On Monday night, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Doug Collins shellacked longtime CNN correspondent Brian Todd over a report late last week claiming VA call centers were being automated, noting he ran the story despite Collins and his team offering facts countering this predictable spin from the Trump-hating network. Collins’s takedown came in the form of a thread on X, starting with a simple statement that surely got everyone’s attention: He then explained Todd reaches out “[e]very few days...asking for the department’s response to whatever fake controversy VA’s critics are pushing” and his current hobbyhorse “seems to be regurgitating pre-packaged opposition research VA critics prepare for him.” Collins then got to the heart of his claim about VA call centers, which veterans use for any number of reasons, including help understanding their benefits, tapping into the GI Bill, or to speak with someone at their local VA clinic: Late last week, Brian struck again, claiming to have a scoop about a proposal to “automate VA call centers.” In reality, no such plans exist. Brian’s scoop was based on false, deliberately leaked “information” from people who aren’t involved in our planning process. In other words, Brian was the target of a disinformation operation designed to generate fake news. The Secretary said his team “warned Brian that his allegations were not credible, but he ignored us & ran his false story anyway, while other outlets smartly steered clear of it.” Since this was CNN, their publication drew swift responses from the VA and outreach to Todd with requests to speak to his editor. Of course, Collins said Todd “refused to put us in touch with his editor” and “[w]e only got through to an editor after calling everyone we know at CNN to complain about Brian’s story.” That didn’t result in any changes as the “editor and another CNN senior executive refused to retract the fake story” and instead asked for another “statement responding to the story’s fake allegations.” Collins then went nuclear over the next two X posts: “What happened to the journalistic principle of verifying something is true before publication? With standards like these, it’s easy to see why a jury recently found CNN liable for defamation and ordered the network to pay $5 million in damages.” As of this blog’s publication, Todd has yet to respond to requests for comment from NewsBusters on reporting and the allegations from Collins. As many NewsBusters readers are likely aware, the case he referred to the CNN defamation case against Navy veteran Zachary Young that our Nick Fondacaro literally chronicled from start to finish. Collins ended the thread with another jab: “[Wolf Blitzer] – Please hold your employee, [Brian Todd], to a higher standard. Thank you.” Collins in particular has taken an aggressive stance against biased reporting. Along with his throwdown with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week, he tangled with a Military.com reporter on March 11 and even The Wall Street Journal three days later.

ABC News’s The View had become a home for far-left extremist politics. That fact was obvious during Tuesday’s episode where they invited far-left extremist writer Elie Mystal to promote his unhinged book designed to tear at American’s elevation of the rule of law. The liberal ladies gleefully welcomed his ridiculous pontifications about how all laws pre-1965 shouldn’t be considered legitimate and how there shouldn’t be voter registration laws. There to promote his book Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, co-host Sunny Hostin heaped praise on Mystal. “I love this book! You are dead on and it is a fantastic book! One of the laws you write about is playing out right now, the Immigration and Nationality Act,” she touted. “One of my premises for the book is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional,” Mystal explained. “Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act we were functionally an apartheid country!” Adding: “Not everybody who lived here could vote here. So, why should I give a [self-censors] about some law that some old white man passed in the 1920s, like the Immigration and Nationality Act.” The idea that “every law passed before 1965” was “unconstitutional” was the absolutist thinking of an extremist. A dragnet that large would have massive unintended consequences far behind Mystal’s ignorant understanding. Laws passed prior to 1965 that Mystal, and the cast of The View, would presumably support included most laws against murder, the First Amendment (freedom of speech, 1791), the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizures, 1791), the 13th Amendment (the abolition of slavery, 1865), the 19th Amendment (women’s right to vote, 1920), and the National Firearms Act (1934); just to name a few.     Mystal then had a mental breakdown about America’s immigration laws, falsely suggesting people were being deported “because they didn’t fill out the paperwork correctly,” and were being put in jail “for existing”: Now, I personally do not think I can convince people to open their hearts and minds to immigration. I understand that in our failing country treating people with respect and decency and humanity is a controversial position! And I cannot change their minds. But we can dang sure make sure we're not putting people in jail for the crime of existing! That we’re not putting people in jail for not filling out the form in triplicate in the right time and submitting it to the right agent. Immigration status offenses should not be criminal offenses, they should be civil offenses. We shouldn't be ripping people away from their families because they didn't fill out the paperwork correctly. No, Elie. They were being deported for not filling out any paperwork at all and not following the law. Also, it’s hypocritical to talk about how you want to treat people with “humanity” on The View. The day prior, The View cast defended suggestions that President Trump and his supporters were not human beings. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg had also made it clear that she doesn’t see Trump as human. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin was as useless as ever. Instead of having a spine and pushing back on Mystal’s extremism, she noted there were things they disagreed on (didn’t say what those were), and asked: “So, what do you see as sort of the marginal changes that are actually really tangible and realistic that could be put in place the next few years?” And what was that “tangible and realistic” idea that Mystal had? “I argue that we should eliminate all voter registration laws,” he demanded. He asserted it was “realistic” because “we already have voter eligibility requirements” like age. He then started shouting about how voter fraud supposedly didn’t exist and equated such laws to banning fishing because of the Loch Ness Monster: MYSTAL: Having the second step of voter registration needlessly suppresses the votes for no real benefit. Some people might say, ‘oh, it prevents voter fraud.’ First of all, no, it doesn't! And second of all, voter fraud doesn't exist! HOSTIN: Doesn’t exist! Right. MYSTAL: If I say I want to go fishing somewhere and you say ‘you can't go fishing there.’ And I say, ‘why?’ ‘Because the Loch Ness Monster might getcha,’ “Shut up!” he shouted at the naysayers. “That's not a good reason to have a law.” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View April 1, 2025 11:48:35 a.m. Eastern (…) SUNNY HOSTIN: I love this book! You are dead on and it is a fantastic book! One of the laws you write about is playing out right now, the Immigration and Nationality Act. Now, this administration is using this statute to justify the detentions and possible deportations actually of visa and green card holders who they seem to deem a threat to U.S. foreign policy. What do you make of the administration's use of the act and more broadly, is Trump really setting up a First Amendment showdown, which is what Whoopi has been talking about? ELIE MYSTAL: Yes, absolutely! One of my premises for the book is that every law passed before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be presumptively unconstitutional. Right? Because before the 1965 Voting Rights Act we were functionally an apartheid country! Not everybody who lived here could vote here. So, why should I give a [self-censors] about some law that some old white man passed in the 1920s, like the Immigration and Nationality Act. When they passed our fundamental immigration law, Congress said in real-time that they needed a law to prevent the, quote, “mongrelization” of the white race by the inferior races. Now, I look at that law and say, ‘I don't think that's so good.’ I don't think we should still be using it. But we are still using it today. That is the authority that Trump is using to criminalize people and pull people's visa cards, Marco Rubio, that comes from the 1956 update to the 1921 act. Now, I personally do not think I can convince people to open their hearts and minds to immigration. I understand that in our failing country treating people with respect and decency and humanity is a controversial position! [Applause] And I cannot change their minds. But we can dang sure make sure we're not putting people in jail for the crime of existing! HOSTIN: Right! MYSTAL: That we’re not putting people in jail for not filling out the form in triplicate in the right time and submitting it to the right agent. Immigration status offenses should not be criminal offenses, they should be civil offenses. We shouldn't be ripping people away from their families because they didn't fill out the paperwork correctly. (…) 11:50:58 a.m. Eastern ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: So, what do you see as sort of the marginal changes that are actually really tangible and realistic that could be put in place the next few years? MYSTAL: I argue that we should eliminate all voter registration laws. Now, that might not sound realistic to you but I promise you that it is. Because we already have voter eligibility requirements, right? An eligibility requirement would be like an age limit, right? 18 to vote, I might say you should be 16 but I’m not going to say eight! I have an 8-year-old who does knock but I've got an 8-year-old, right. We don't want them voting. But once you meet the eligibility requirement, why can't you automatically be registered to vote? Having the second step of voter registration needlessly suppresses the votes for no real benefit. Some people might say, ‘oh, it prevents voter fraud.’ First of all, no, it doesn't! And second of all, voter fraud doesn't exist! HOSTIN: Doesn’t exist! Right. MYSTAL: If I say I want to go fishing somewhere and you say ‘you can't go fishing there.’ And I say, ‘why?’ ‘Because the Loch Ness Monster might getcha,’ like, that's -- shut up! That's not a good reason to have a law. (…)

CNN’s Dana Bash spread some fake news on Tuesday’s edition of Inside Politics and not of the fun April Fool’s variety. Bash, together with Africana Studies Prof. Clarissa Myric-Harris White, burned multiple straw men on President Donald Trump’s executive order on the Smithsonian. At the beginning of the segment, Bash reported, “In the order, the president says, quote, ‘museums in our nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.’” Later, she welcomed White and asked, “this executive order says, that the goal of this tie between Smithsonian funding and the policy that they want to promote, and it is, quote, ‘prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values or divide Americans based on race.’ What is your understanding of what that means for these museums?     Why ask White what she thinks it means when you could quote portions of the executive order that are actually relevant, such as, “Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”  Still, White falsely replied, “It essentially describes restoring the great man theory of history. It's a narrative that emphasizes the contributions of prominent, primarily white men, political leaders, military commanders, pioneers, rather than the collective actions and experiences of ordinary people… And so eliminating the stories of everyday people. And then when you talk about eliminating the stories of a whole race of people, a whole sector of society, it gets to be pretty scary.” White further freaked, “And so if fully enacted, this executive order would cause the death of museums, libraries, and other entities that strive to provide accurate narratives about the history of this country and the principles on which the country was founded are good ones. All men are created equal, but this country is still really in the midst of trying to live up to that promise of, to fulfill that promise of freedom, equity, and equality.” Bash, again, tried to appear to be the responsible reporter who was quoting from the order, but she cherry-picked:  Let me just kind of put some meat on the bone here of the arguments that the administration has been making through this executive order and elsewhere. And they argue that how Americans frame history has changed in recent years. You just gave an example of how it's changed. You know, in a more fulsome way. What they cite is, I'll just give one example, an ongoing exhibition at the American Art Museum called The Shape of Power: Stories of Race in American Sculpture. They take issue with noting that the U.S. ‘has used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement.’ So there has been a shift.     The sentence immediately preceding Bash’s quote talks about that change, and it has nothing to do with great man theory or ignoring the history of racism, “This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.” According to Trump’s order, the statue exhibit isn’t just teaching about the history of racism in the U.S.; it is teaching that the U.S. was founded to perpetuate it. Nevertheless, White declared, “But it's a shift to tell the complete story of this country. And as horrible and as regrettable as it is, as it is, we cannot deny the truth. We cannot deny that this country was, in large measure, established through exploitation of the people, the indigenous people who were here and then the millions of people, African people, who were brought to this country to literally build the country.” White further reached for a simply not credible conclusion, “So, eliminating that aspect of the story of this country, the history of this country serves no positive purpose. It encourages the denial that the institution of slavery ever even existed. That racism, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and racial violence against black communities and other communities ever occurred.  Bash wrapped things up by adding, “It just, it's it doesn't seem like an either or proposition. It's a yes and. There were great men who started this country, with a lot of women helping them quietly, and there was a lot of and there was a lot of very terrible parts of history that obviously are taught to our children and should still be.” And despite CNN’s collective freak-out, it still will be. What you can’t do is say America and its constitutional system are “inherently” and “irredeemably” racist. Here is a transcript for the April 1 show: CNN Inside Politics with Dana Bash 4/1/2025 12:41 PM ET DANA BASH: As tourists and school field trips descend here in Washington for spring break, a lot of them will visit the Smithsonian Museums, the same institution President Trump targeted in an executive order he signed last week, accusing the Smithsonian of promoting a, quote, “divisive and improper race centered ideology.” In the order, the president says, quote, “museums in our nation's capital should be places where individuals go to learn — not to be subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.” … I want you to react to what this executive order says, that the goal of this tie between Smithsonian funding and the policy that they want to promote, and it is, quote, “prohibit expenditure on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values or divide Americans based on race.” What is your understanding of what that means for these museums? CLARISSA MYRIC-HARRIS WHITE: Yes. Well. Dana, first of all, thank you for inviting me to speak on this issue. But to answer your question, the executive order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, really a law that would do just the opposite. It essentially describes restoring the great man theory of history. It's a narrative that emphasizes the contributions of prominent, primarily white men, political leaders, military commanders, pioneers, rather than the collective actions and experiences of ordinary people.  Examples of great men: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or even Daniel Boone. And so eliminating the stories of everyday people. And then when you talk about eliminating the stories of a whole race of people, a whole sector of society, it gets to be pretty scary. And so if fully enacted, this executive order would cause the death of museums, libraries, and other entities that strive to provide accurate narratives about the history of this country and the principles on which the country was founded are good ones. All men are created equal, but this country is still really in the midst of trying to live up to that promise of, to fulfill that promise of freedom, equity, and equality. BASH: Let me just kind of put some meat on the bone here of the arguments that the administration has been making through this executive order and elsewhere. And they argue that how Americans frame history has changed in recent years. You just gave an example of how it's changed. You know, in a more fulsome way. What they cite is, I'll just give one example, an ongoing exhibition at the American Art Museum called The Shape of Power: Stories of Race in American Sculpture. They take issue with noting that the U.S. “has used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement.” So there has been a shift. WHITE: Yes, indeed. But it's a shift to tell the complete story of this country. And as horrible and as regrettable as it is, as it is, we cannot deny the truth. We cannot deny that this country was, in large measure, established through exploitation of the people, the indigenous people who were here and then the millions of people, African people, who were brought to this country to literally build the country. So, eliminating that aspect of the story of this country, the history of this country serves no positive purpose. It encourages the denial that the institution of slavery ever even existed. That racism, Jim Crow laws and segregation, and racial violence against black communities and other communities ever occurred.  And how do you eliminate that history, that story of this country? Okay. And then, you know, the other part of that is that in spite of all of this, despite of the discrimination and racism that underserved, marginalized populations have nonetheless made great contributions, again, helped to literally build this country and this country, the fact that this country has, when pushed, made concessions and corrected self-corrected, to rectify— BASH: Yeah. WHITE: —  Over time, when the Civil Rights Movement and so on, that's important history to know— BASH: Yeah. WHITE: —  as we continue this journey to make sure this country is one that is—  provides liberty and justice for all. BASH: It just it's it doesn't seem like an either or proposition. It's a yes and. There were great men who started this country— WHITE:  Yes. BASH: —  with a lot of women helping them quietly. WHITE: That’s right. BASH: And there was a lot of and there was a lot of very terrible parts of history that obviously are taught to our children and should still be.

Broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC are deliberately omitting news of a suspected arson attack against the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico from their flagship morning and evening newscasts. Early on Sunday morning, Albuquerque Fire Rescue responded to reports of a fire at the New Mexico GOP headquarters. According to reports, there was fire damage to the front entryway and smoke damage “throughout the building.” The words “ICE=KKK” also had been spray painted on the side of the structure. The Republican Party of New Mexico is calling this a “deliberate act of arson,” and the FBI are now investigating. As an apparent act of political violence, one would reasonably expect the news media to deem this story worth covering. And in fact, much of the media did. Both CNN and MSNBC covered the alleged attack multiple times on Monday. That same day, NBC and CBS’s live streaming services discussed it, and even ABC’s 4:00 a.m. ET Good Morning America First Look ran a news brief about it:   Clearly, all three broadcast networks are aware of this act of presumably politically-motivated violence. And yet, none of them have deemed it interesting or notable enough to breathe even a word about it on their flagship morning (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS Mornings, and NBC’s Today) or evening (ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News) newscasts. They’ve had ample opportunity to do so. Albuquerque Fire Rescue responded just before 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday, meaning the networks had all day Sunday to fit it into their evening news shows. Not only did that not happen, but they also completely avoided the story for all of Monday, and it was nowhere to be found on Tuesday morning either. Why was the news brief that aired on ABC’s Good Morning America First Look not good enough for the far more widely-viewed 7 a.m. ET edition of Good Morning America? Why did the reports that CBS and NBC aired on their streaming services yesterday not merit at least a few seconds of attention on network news shows? One would suspect that a bunch of journalists who spent the last four years hyperventilating about January 6th would care a great deal about this very obvious instance of political violence. Unless, of course, they’re not journalists at all, but rather activists dressed as journalists.

Filing this one under examples of why the liberal media are arguably the most self-righteous people known to man, Semafor’s Max Tani shared on Monday night the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) is mulling multiple stunts to protest reports the White House Office of Communications might take over and alter the Brady Briefing Room seating chart, including a sit-in. “According to two people familiar with the discussions, among the proposals raised by members was a potential Civil Rights era-style ‘sit-in’ protest, in which members would return to their old seats and refuse to leave them,” Tani reported. In other words, they think channeling Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus or other American icons who risked life and limb to desegregate American life in everything from lunch counters to schools. The arrogance of these people never fail to disappoint. Tani explained in his article the proposal — which was first shared Sunday by Axios’s Mike Allen — “has rattled the journalists who cover the president and left them mulling how exactly to push back” against the White House’s attempt to reshape the seating chart to reflect the 21st century media habits of Americans. Tani conceded as much: The WHCA’s current system reflects the 20th century media power structure: wire services and broadcast and cable television networks occupy the front row, major newspapers and radio get the second and third rows, and a more fluid collection of news organizations sits further back. He also scooped that “[o]n Sunday, key members of the WHCA, including the organization’s leadership and some White House bureau chiefs, met to discuss a range of potential responses should Trump communications officials decide to dictate where reporters in the room sit.” Along with the proposal to compare themselves to the Civil Rights movement, Tani said “WHCA leadership declined to comment, noting that Sunday’s meeting had been off-the-record, and members of the WHCA who spoke to Semafor emphasized that the situation remained in flux.” Tani rehashed the WHCA’s high-minded statement denouncing the possible tweaks (without having them set in stone yet), adding that, along with the changes to the pool rotations and booting the Associated Press, “Trump communications officials have also invited friendly reporters to cover events at which there is limited press access, allowing Trump to receive more positive questions and even some rhetorical backup[.]” “[W]hile the WHCA has struck a defiant public tone, the organization had already made some concessions that have pleased the White House. After initially tapping comedian Amber Ruffin to perform at the WHCA’s annual dinner, the organization reversed course following complaints from White House communications officials, who criticized her comments...in which she described the new administration as ‘kind of a bunch of murderers,’” he added.