BRAVER: Now, Dr. Jill Biden has written a book about her time in The White house. It's called "View from the East Wing," a place where generations of First Ladies had their offices and where visitors came for White House tours. It has now been destroyed by President Donald Trump to make way for a ballroom.  So what do you think about that? JILL BIDEN: What do you think I think? BRAVER: You said, “I felt a sense of loss and grief with every blow of the wrecking ball.” BIDEN: That's right. I mean, there was so much really institutional memory in that building. I loved the East Wing. BRAVER: Did you ever think of changing the title after the East Wing was destroyed? BIDEN: Oh, no. Then I thought, this is the perfect title for my book. Finally we look at the debate debacle portion of the interview. WATCH: Jill Biden breaks down the debate debacle, wherein she thought Joe was having a stroke but then trotted him out to the after-rally and to the Waffle House JOE BIDEN: In America, everything is possible. We believe every and anything is possible. RITA BRAVER: Joe Biden… pic.twitter.com/xWFWNvIh3U — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 1, 2026 JOE BIDEN: In America, everything is possible. We believe every and anything is possible. RITA BRAVER: Joe Biden proudly touts her husband's accomplishments. JILL BIDEN: He got legislation done. He- I mean, he created more jobs in his four-year term than any other president. Look at all he did. I mean, look at the infrastructure bill. And, you know, the American Rescue Plan. BRAVER: When she arrived at the first presidential debate of 2024, she saw that President Biden wasn't feeling well. JILL BIDEN: But then Joe always, even if he was off a little bit, would always rally, and I thought, “okay, so he'll get in there in that debate and he'll be fine.” He is going to rally. But he got in there. He got into the debate and he didn't. JOE BIDEN: …making sure they were able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I have been able to do with the -- with the covid -- excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with -- look, if- we finally beat Medicare. BRAVER: Were you horrified as you saw it unfold? JILL BIDEN: I wasn't horrified. I was frightened because I had never, ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never. BRAVER: Or since. JILL BIDEN: Yes. BRAVER: Never seen him like that. JILL BIDEN: Never. No. BRAVER: What happened? JILL BIDEN: I don't know what happened. I mean, as I watched it, I thought, oh my God, he’s having a stroke. And it scared me to death. And then he never seemed to -- BRAVER: Find himself? JILL BIDEN: Find himself, yeah, after that. But then, Rita, I have to tell you, as we were walking out, you know, he said I really -- I am not going to use the words because it's morning TV, but I really sort of messed up, didn't I? And I said, yes, you did. And we left the stage area, and what people don't know, he had two events after that, and he was fine. I mean, he was fine. It was inexplicable. BRAVER: What if that happened during a meeting with foreign leaders or something like that? JILL BIDEN: I don’t know how to answer that. How do we know that this didn’t happen? One recalls the former president having to get wrangled by Italian Prime Minister Meloni during the D-Day celebrations, because he strayed from the group photo.  Again, we didn’t get much from Braver in the way of follow-up. The interview was little more than a safe space for Jill Biden to try to reframe her husband's quadrennium and promote her book. It was not a safe space for things such as questions or reporting. As our own Curtis Houck often muses, the new CBS isn't Newsmax- no matter how much the media hall monitors may howl otherwise.  

On Thursday, after the announced broad changes to CBS’s 60 Minutes, MS NOW’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle decried the changes to the broadcast network's premiere Sunday night news show, as political contributor Jason Johnson called the changes part of a “State Capture of CBS” and Ruhle asked, “What does this mean for our democracy?” Ruhle introduced the segment with basic details, as she described Bari Weiss as “the controversial editor-in-chief.” She had a brief eulogy on the fired Cecilia Vega and Sharyn Alfonsi, noting Alfonsi’s “abruptly” pulled report on El Salvador mega prisons. Ruhle then related the changes to the News Emmy ceremony on Wednesday night, which she attended:  What does it mean when an organization as important as 60 Minutes gets fully scrambled, and it happens a day after the Emmys?   After the announced changes to CBS's 60 Minutes, MS NOW's The 11th Hour decried the changes as host Stephanie Ruhle related the move to the News Emmys ceremony. Later, guest Jason Johnson called the moves at CBS part of a "state capture" of the network. Ruhle then asked what… pic.twitter.com/qJ2ulZBHEq — Nick (@nspin310) May 29, 2026   Johnson first made reference to how long-form news was on the decline due to the prevalence of short-form content. He then called the changes to 60 Minutes “damaging,” and acted as if the program had been pulled from the air by CBS and Weiss, which it was not: So, the gutting of 60 Minutes is not just damaging as far as the information that the American people will be able to see. The lack of in-depth storytelling, the lack of consistent, in-depth storytelling that Americans will see. But it is also going to ruin a generation of young people who won't know what real long-form news looks like anymore. He then claimed CBS was being captured by the “state”: I still show segments from 60 Minutes to my students at Morgan State University, and the gutting, the state capture of CBS in general, and the destruction of 60 Minutes in particular, is a damage that we will not fully comprehend, probably for another generation. After Johnson’s “state capture” comments did not receive a response from Ruhle, the host defended fired reporter Cecilia Vega and read her statement that called the firings and overall changes at 60 Minutes “censorship” and is “dangerous for our show and for our democracy.” Ruhle then, after she read a provocative statement from Vega, said, “Cecilia Vega is not a provocateur. She is not a firebrand. We have never, ever heard anything like this from this woman.” There has been many examples of Vega’s bias and provocativeness documented here at NewsBusters, including her comments calling Trump’s messaging “as dark as it has been” about immigrants during 2024 election night coverage. Ruhle then asked Johnson, “What does this mean for our democracy?” Johnson replied once again with a claim of “state capture” as he compared the situation to countries with media censorship, like Russia: It's not the complete censorship that we would see in Romania or Kenya or Russia, but it's something pretty close, and it's akin to it because once you have wealthy friends of an authoritarian or a proto-authoritarian regime buying large media outlets, people begin to self-censor. They begin to get rid of people who will ask difficult questions. They begin to spike stories that actually matter.  