“I have to tell you something. I’m all about the Epstein Files,” proclaimed NewsNation host Chris Cuomo to his colleague Elizabeth Vargas during the Tuesday night hand off to his show. Cuomo blustered about the files were “our best chance to see and expose and maybe change the two-tiered reality that we all know we live in.” But while Cuomo would go on to talk about the six names that were called out by House Democrats in the files, there was one name in the files he didn’t want to talk about: his. A NewsBusters investigation of the Epstein Files released last week covered that not only was Cuomo discussed in the emails, he was on the short list of different dinner parties and events for Epstein. Epstein’s fixer Peggy Siegel also spent a weekend with Cuomo and his family. For the rest of the hand off, he and Vargas made allusions to President Trump being in the files and suggested he was getting away with something (Click “expand”): CUOMO: So, if you can finally get a window into who would ever can ever met – Forget about Elizabeth Vargas. This is easy. She wears white for a reason. But anybody at home. Can you imagine? Casually joking with someone that you have every reason to believe likes to assault young women. VARGAS: No. CUOMO: Can you imagine who that person is? VARGAS: Or has been convicted and has been labeled a sex offender? Adjudicated as such. “And now we've got names. And now we've got names and I believe it's not for the DOJ, but I believe it's very much for us,” he boasted.   WATCH: “I’m all about the Epstein Files,” proclaimed NewsNation host Chris Cuomo. He then said the files were “our best chance to see and expose and maybe change the two-tiered reality that we all know we live in.” But his name is them, and he hasn't explained why. pic.twitter.com/6VPtiDPuri — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 12, 2026   If Cuomo’s righteous indignation over the release of names couldn’t get any more ironic, he would go on to declare: “Remember, this isn't just about what can be prosecuted, but we do have to figure that out. But it's not some gotcha game about people’s sex lives, okay? This is a far lower bar of humanity. Alright? Who participated and/or knew about assaulting females may be as young as nine years old.” Reacting to a soundbite of a British journalist defending her name being in the files because she was someone important who had written about the Epstein case, Cuomo put himself on the high ground: “Listen, if you're in the files because you covered this story, it's not what we're talking about. And to casually dismiss it like that, shows exactly why this matter so much. They know they'll get away with it.” Again, Cuomo was in the files and not because he was covering Epstein. In an e-mail sent on March 31, 2012, Siegal was whining to Epstein about how he never went to the theater with her. She was also giving him an update about happenings in her life. One of which was how she was heading out to Long Island to spend the weekend with the Cuomo family. “Going to Southampton today to visit Cristina and Chris Cuomo and the 3 kids...till Sunday,” she wrote.     Siegal seemed to like the Cuomo’s quite a bit since she included them in a short list for some sort of two-day “spring break” bash in March of 2013. In an e-mail to Epstein, she asked: Do you want film makers or media elite? Tory Burch Steve haft Katie Couric Chris Cuomo/Cristina Cuomo Writers Danny Strong Chris Terrio- wrote Argo Beau Willimon- wrote Ides of march/House of Cards Bennett Miller- directed Moneyball and a new one not out yet about dupont and wrestlers Lena Dunham- but Woody did not want to meet her a year ago Rita wilson- tom is on stage in Nora's Lucky Guy Martha stewart Barry levinson Zac Posen Charlie Rose I am still thinking. Have to see who is in town.     She also included the Cuomos on a guest list to a birthday party she was throwing for herself in July of that same year. “Are you in town? Would love for you to attend my birthday party next Tuesday, July 16'" at La Grenouille. Please see updated guest list below,” she wrote to Epstein. Now, what was that saying about people who lived in glass houses? The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: NewsNation’s Cuomo February 10, 2026 8:00:04 p.m. Eastern CHRIS CUOMO: I have to tell you something. I am all about the Epstein files. We've always covered here. Okay? So, then what's new? I believe it is our best chance to see and expose and maybe change the two-tiered reality that we all know we live in because – ELIZABETH VARGAS: Where the rich get away with everything and get everything. CUOMO: What happens in corporate America is the same thing that happens in the administration of justice is the same thing that happens in the halls of power is the same thing that goes into the alchemy of the two-party. They're all the same people. VARGAS: Mm-hm. CUOMO: So, if you