Newsbusters

On Tuesday night’s episode of MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, Stephanie Ruhle picked up where she had left off the previous night in vitriolically attacking Elon Musk and his new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk was a central feature of a panel discussion she hosted, featuring Bloomberg senior executive editor Tim O’Brien, and Max Chafkin, also of Bloomberg, who is also co-host of a podcast entitled Elon & Co., which, based on the name, is apparently and a little bizarrely devoted solely to the subject of Elon Musk.

“All right, Max,” Ruhle said, turning to Chafkin, “let’s talk about Elon Musk.” She fumed that Musk was “more than front and center” in the new administration. “I mean, this guy is getting more headlines than Donald Trump.”

Strangely, it seemed that in her eyes Musk’s involvement in government was pretty much criminal, while she showed no sign of having any problem with, for example, George Soros exercising tremendous influence for left-wing causes. 

“Yeah, he is not a behind the scenes kind of guy,” Chafkin responded. He then went on to assert, without offering evidence, that Musk “got access to these- or we believe he got access anyway- to these Treasury Department payment systems. This is very strange, you know, it is not a normal thing. It’s probably illegal…”

Essentially, he accused Musk on TV of at best very shady activity, offering no substantiation and even seeming to admit that he himself was not 100 percent certain that it was actually true.

Chafkin continued in this vein when he asserted that Musk’s employees, “the DOGE kids,” as he called them, “basically broke into the USAID office as part of what Elon Musk described as- as taking a wood chipper to the agency.”

Effectively, Chafkin, again without offering evidence, accused Musk’s employees of committing a crime right under the nose of the federal government, for which they were somehow not even charged.

 

 

O’Brien then chimed in, asserting that Musk had “made a hash of Twitter.” He then stated that Musk bought the platform only so he could “poison the well at Twitter, drive some other- people off the platform, and use it to service his own political- needs.”

“And he’s now coming into the federal government,” O’Brien lamented, “He has no experience. One can belittle the idea that you need any experience to run the federal government, but it’s not true. We all rely on the federal government when we have a need. People turn to FEMA when there’s a natural disaster. All the people that say they hate the federal government, or they don’t want the government to intrude in their lives, turn to the government to defend them in foreign wars and to protect them during natural disasters at home.”

The distinction was completely ignored between basic constitutional federal functions, like military protection, and a sprawling and endlessly expanding bureaucracy, like USAID, which was itself artificially created.

“Let’s talk about USAID for a moment,” said Ruhle, “‘because our friend Peter Baker wrote the following: ‘Today, total USAID annual spending to provide food, medicine, shelter, and other services to impoverished countries around the world: $38 billion. Total increase in Elon Musk’s personal net worth since the November election: $156 billion.’”

In reality, Musk’s own net worth was in no way relevant to the status of foreign aid, but Ruhle launched into a discussion about how Musk promised to contribute $6 billion to end world hunger, to which Chafkin responded, “he’s on to the next thing,” stating that the check “wasn’t cut.”

In fact, this statement was false, Musk had in fact made the $6 billion contribution to his own foundation.

“He has given very little money to philanthropy,” Chafkin went on, “I think in Elon Musk’s mind, you know, sending Elon Musk to Mars is a form of philanthropy- maybe the greatest form of philanthropy. It also happens to be a way that, you know, guarantees him if- he were able to convince Trump and NASA and the American public that this was a good idea, it would be worth tens of billions of dollars.” 

O’Brien interjected to promote Musk being blasted off to Mars and away from Earth: “Let’s let him go. He can go.” 

“Except he wouldn’t be doing it on his own dime,” responded Ruhle, “He would now have the US government behind him. And I’m unfamiliar with any group of voters that said going to Mars was a top priority for them.”

MSNBC does indeed seem to have found a new favorite whipping boy more interesting to them than actually reporting the news. As Ruhle herself concluded on Musk’s doings, “We’re going to have to keep covering it every night.” 

Full transcript below. Click “Expand” to read:

MSNBC’s The 11th Hour
02/04/2025
11:25 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: DEMOCRATS PUSH BACK ON ELON MUSK & DOGE EFFORTS]

STEPHANIE RUHLE: All right, Max, let’s talk about Elon Musk. Early days, the idea was, he was going to be kind of hiding in the background pulling strings. But he is even more than front and center. I mean, this guy is getting more headlines than Donald Trump. What is your latest reporting?