The part never mentioned in all the reports about CBS and Weiss that worry about the “state capture” or the future of democracy was how much of their news has remained biased, like a recent story from CBS Sunday Morning that was mesmerized by Iranian A.I. LEGO propaganda As much as Ruhle and Johnson worry about “democracy” amid CBS changes, it is most definitely not right-wing MAGA CBS as some liberals allege. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle May 28, 2026 11:52:04 PM Eastern STEPHANIE RUHLE: We are following major shakeups at CBS News from Bari Weiss today. The controversial editor-in-chief has named a new executive producer of 60 Minutes. Nick Bilton will replace Tanya Simon, who had been with the show for 30 years. The New York Times reports Bilton is a tech journalist and a filmmaker who has never worked in traditional broadcast news. The Times also reports CBS News also fired Cecilia Vega, the program's first Latina correspondent, and Sharyn Alfonsi, whose segment on torture in Salvadoran prisons was pulled off the air abruptly last year by Ms. Weiss, who requested for more reporting. It aired in full at a later date. Joining me now, Jason Johnson, a politics and journalism professor at Morgan State University. He's an MS NOW political contributor.  Okay, Jason, people might say, Stephanie, why does this matter? Why are we talking about personnel at another network? But here's the thing. I was at the Emmy Awards last night. We were lucky enough to be nominated, and being there reminded me of how important and influential 60 Minutes is. The program won two Emmys last night. It has been on the air for 58 years, and it's one of the only places that does true investigative journalism for the American people. Large-scale, expensive, detailed journalism at a time when we've got misinformation and disinformation, cannons booming from hilltops.  What does it mean when an organization as important as 60 Minutes gets fully scrambled, and it happens a day after the Emmys? JASON JOHNSON: So, I'll say this in two ways, Stephanie. And I'm not trying to be glib when I say this. If you are in Generation X, if you are a baby boomer, if you are a millennial, probably the two most influential things in your perspective on journalism was Murphy brown and 60 Minutes.  These are the two things that sort of define what good journalism is supposed to be, how you're supposed to speak truth to power, how long-form journalism can still be accepted and profitable and reasonable, as opposed to short clips and TikToks and everything else like that.  So, the gutting of 60 Minutes is not just damaging as far as the information that the American people will be able to see. The lack of in-depth storytelling, the lack of consistent, in-depth storytelling that Americans will see. But it is also going to ruin a generation of young people who won't know what real long-form news looks like anymore.  They will be completely dependent on TikTok, completely dependent on Instagram, completely dependent on documentaries. I still show segments from 60 Minutes to my students at Morgan State University, and the gutting, the state capture of CBS in general, and the destruction of 60 Minutes in particular, is a damage that we will not fully comprehend, probably for another generation. RUHLE: And to be clear, this argument that we hear all the time with this kind of journalism costs too much money. We're now in the universe of, you know, grab a ring light and go for clicks. It's one of the most successful shows. Alright. It brings in the big dollars.  But I want to share what Cecilia Vega said, right. She says her team has experienced efforts to insert political bias into stories and held back pitches out of fear of repercussions. She said this in a statement, quote, “let's call this what it is. Censorship, both imposed and self-driven. It is dangerous for the show and for our democracy.”  A spokesperson for the network responded by saying her claims are not based in reality. Let's be clear, Cecilia Vega is not a provocateur. She is not a firebrand. We have never, ever heard anything like this from this woman. Not publicly, not ever. What does when you hear something like this from Cecilia Vega? What does this mean for our democracy? JOHNSON: Well, this is, the Columbia Journalism Review had a whole piece about this last summer. This is state capture, right?  It's not the complete censorship that we would see in Romania or Kenya or Russia, but it's something pretty close, and it's akin to it because once you have wealthy friends of an authoritarian or a proto-authoritarian regime buying large media outlets, people begin to self-censor. They begin to get rid of people who will ask difficult questions. They begin to spike stories that actually matter.  And Stephanie, you talk about this all the time, even if we start talking dollars and cents, right, 60 Minutes was making money. Barry Weiss has managed to destroy the ratings of almost everything else on CBS. So, from a pure dollars and cents standpoint, no one should trust her to make massive changes at the one moneymaker that they have left.  Which speaks to the fact that a lot of these moves are completely ideologically driven. They're not driven by news, and they're not driven by money. Because why would you destroy the last golden goose you still have left, and you're sort of crown jewel of news at CBS. RUHLE: Big dollars buying big networks, and making no sense. Jason, thank you so much. I’m glad you joined us tonight. (...)