can finally get a window into who would ever can ever met – Forget about Elizabeth Vargas. This is easy. She wears white for a reason. But anybody at home. Can you imagine? Casually joking with someone that you have every reason to believe likes to assault young women. VARGAS: No. CUOMO: Can you imagine who that person is? VARGAS: Or has been convicted and has been labeled a sex offender? Adjudicated as such. CUOMO: And now we've got names. And now we've got names and I believe it's not for the DOJ, but I believe it's very much for us. (…) 8:03:14 p.m. Eastern CUOMO: Remember, this isn't just about what can be prosecuted, but we do have to figure that out. But it's not some gotcha game about people’s sex lives, okay? This is a far lower bar of humanity. Alright? Who participated and/or knew about assaulting females may be as young as nine years old. It's about why people think it is okay to say anything like this. [Cuts to video of Leading Britain’s Conversation] UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Everybody that was very powerful. So like, if you're on the scene and you were powerful - a like to be honest, like if you’re not in those files, it would be an insult because it just means that you a bit of loser. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Right. So the people who aren’t in the files are losers. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes! UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Are you in the files? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Well, of course I am. Because it's any journalist that wrote about it. [Cuts back to live] CUOMO: [Shakes his head] I don't know what the Hell she's talking about. [Mocks her accent] Listen, if you're in the files because you covered this story, it's not what we're talking about. And to casually dismiss it like that, shows exactly why this matter so much. They know they'll get away with it. (…)

On Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash interviewed Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D-Md.) on State of the Union for nearly nine minutes, but she failed to ask about the Washington Free Beacon's new report on how Moore has lied for many years about his own life story. Instead, Bash began by asking about the video of the Obamas cartooned as monkeys posted (and then taken down) by Trump. There were several firm questions about more gerrymandering in Maryland, and then it turned back to a supportive direction. She asked Moore several questions about why he thought that he and Governor Jared Polis (D-Colo.) were not invited to the annual meeting of governors at the White House, why he was "being called out and excluded" by Trump.  Moore replied that “you can uninvite, you can un-tweet, but you can never erase.” He then claimed that he is “not interested in being able to go to fancy dinners with the president if he [Trump] wants to exclude certain members.” Moore continued to declare that “since the president decided that I’m not going to be invited, this will not be an NGA event.” Bash asked if he had a “commitment from Republican governors on that” to which he replied that they had a “commitment from the organization.” Governor Moore Declares Racial Undertones Amid White House Dinner Exclusion#cnn #mrc #moore #maryland #whitehouse pic.twitter.com/KRoAYtqDIu — Sarah (@scbpoli) February 12, 2026   Bash pressed Moore thought he was being “excluded from this dinner.” Moore responded “It's not lost to me that I'm the only black governor in this country. And I find that to be particularly painful.” Moore’s emphasis on race comes just weeks after he was caught falsely claiming that the Ku Klux Klan chased his great-grandfather out of South Carolina. In his Free Beacon story, Andrew Kerr, a former MRC Bulldog Award winner, reported that historical church records indicate that Moore’s great-grandfather made a “orderly and public transfer” out of South Carolina after being “appointed to succeed a prominent Jamaican pastor” who had passed away. At the end of the interview, Bash asked if he was certain that race was the president’s motive for excluding him. Moore replied “I can't speak to the president's intent. It's not lost on me, but I can't speak to the president's intent.”   