MAX CHAFKIN: Yeah, he is not a behind the scenes kind of guy. I mentioned over the weekend he got access to these- or we believe he got access anyway- to these Treasury Department payment systems. This is very strange, you know, it is not a normal thing. It’s probably illegal- and just a- huge- expansion of his authority. 

And then there was this account of Elon Musk and his- you know, DOGE- these DOGE- young men- young men and- and perhaps a few women, I’m not sure, but- but the DOGE kids who basically broke into the USAID office as part of what Elon Musk described as- as taking a wood chipper to the agency. And this is like a federal agency that is, you know, really important, does all this important work all over the world. And just speaking about it in- just really callous terms of- of destruction.

And- and so- so he has been front and center and potentially, as- those clips show, you know, potentially doing stuff that could prove to be unpopular, I think.

RUHLE: Trump allies- excuse me, Elon Musk and Trump allies argue, “well, we need this. We need somebody to come in. We need like a restructuring guy, to come in, look at these budgets, you know, slash them, clean them up. The United States government has been bloated and lazy for years and years.” But what- why should we believe Elon Musk, right? While he’s an extraordinarily successful business guy, he himself is an agent of chaos.

TIM O’BRIEN: Well, and he’s not a universal genius, none of us are. He made a hash out of Twitter. You know, Max knows this very well. He didn’t understand the media industry. He didn’t understand social platforms. And he went in there and essentially blew up a platform that had very valuable relationships and served a very overt need. He-

RUHLE: He would argue it’s more successful than ever. He would argue.

[ELON MUSK’S AGGRESSIVE PUSH INTO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT]

O’BRIEN: Well, he- it would be successful if what he wanted to do was- was poison the well at Twitter, drive some other- people off the platform, and use it to service his own political- needs.

RUHLE: Yes, yes and yes.

O’BRIEN: Yeah. So in that regard, sure, that’s successful, for him. And if he can blow billions of dollars down the drain in the service of that, fine. But in terms of the finances of it, or in terms of the management of it, it’s not objectively successful. 

And he’s now coming into the federal government. He has no experience. One can belittle the idea that you need any experience to run the federal government, but it’s not true. We all rely on the federal government when we have a need. People turn to FEMA when there’s a natural disaster. All the people that say they hate the federal government, or they don’t want the government to intrude in their lives, turn to the government to defend them in foreign wars and to protect them during natural disasters at home. 

And if these guys were very serious about cutting back government spending, they’d have to look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security-

RUHLE: And Social Security-

 O’BRIEN: -and defense spending. That would- and they’re not going to touch any of that, which means their impact on federal spending is going to be next to nil.

 If they want to come in and make the agencies themselves function more efficiently, and get a- a bead on what the right level of employment is, and the right way to run those agencies more effectively, you don’t come in there and kneecap veterans, who actually have skill sets and expertise and understanding about how to deliver services.

This is performative, and it’s- it’s a stage act, and Trump and Musk both like to see themselves as change agents, rather than simply agents of chaos.

RUHLE: Let’s talk USAID for a moment, because our friend Peter Baker wrote the following: “Today, total USAID annual spending to provide food, medicine, shelter, and other services to impoverished countries around the world: $38 billion. Total increase in Elon Musk’s personal net worth since the November election: $156 billion.” 

All of that made me remember, back when Elon Musk- this had to be two years ago- when he said he was willing to spend $6 billion to end world hunger. What happened there?

CHAFKIN: I mean, Tim hinted at this. Twitter was a success as an influence play, and I think there is a way to see what Elon Musk is doing with the government, as an influence play-

RUHLE: But remember when he said, “I will spend $6 billion-

CHAFKIN: I do-

RUHLE: -and I will end world hunger?”

CHAFKIN: I mean, he has- he’s on to the next thing. He’s- he’s on to being this kind of-

RUHLE: That check was never cut?

CHAFKIN: It was- no, it wasn’t cut. He’s- he has given very little money to philanthropy and his- I think in Elon Musk’s mind, you know, sending Elon Musk to Mars is a form of philanthropy is- maybe the greatest form of philanthropy. It also happens to be a way that, you know, guarantees him if- he were able to convince Trump and NASA and the American public that this was a good idea, it would be worth tens of billions of dollars.

RUHLE: And it’s been his dream to go to Mars for years and years.

O’BRIEN: Let’s let him go.