News flash: holding up a piece of printer paper is now illegal, at least if you ask MS NOW. The evening after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took to the White House Press Briefing Room floor to address the media, Lawrence O’Donnell went on-air to rail against Bessent’s answer to Fox News’ Peter Doocy’s simple question and accused him off committing a felony that could land him in prison for up to 20 years. Bessent’s alleged crime? Holding up his printed briefing notes that included an image mock-up of a proposed $250 bill that would feature President Trump: DOOCY: How long until we see your signature next to President Trump's face on a $250 bill? BESSENT: (...) So right now, there is proposed legislation that, in front of the House, in front of the Senate, to change the first requirement so that a living person, Donald J. Trump, could be on the $250 bill. So it's all in the hands of the - it's all up on Capitol Hill. So, at Treasury we prepare things in advance. So we have prepared in advance, that if the legislation is passed. But we will stick to the law. The Treasury Secretary presented the design not printed on the cotton-linen blend that U.S. dollar bills use, but on a regular 8.5x11 sheet of paper with other text around the image. But according to O’Donnell, that act rendered Bessent “the buffoon who actually held up that obscene piece of counterfeit money today at the White House.”     Secretary Bessent, along with other Republicans who have given comments on the proposed $250 bill, never said that it was definitely going to happen. All of them know that, in order for such a $250 bill to go into circulation, Congress would have to first repeal the 1866 law that bans living people’s faces on U.S. currency. Bessent himself said that “it’s all up on Capitol Hill.” The plan for Trump’s face on a bill did not break the law - it will only happen if the law changes to allow it, and there is already some movement in Congress to do just that.  The Treasury Secretary has not, nor is he willing to do anything against the law regarding U.S. currency, but O’Donnell did not acknowledge that reality. Squinting angrily into the camera, he all but accused Bessent of counterfeiting money - a serious felony. Another reason O’Donnell raged against the $250 bill mock-up was that, in his clearly skewed point of view, the question wasn’t “serious” enough for him: That moment distracted the White House Press Corps from asking more serious questions of that oh-so-eager, self-humiliating liar.  Never mind that MS NOW had two reporters in the room with Bessent, and they and the many other left-wing correspondents were free to ask the Secretary any questions they pleased, which they did. What we saw on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell last night was a prime example of a leftist TV show pundit with a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It looks like MS NOW didn’t learn their lesson about falsely accusing people of committing crimes. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MS NOW's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell May 28, 2026 10:03:40 p.m. Eastern LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Scott Bessent did something today that no other treasury secretary would have ever even considered doing. He played with counterfeit money publicly. When he was asked about Donald Trump's latest perverse fantasy of seeing his face on a new $250 bill. [Cut to video] PETER DOOCY: How long until we see your signature next to President Trump's face on a $250 bill? SEC. SCOTT BESSENT: Well, again, as Treasury Secretary, I - I have two mandates for U.S. currency. At present, the - no living person can be on U.S. currency, and the currency must say, 'In God we trust.'  So right now, there is proposed legislation that, in front of the House, in front of the Senate, to change the first requirement so that a living person, Donald J. Trump, could be on the $250 bill. So it's all in the hands of the - it's all up on Capitol Hill. So, at Treasury we prepare things in advance. So we have prepared in advance, that if the legislation is passed. But we will stick to the law. [Cut back to live] O'DONNELL: It's never going to happen. Congress has to vote to authorize a $250 piece of currency, and Congress would have to repeal a law that prevents the faces of living people from being on our currency. And then Congress would have to pass another law that put Donald Trump's face on that new piece of currency.  And so we can say with confidence tonight that Donald Trump's face will never appear on a $250 bill. And in fact, Donald Trump's face will never appear on American currency, ever, because the 60 votes necessary to do that in the United States Senate will never exist. And our self-clowning Treasury Secretary knows that. But he felt the need today to carry his public worship of Donald Trump to the point of now being locked in history as the buffoon who actually held up that obscene piece of counterfeit money today in the White House.  But it worked. That moment distracted the White House Press Corps from asking more serious questions of that oh-so-eager, self-humiliating liar.