Click "Expand" to view the transcript: State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash 2/8/2026 9:35:56-9:39:14 DANA BASH: Governor, later this month, the president, President Trump will host an annual meeting of governors at the White House. He's only inviting Republican governors to that, which is traditionally a bipartisan event. And he's specifically excluding you and Democratic Governor Jared Polis from a separate dinner. You're the vice chair of the National Governors Association. Do you know why you are being called out and excluded? GOVERNOR WES MOORE (D-MD): It's particularly confusing, because, just a few weeks ago, I led a group of Democratic and Republican governors to the White House. And we had a meeting with the White House where we signed a memorandum of understanding around energy and trying to increase energy supply and bring down energy costs. And so one thing I know is this, is that you can uninvite, you can un- tweet, but you can never erase. And so if I was selected by my peers, both Democratic and Republican governors, to serve as the vice chair of the National Governors Association. We focused on getting things done for our people. And we're not interested in being able to go to fancy dinners with the president if he wants to exclude certain members. BASH: Well, he's... MOORE: So, since the president decided that I'm not going to be invited, this will not be an NGA event. BASH: Meaning what? MOORE: Meaning the NGA will not support this dinner. If the president wants to have a dinner with his friends and have a black-tie dinner with his friends on that night, that is perfectly fine. It will not be an NGA event. BASH: And you have a commitment from Republican governors on that? MOORE: Oh, we have a commitment from the organization. This is a bipartisan organization, where Democratic and Republican governors come together to work on addressing the needs of our people. And I'm honored that my peers selected me to be the vice chair of it. I am thankful for the leadership of Kevin Stitt, a Republican, the Republican governor for Oklahoma, who serves as the chair. And we know that, in this time, the president cannot use this time to divide our organization. Our organization stands firm that, if you exclude one, you exclude us all, and this will not be an NGA event. BASH: Governor, before I let you go, I just want to understand what you think the reason is that you are being singled out and Jared Polis, but, from your perspective, why are you being excluded from this dinner? MOORE: Well, I have long learned that I'm not trying to get inside of the president's psyche. It's not a good use of my time. It's not lost to me that I'm the only black governor in this country. And I find that to be particularly painful, considering the fact that the president is trying to exclude me from an organization that not only my peers have asked me to help to lead, but then also a place where I know I belong in. And so I have long learned and I have talked to the people and the children of my state is that I'm never in a room because of someone's benevolence nor kindness. I'm not in a room because of a social experiment. I'm in the room because I belong there and the room was incomplete until I got there. BASH: You're saying that he's excluding you because of the color of your skin? MOORE: Well, I don't know. I can't speak to the president's intent. It's not lost on me, but I can't speak to the president's intent. BASH: Ok. Governor Wes Moore, thank you so much.  

For the “Group Chat” on Attorney General Pam Bondi’s combative House Judiciary Committee appearance over the Epstein files, CNN This Morning host Audie Cornish assembled a uniformly anti-Trump panel. The result was predictable: a segment devoted entirely to criticizing Bondi’s tone and performance — with not a word about the insults Democrats hurled at her during the same hearing. V. Spehar of Under the Desk News opened by praising Democrats for how they handled Bondi, declaring: “I think they did a great job navigating her tantrum.” Rolling Stone’s Matt Bai mocked Bondi’s preparation and demeanor: “What you really need is to go to a joke writer before you come and then come as if you're coming to host an award show rather than testify for Congress. And then to show up and show so much contempt for the institution and the people.” CNN commentator and Dispatch co-founder Jonah Goldberg piled on — to laughter from Spehar: “So first of all, I don't think she's very bright.” Tantrum? Contempt? A dullard? Goldberg uttered that jejune like about how Bondi's doing this for "an audience of one," and Sunday shows are entertaining now, because "you have cabinet secretaries saying stupid things that the president wants to hear, even though they're bad politically for them." Yes, Bondi fired back at Democrats. But the hostility was not one-sided — something CNN’s panel never acknowledged. Democrats showed contempt for the Justice Department by fighting so angrily with her, but to CNN, that's what "Facts First" means.  