RUHLE: Yes- 

O’BRIEN: He can go. 

RUHLE: Except he wouldn’t be doing it on his own dime. He would now have the US government behind him. And I’m unfamiliar with any group of voters that said going to Mars was a top priority for them.

O’BRIEN: Also, Tesla has- you know- was a creation, in part, of federal subsidies. It was also innovation, great private enterprise, but it was a nice example of a public-private partnership that ended up being successful. And he’s now allied with a president, who wants to gut the EV industry and has no patience for it from a business standpoint. Again, it makes no sense for him to be in that relationship, but I think he’s now focused on being performative and not being productive.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: ELON MUSK EXERTS POWER, TARGETS AID]

RUHLE: Performing works at times.

O’BRIEN: Yeah, it does.

RUHLE: We’re going to have to keep covering it every night. 

(…)

On Wednesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s third press briefing mostly centered around two wildly different issues of transgenderism and the future of the Gaza Strip (especially in light of President Trump’s Tuesday claim the U.S. would take it over). And, as she’s done, called on a wide swath of reporters from legacy liberal networks to our friends in conservative media.

The “new media” seat went to podcaster and former longtime ESPN anchor Sage Steele, who was on-hand for Trump’s signing of an executive order ensuring only women and girls can safely compete in sports without fear of having to face transgender individuals.

Steele’s question correctly noted the executive order could be undone at any time whereas something passed by Congress would have the weight of law:

.@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt welcomes @SageSteele as the receipient of the “new media” seat at today’s WH briefing: “And in the seat today, we have a long time national television broadcaster. I’m sure many of you recognized her when she came in, Sage Steele, who is now the host… pic.twitter.com/cMIurVUYjA
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
NBC’s Garrett Haake made his Briefing Room debut in the Trump era by pressing Leavitt on the shocking Gaza pronouncement:

NBC’s @GarrettHaake: “And on the foreign partners, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis have panned to this plan, what foreign partners, if any, have expressed any interest in being part of this?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “Well, the President has said he’s been socialing… pic.twitter.com/Z0bUCcVvGl
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
Fox’s Peter Doocy was next and was the only reporter to invoke the incendiary rhetoric from congressional Democrats on Tuesday against President Trump, Elon Musk, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Not surprisingly, Leavitt shredded them and cited the obvious about Musk and DOGE having been a campaign pledge (click “expand”):

 

 

DOOCY: Are any officials here preparing to fight Democratic lawmakers in the streets?

LEAVITT: Absolutely not.

DOOCY: So — so these —

LEAVITT: And thanks for the question.

DOOCY: — some elected Democrats are so steamed about DOGE, Congresswoman Lamonica McIver says we are at war. Ilhan Omar says we might actually see somebody get killed and Chris Van Hollen says we have to fight this in the Congress. We have to fight this in the streets. So what now?

LEAVITT: And may I just point out, if you heard that type of violent enticing rhetoric from our side of the aisle from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, I think there would be a lot more outrage in this room today. It’s unacceptable, the comments that have been made by these Democrat leaders and frankly, they don’t even know what they’re talking about because President Trump was an elected — with a mandate from the American people to make this government more efficient. He campaigned across this country with Elon Musk, vowing that Elon was going to head up the Department of Government Efficiency, and the two of them with a great team around them, we’re going to look at the receipts of this federal government and ensure it’s accountable to American taxpayers. That’s all that is happening here and for Democrat officials to incite violence and encourage Americans to take to the streets is incredibly alarming, and they should be held accountable for that rhetoric.

Doocy also invoked disturbing reporting from NBC that “some of the illegal immigrants that we’ve seen rounded up and arrested are not being deported,” which Leavitt explained there were “461 illegal alien” out “of the more than 8,000 that have been arrested since President Trump was inaugurated,” which was due to “a lack of significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future, lack of detention availability,” and a detainee’s medical state.

ABC’s Mary Bruce went back to the Gaza issue, demanding to know if Americans should be “prepared to remove Palestinians from Gaza by force” as well as “see U.S. military on the ground fighting a ground war against Hamas.”

To both, Leavitt said the President hasn’t “committed” servicemen and women to anything “yet.

Following CNN’s Jeff Zeleny restating Bruce’s questions and Politico’s Dasha Burns wondering if this Gaza plan had put into written, our friend Mary Margaret Olohan at the Daily Wire tied the transgenderism executive order to the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles:

.@realDailyWire’s @MaryMargOlohan: “So, how is today’s executive order going to impact the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles? For example, would a man who thinks that he’s a transgender woman be allowed to compete as a female on U.S. soil?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “It’s a… pic.twitter.com/zejlGt9yVg
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
She followed up with this zinger about the way other journalists in the room treat transgenderism (which we discussed with her last summer):

OLOHAN: On media coverage of this executive order and the topic in general, What’s the White House’s view of framing that calls men transgender females are similar rhetoric coming from organizations like the ACLU and GLAAD?

LEAVITT: Well, it’s been very clear. The policy of this administration is that there are only two sexes, male and female. Pretty simple. 

Until Real America’s Voice’s Brian Glenn did so after Olohan, no one had asked Leavitt about the reports of Politico Pro subscriptions being purchased inside agencies like USAID with our tax dollars:

.@RealAmVoice’s @BrianGlennTV: “USAID has gotten a lot of attention in the last couple of days for some of these bizarre things that we’ve been — taxpayers have been funding. Now it looks like there are a couple of media outlets that have been dragged into this conversation as… pic.twitter.com/6yTOGCj0d7
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
Another friend of ours in Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese brought up a headline from earlier this week with the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) — helmed this year by Eugene Daniels of Politico — selected far-left comedienne Amber Ruffin for its insufferable dinner. Leavitt charitably called the pick “an interesting choice”:

.@DailyCaller’s @ReaganReese_: “The WHCA announced that comedian Amber Ruffin, who is called the President, ‘a toddler with his pants pulled down’ will be the entertainment for this year’s correspondents dinner. Does the White House have a reaction to this choice, and will the… pic.twitter.com/9YXAwKwaqe
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
Leavitt has not only kept her word to call on conservative reporters in the back rows, but others representing legacy media. For example, she took questions from Kalyn Norwood, who works for local TV station syndicate Hearst:

Hearst TV’s @KalynNorwood: “On the executive order to be signed today, you said that this will be enforced. Can you spell out for schools and the public how exactly the administration’s plans to force this, even at a local level and on top of that, there are human rights groups… pic.twitter.com/6sR5iG47fp
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
As right-of-center reporters showed in the other two briefings of Leavitt’s tenure, they’re not only there to exactly lob softballs, but rather ask difficult questions that, instead of being gotcha statements, represent concerns of their audiences.

This bore itself out in a blunt questions from Fox Business’s Edward Lawrence on cost of living and then Real Clear Politics’s Philip Wegmann on Gaza:

Fox Business’s @EdwardLawrence: “So, now that the President Trump’s policies are starting to take shape, how long will it take to cycle through and get some of the actual prices that Americans are paying to come down?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “The prices at the store and at… pic.twitter.com/InhdByPsRC
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025

.@PhilipWegmann: “Is it worth risking the life of a single U.S. Marine to turn the Gaza Strip into the Riviera of the Middle East?”@PressSec @KarolineLeavitt: “Phil, I’m not sure why you’re asking me that question because I’ve already said the President has not committed to… pic.twitter.com/wLCBVCISNU
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
One America News Network’s Daniel Baldwin closed out the briefing by noticing Trump’s busy schedule also included new conversations with Governors Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA):

.@OANN’s @Baldwin_Daniel_: “The daily guidance says that the President will be meeting with a pair of governors today, Governor Abbott of Texas and Governor Newsom of California. It comes after the President took executive action to turn the water back on in California, billions… pic.twitter.com/q8BOj8CVRd
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 5, 2025
To see the relevant transcript from the February 5 briefing (including even more questions about military recruitments surging in the last two months), click here.

After being compelled by the Federal Communications Commission to turn over the unedited transcript and video of their infamous interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris for 60 Minutes, the FCC released it to the public.

After reviewing the video (clip from the raw video below), NewsBusters can confirm that what appeared on 60 Minutes was highly edited. Not only did they edit what appeared on 60 Minutes, they also edited what appeared on Face the Nation, including cutting out a hard hitting question that called out the Biden-Harris administration for looking weak on the world stage.