Consider what Democrats said to her. Rep. Jamie Raskin went far beyond policy critique: “Your MAGA base despises you because you’re covering up the Epstein File … You will not win … Chicagoland rejects you. The American people reject you… Democrats must impeach and remove lawless officials like you … But you can spare yourself more humiliation — resign now.” That’s not oversight. That’s campaign rhetoric delivered from the dais. Rep. Ted Lieu escalated further: “I believe you just lied under oath.” An accusation of criminal conduct — not exactly gentle institutional discourse. WATCH: CNN torches Bondi’s “tantrum” — but goes silent when Dems tell her to “resign now.” pic.twitter.com/oqQVmeVr4b — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 12, 2026 Rep. Pramila Jayapal accused Bondi of a “massive coverup” and demanded: “It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors… Turn and apologize.” And after Bondi corrected her title, Rep. Becca Balint sneered: “My apologies, I couldn’t tell.” Yet none of this merited even a passing mention from Cornish or her panelists. In CNN’s fractured fairy tale, the disrespect flowed in only one direction. The segment eventually drifted into Goldberg lamenting the introduction of cameras into congressional hearings, hyperbolically warning: “If we don't get back to that, the country's ruined.” Yes, TV ruins everything, right, CNN? Cornish teased him: “It’s a toothpaste back in the tube situation… So I will let you shake that fist at the sky.” When Democrats accused Bondi of criminal conduct, called her “lawless,” and urged her to “resign now,” the panel’s silence was deafening. So according to CNN’s Group Chat, Bondi’s tone was outrageous — but Democrats accusing her of criminal conduct and demanding her resignation was perfectly acceptable decorum. When it comes to congressional civility, CNN’s standard appears simple: outrage only runs one way. CNN's clips of this hearing certainly had more heat than light. Couldn't they have made a more substantive selection of clips, or did they just want to slam Bondi for their own. Goldberg accused everyone involved at the hearings of "performing for their fan base, it's audience capture." As if CNN isn't performing for their ever-declining fan base?  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 2/12/26 6:30 am ET DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE MEMBER BECCA BALINT: [Angry voice] These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game, Secretary.  PAM BONDI: I'm Attorney General.  BALINT: My apologies, I couldn't tell.  AUDIE CORNISH: It wasn't your typical hearing. Attorney General Pam Bondi fighting with the House Judiciary Committee as she faced tough questions over her department's handling of the Epstein files.  PRAMILA JAYAPAL: You're not going to answer this question, so let me just say this. What a massive coverup. BONDI: Chairman, I'll direct it to you. No, I'm answering a question.  ANOTHER DEMOCRAT COMMITTEE MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, will you restore her time? The witnesses are up.  BONDI: I'm not going to get in a gutter with this woman.  TED LIEU: I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein file.  BONDI: Don't you ever accuse me of a crime.  JERRY NADLER: How many have you indicted?  BONDI: Excuse me, I'm going to answer the question.  NADLER: Answer my question.  BONDI: No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. Your theatrics are ridiculous.  NADLER: No. Answer it the way I asked it. BONDI: Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. This is a political joke, and I need to give my answer on that. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to -- you're a failed politician.  DEMOCRAT: Chairman, she's embarrassing you. This is your committee, and she is embarrassing me. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started.  BONDI: You don't tell me anything.  DEMOCRAT: Yeah, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.  BONDI: You don't tell me anything, you washed up [inaudible.] You're not even a lawyer.  CORNISH: Joining me now in the group chat, Matt Bai, national affairs columnist for Rolling Stone, V. Spehar, digital journalist and creator at Under the Desk News, and Jonah Goldberg, CNN political commentator and co-founder, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch. Where do we begin? Where do we begin?  First, we could begin with that binder that she had. So she was sort of flipping through it, ready for responses to Democrats. Were Democrats ready to respond to her? V. SPEHAR: I think they were a little surprised that she had a clapback binder. Normally, you need to, like, have those within yourself, like how you're going to respond or critique somebody, but she had the Cliff Notes for it. I think they did a great job navigating her tantrum. . . .  MATT BAI: Honestly, I find this isn't the first time I felt this way during this administration. I find it stunning, as sort of an institutionalist, as someone who's been here for a long time. I've been forgetting the -- even the merits of the hearing, I don't honestly care that much about the issue in terms of the investigation.  