Below is the transcript of the exchange in question between CBS’s Bill Whitaker and Harris. Note that in Harris’s answer for 60 Minutes, they pulled out a fragment of one sentence of a much, much larger answer which appeared on Face the Nation (FTN):

[BOTH 60 MINUTES AND FTN] BILL WHITAKER: We supply Israel with billions of dollars in military aid, and yet, Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be charting his own course. The Biden administration The Biden Harris administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire. He’s resisted. You urged him not to go into Lebanon. He went in anyway. He has promised to make Iran pay for the missile attack, and that has the potential of expanding the war. Does the US have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu?
[ONLY ON FTN] KAMALA HARRIS: Well, let’s start with this, um, on this subject. The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to defend itself against 200 ballistic missiles. That were just meant to attack the Israelis and the people of Israel. And I think that is the most recent example of why what we do to assist in their defense around military aid is important. And when we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah presents, Iran, um, I think that it is without any question our imperative to do what we can to allow Israel to defend itself against those kinds of attacks. Now
[60 MINUTES ANSWER STARTS HERE] HARRIS: the work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles
[ONLY ON FTN] HARRIS: which include the need for humanitarian aid, the need for. This war to end the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages and and and create a ceasefire and we’re not gonna stop in terms of putting that pressure on Israel and and in the region including with other leaders in the region including Arab leaders.

It’s also worth noting that Harris’s first sentence in her answer didn’t make it into either airing of the interview.

 

This is a clip from the raw video CBS provided to the FCC, which the FCC then released.

 

Whitaker’s second question was where things got even more interesting. CBS used only one sentence from a much longer question that used reporting from The Wall Street Journal to call out the Biden-Harris administration for looking weak on the world stage:

[BOTH 60 MINUTES AND FTN] WHITAKER: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.

[THIS PART NOT ON 60 MINUTES NOR FTN] WHITTAKER: Um, The Wall Street Journal said that your administration has repeatedly been blindsided by Netanyahu, and, in fact, he has rebuffed just about all of your administration’s entreaties.

[ONLY ON FTN] HARRIS: Well Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we’re not gonna stop doing that

[60 MINUTES ANSWER STARTS HERE] we’re not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.

(…)

Note that what aired on 60 Minutes was only the latter part of Harris’s answer.

In a statement following Trump’s accusations of deceitful editing, which culminated with a $10 billion lawsuit against the news outlet, CBS insisted the accusation was “false.”

“Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response,” they argued. Adding: “When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”

But what CBS did was pluck out a fragment of a sentence that was in the middle of a word salad being spoken by candidate a with a problem connecting with voters. Again, they also edited out their reporter asking a question with critical analysis against said candidate. They later followed up with a different 60 Minutes episode smearing said candidate’s opponent.

CBS was caught red handed with highly edited video designed to hide Harris’s bumbling answers in pursuit of a favorable election result. Now we know why CBS staunchly refused to release the unedited video to the public.

On Wednesday’s CBS Mornings and CBS Mornings Plus, there was a sense of anger, disbelief, and shock at President Trump’s bombshell declaration Tuesday that the U.S. would oversee the rebuilding of the Gaza Strip. Between interviews with White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and then former Obama and Biden official Samantha Vinograd, CBS suggested U.S. involvement was not only a selfish money grab, but would lead to terror attacks in the U.S.

Co-host Gayle King began the Waltz interview with a frank scoffing: “[W]hat right do we, the U.S., have to do this? When you have two million Palestinians that say, ‘listen, this is our home, we don’t want to leave, we want to rebuild? We love — we love where we live, and we want to stay here.’ What right does the U.S. have to do this?”

 

 

Waltz clapped back at King directly, saying “anyone asking that question, frankly, doesn’t have a realistic view of the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza” thinking they can return to “a place that has thousands and thousands of unexploded ordinance and bombs,” “buildings that are collapsing and unsafe,” and “no sewage, no running water.”

“It has become completely unlivable with this war that Hamas started October 7 and I, as a veteran, can tell you it is despicable and sad that groups like Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS literally sacrifice the lives and livelihoods of their own people to achieve some type of ideological gain. But I think what the President is just acknowledging is…he’s not seeing any realistic solutions on how those miles and miles and miles of debris are going to be cleared,” he added.

King followed up by suggesting Trump sees Gazans as a “profit-based business” venture. Waltz calmly batted that down with the thesis being the “miles of rubble” are “completely unlivable” and “Hamas cannot stay there.”