But to speak to Congress as a cabinet secretary. First of all, to have reached the point, as V. says, where you now need to show up. You don't have the briefing materials on the content. What you really need is to go to a joke writer before you come and then come as if you're coming to host an award show rather than testify for Congress. And then to show up and show so much contempt for the institution and the people. You call one person a washed-up lawyer, Jamie Raskin. You call another person a failed politician.  I understand that she's performing for a single audience, and that is the president only. But what really shocks me every time is that Republican members of Congress, even where we are today, aren't protective enough and proud enough of their institution and their life's work to not accept that kind of treatment and to not let the country see Congress degraded that way.  . . .  BONDI [speaking to Dan Goldman]: You're about as good of a lawyer today as you were when you tried to impeach President Trump in 2016. Have you apologized for that?  The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000. And the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans' 401ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about. We should be talking about making Americans safe. We should be talking about -- what does the Dow have to do with anything? That's what they just asked. Are you kidding?  JONAH GOLDBERG: Well, so first of all, I don't think she's very bright [Spehar laughs.]  Second of all, the idea of somehow the Attorney General during constitutionally necessary oversight before the supreme branch of government saying we should be talking about the stock market is just, like if you wrote it in a political novel, an informed reader would say, well this makes no sense that they would say that.  More broadly, like I agree with Matt, I'm on a hobby horse about how Congress has essentially become a denuded institution and it breaks my heart in all sorts of ways. I don't think she's trying to be Trump. I think the only thing Trump respects is people who talk like him. And he wants all his people to be like Roy Cohn, to do his fights for him.  And I think that it's, and I agree entirely with Matt, that she's doing this performatively for an audience of one, which is why all the Sunday shows are weirdly, on a meta level, more interesting than they've been for about 20 years. Because you have cabinet secretaries saying stupid things that the president wants to hear, even though they're bad politically for them.  The one point I'll add, also as an institutionalist, is it is now almost obvious that it was a mistake to introduce cameras to Congress.  CORNISH: Wait, wait, wait. I covered Congress for a while when there was cameras. This is not a camera problem.  GOLDBERG: It's partly a camera problem, and I'll debate you that for hours.  BAI: Only in the sense that we introduced cameras to the world.  GOLDBERG: No, no, look -- CORNISH:  I mean, you don't think this is a little bit of a Trump era problem?  GOLDBERG: Oh, no, I don't. I mean, Trump makes everything worse, but this is a problem. This kind of transparency. It is impossible to have somebody serious conversations when you're performing for constituencies. You cannot compromise, you cannot float controversial proposals if everybody is watching.  CORNISH: Do you think people trust things anymore that happen behind closed doors?  GOLDBERG: If we don't get back to that, the country's ruined. One of the reasons why these hearings suck so bad, not just this, but all of them, whenever they're televised, is everyone performs to send out their little five-minute dumb social media clips -- CORNISH: That's fair, that's fair. GOLDBERG: -- to raise small donor contributions. So they're performing for their fan base, it's audience capture, it's not their jobs, and it's ruining the institution.  CORNISH: Okay, let me let you [Vehar] get in a word here. SPEHAR: But I need to say that having the cameras and the transparency means that people can't tell the truth or they can't defend their honest-to-goodness position is false. I think we have a more educated, more civically engaged public because of the cameras, because of social media and the ways that they can replay the clips on the second screen.  GOLDBERG: I don't think there's any data to support that contention at all.  VEHAR [ignores Goldberg's comment and continues] Like, to the point that Fox isn't going to air something where they know that Pam Bondi is perhaps not gonna come off good or perhaps gonna get caught in a question that she can't answer, where the Epstein survivors are standing behind her.  The public is very sensitive to that. And if we don't have those cameras, then we're to trust, like you said, what just happens behind the screen. I don't think that the trust in the institution is there to not have cameras.  CORNISH: [Addressing herself to Goldberg] I understand your frustration coming from radio also. And it's a toothpaste back in the tube situation.  So I will let you shake that fist at the sky. 

“Of course, these stats are B.S.,” Greg Gutfeld explained on his Fox News Channel show Wednesday, dissecting CBS’s claim that only 60% of illegal aliens arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have no criminal past and that just 14% of all those arrested have been charged with, or convicted of, “violent” crimes. “First, let's tackle the 14% number,” the “Gutfeld!” host began: “It sounds small, but 14% is a lot if you're dealing with a massive number to begin with.” …. “Fact is, out of 400,000 illegals (arrested in Trump’s first year), 14% comes to 56,000 rapists and killers, you name it. So what would you want law enforcement to do about them?” “But the entire premise is disgusting,” Gutfeld continued: “CBS admits that 60% arrested had criminal charges or convictions. But, don't worry (they say), the majority were nonviolent - which is supposed to make you think of harmless offenses like parking tickets, and jaywalking.” But, CBS counts serious offenses – such as drug trafficking, child porn, fraud, DUI, and human smuggling – as nonviolent crimes, Gutfeld noted. “So what the [bleep] CBS? What are you trying to do here?” Gutfeld asked. “It's like you want more people to die. But it gets worse,” he continued, taking on CBS’s “40% have no criminal record” statistic: “CBS's bombshell report also claims that 40% of ICE arrestees had no criminal past - they seem to mean here in the U.S. “ICE arrested this guy (showing photo) last week: he’s an MS-13 member who shot, tortured and murdered five people - but forget it, people, in El Salvador. “So, I guess he's nonviolent, since he wasn't convicted here.” Gutfeld also pointed out that the illegal aliens who killed Laken Riley and other high-profile victims didn’t have criminal histories in the U.S. at the time they committed their murders. “If you commit a crime outside the U.S., it doesn't count. I guess we owe Nicolas Maduro an apology,” Gutfeld snarked. The media’s hypocrisy and dishonesty in their treatment of crime exposes how their reporting is driven by their radical leftist agenda, not a commitment to reporting the truth, Gutfeld said: “Of course, this is coming from the same media that lectures one death is too many, which is used to justify insane regulations and public health policies. Remember the pandemic? “A single death is a tragedy, they would claim - well, unless it's a girl jogging on her lunch break.” “But in the end, this report is another effort to stop us from keeping bad people out of our country. And they do this by pretending that we're targeting peaceful illegals,” Gutfeld concluded.

Tuesday’s CBS Mornings was embarrassingly weak in the proverbial knees with four teases followed by over 10 minutes slobbering over far-left Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, never giving her a single ideological label while partnering with her to earn a cut of book sales for the young-adult verison of her memoir purchased through an Amazon QR code. Co-host and Democrat donor Gayle King was particularly enthused, gushing in a second tease that she’ll “share a new edition of her memoir and talk about the challenges facing the court these days — lots of challenges.” The last one was particularly nauseating as the control room queued up Stevie Wonder’s Isn’t She Lovely to play in the background with King swooning: “Isn’t she lovely? Oh, that’s the perfect song, guys. Thank you. It is not everyday you have a Supreme Court justice in the house that has a book, Lovely One. It’s been four years on the job.” After asking her “how are you feeling” four years into the job,” King trumpeted Jackson’s husband wearing socks with her face on it. The interview itself began with more adulation as she was a celebrated guest at the Grammy Awards and received a shoutout from host Trevor Noah since she was a nominee in the audiobook category. Following a plug for the book and QR code, King asked her what it was like to be there and, speaking as someone who was also hobnobbing it up on the red carpet, remarked “I saw people lining up to talk to you the way they were to other — to some of the other artists” and “you were a big hit in the room.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a Grammy nomination for the audio book version of her memoir, “Lovely One” — and now, the Supreme Court justice is out with an edition of the book for young adults. The justice shares what she hopes young readers take away from her book,… pic.twitter.com/IpRxanycss — CBS Mornings (@CBSMornings) February 10, 2026 Jackson didn’t shake off the compliments, but welcomed it. King continued to rhetorically kiss the ground the justice was walking on, citing a speech she allegedly gave at age 12. King even asked her afterward if she’s “still striving to perfect your dreams” (click “expand”): JACKSON: Oh, my goodness. It was such an honor to be nominated for the book that I wrote, and I think the academy saw in the book what I had hoped, which was that it was an inspiration for a lot of people and hopefully for children now, yes. KING: And that’s why you decided, you did, to put out the young adult version because in the book you say you are here because at the age of 12 you dared to imagine yourself as a federal judge. JACKSON: Yes. KING: And that you tell young people, I love this, guys, dream enormously and courageously. Isn’t that good? NATE BURLESON: It’s beautiful. JACKSON: Yes. KING: And even as you sit here at this stage in life, you are still striving to perfect your dreams. JACKSON: Yes. JACKSON: After that I went, huh? You are still striving to perfect your dreams. What do you mean? JACKSON: I think everybody is learning and growing. I’m relatively new on the Court even though I’ve been there four years now.  KING: Four years. JACKSON: But I’m still the junior justice, and there are more things to learn and do. We’re very busy, and I’m trying to be the best justice that I can be. Co-host Nate Burleson took the next section and wondered how Jackson survives on the Court with so many with different views. Burleson only got one question in before King took back control though Jackson reiterated what other justices and court observers have made clear for years, which is the justices do, in fact, get along (click “expand”): BURLESON: And before you jump in, Vlad, I want to ask about that. Gayle asked in the green room how you are feeling being four years on the job, on the Supreme Court. You said feeling good. JACKSON: Yes. BURLESON: I’m curious about the feeling-out process of the other justices. How do you navigate those relationships amid such differences of opinion? JACKSON: Well, you know, the Court is very good at compartmentalizing, meaning that we focus on our work. We work very hard. We come up with our own individual opinions as to how we think about the law. BURLESON: Of course. JACKSON: We write our opinions but we are very collegial as a body and as a group and we get along well as justices together. And I think it’s sort of a model for learning how to disagree without being disagreeable. KING: And you’re able to do that because right now from the outside looking in people are attacking the Supreme Court, they’re attacking the media. They’re saying that, you know, we are all so politically divided that there is no way to heal. And you say that you all basically do get along? JACKSON: We do get along. KING:You do? JACKSON: We do. I think, you know, our work is focused on differences in issues. We’re sort of always thinking about the law in different ways, and so, we have learned how to adapt to being in an environment with people who have very strongly held but different views. KING: Justice, you never say to somebody, you’re wrong. You got it wrong, buddy. JACKSON: You say it in your opinions, and that’s a great opportunity. Following featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers’s unsuccessful attempt to pry from Jackson a preview of how the Court will rule on President Trump’s tariffs, King also had no luck with this question fretting about another part of the Trump agenda: “Well, President Trump has, you know, recently raised a lot of concerns and eyebrows when he is making calls to nationalize the elections. What do you think about that? What does the Constitution say? Did it raise your eyebrows or give you concern?” Having little luck eliciting liberal hot takes on issues of the day, they pivoted back to her memoir. “This edition also includes a speech that you gave for a speech and debate tournament back in 1987 called ‘It’s about time.’ That she won, by the way. No surprise there. I would like to ask you, what do you believe it is about time for now for us as a country,” Burleson wondered in another teeball question. Jackson replied she was feeling “very nostalgic about time passing, moving, transitioning into a different era of our lives, but the point, I think, was to really to get people to focus on the moment and try to not be so overwhelmed by the circumstance.” Burleson agreed, adding “this moment seems so divided as a country.” Jackson countered Americans have been divided before and we overcome it by “focus[ing] on [our] own values and the things that matter” plus “invest[ing] in [our] communities.” King returned to Jackson having to deal with so many “very conservative” people (click “expand”): KING: I’m curious about how you personally handle things because I’m fascinated about how the court works and how the perception, you know, is that it is very conservative. How do you handle things when you go home and the decision didn’t go the way you would like? How do you come to grips with that? How do you navigate that for yourself? JACKSON: Well, it is part of the job. KING: Job, yes. JACKSON: You know, there are nine of us on our Court, and each of us gets to vote and there will be many cases in which we are unanimous and we all agree on the way the law requires the case to come out and then there are many cases in which we don’t. I think one of the brilliant thinks about our system is that we have the opportunity, if you are in dissent, to write a dissent that explains what your views are, so it is not that you are just sort of shut out and not able to express. BURLESON: Right. KING: Your opinion is still heard. JACKSON: Your opinion, exactly. I think it is one of the great things about this country, you know, freedom of expression and the ability that we have and the value of tolerating minority views, so our structure in the court really embodies that and it helps to have the opportunity to write what you actually feel, and then you put it behind you and you move on. It closed with portions new to this version of her memoir focusing on the dangers of social media then King reading from an essay Jackson wrote in high school about “learning to appreciate the time we’re given” because “we will some day realize what it means to have the time of our lives.” “Isn’t that good,” King exclaimed. Duthiers replied: “So beautiful, so amazing. This book, everybody should go out and get this book. First of all, the adult version but also for young people because it is really wonderful.” Oh, and they formally closed with Jackson’s husband’s socks. Bleh. To see the relevant CBS transcript from February 12, click here.