Co-host Tony Dokoupil — who nearly lost his job for defending Israel’s right to exist — had the next two questions wondering if U.S. involvement would raise the specter of terrorism in the U.S. and if “the dream of Palestinian nationhood” was over (click “expand”):

 

 

DOKOUPIL: [T]he Israelis are certainly very happy. Benjamin Netanyahu is very happy to have the U.S. support. They’re looking from that. But how, from an American perspective, does this make Americans safer? The first concern people will have is there’s terrorism there, is there now going to be terrorism here because we’re so mixed up in this?

WALTZ: Well, it’s the same — well, I think the same strategy and thinking of why we still have forces going after ISIS all over the world. We still have allies and partners helping us with Al-Qaeda. The President just authorized on Saturday a strike to a major ISIS financier, recruiter, and leader in the caves in northern Somalia that, frankly, our military have been trying to take out for well over a year and couldn’t get the approvals from the previous White House. So, I think what you’re asking is why do we support our allies and partners in counterterrorism with a group that literally promising to conduct future October 7ths, which was the 9/11 for Israel of their time? So, absolutely we’re going to continue to help. And when we have terrorism defeated and degraded abroad, it helps the homeland here.

DOKOUPIL: I — I hear you there, Mr. Waltz, the broader war on terror — that makes sense. Circling back to what Gayle was talking about, you know, for generations now American policy has been in support of a two-state solution there — stability in the Middle East. There’ll be Israel and then there’ll be a future Palestinian state. Yesterday’s comments seems to be the end of that policy. I just want to clarify is it the end of the two-state policy? And are — is it a denial for the future by this government of the wish, the dream of Palestinian nationhood?

WALTZ: I don’t think — I certainly didn’t hear the President say it was the end of the two-state solution. You have the Palestinian Authority. You have the West Bank. And when he was asked directly who was going to live there in the future, he said the Palestinians and perhaps many others. I mean, those are the conversations that we’re having. The President has talked to President Sisi of Egypt. He’s talked to Mohamed bin Solomon, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. He’s spoken to the King Abdullah, who’s coming here next week. We have Netanyahu here now, so the President is engaging with our key allies in the region and asking for their input, asking for their ideas and is personally engaged on this issue.

Co-host and former NFL player Nate Burleson made his contributions as the end, wondering why what Palestinian people think doesn’t “matter to President Trump.”

Shifting to CBS Mornings Plus, Dokoupil vaguely introduced Vinograd as having “worked on Middle East policy for three different presidents” instead of mostly recently as a Homeland Security official for the Biden regime.

Vinograd came out swinging like a politician by declaring “Gaza is not for sale” and blamed Israel for Gaza Strip tensions because they “asserted control over” it following “the Arab-Israel War of 1968.”

 

 

She fear-mongered about terror attacks because of Trump’s proclamations: “[E]ven if President Trump’s words are more rhetoric than reality, as a counterterrorism professional, one takeaway is this moment could serve as a real recruitment opportunity for Hamas and other organizations to recruit operatives and inspire attacks against the United States and further attacks against Israel.”

Co-host Adriana Diaz went right along with this:

DIAZ: So, Sam, do you think this could make the U.S. more vulnerable? Could it be dangerous for us if, in fact, it happens?

VINOGRAD: President Trump’s pledge to take over Gaza and displace millions of Palestinians who don’t want to leave their homes will likely inspire terrorist organizations to direct more attacks against the United States because now they have soundbites of the President pledging to forcibly displace their Arab brethren in from their homes. So, I do worry that this could expose U.S. personnel, U.S. individuals living in the region to more threats from Hamas and other terrorist organizations even if President Trump does not plan to follow through on this plan.

Dokoupil closed with perhaps the most obvious point, which is “the idea that nothing else worked, the two-states, the old way hadn’t worked, there’s no other plan that works, that it makes me think he’s negotiating for a better option.”

Vinograd conceded that might be the case, but made sure she threw jabs as a bleeding-blue leftist:

This could certainly be a negotiating tactic. We’ve seen President Trump take this approach on tariffs, for example, by making maximalist pledges and then walking them back when he gets certain concessions. I do think that it is true that there has been decades of work to try to turn Gaza into something that does not pose a security threat to Israel and provides a hospitable home for the Palestinian people, but it’s not a zero-sum game between forcibly displacing Palestinians, forcing them on Arab neighbors like Egypt and Jordan who, by the way, already host millions of refugees and are dealing with their own economic issues. It’s not a zero-sum game between that option and leaving Gaza as it is and that is why the third phase of the ceasefire negotiation is supposed to focus on a viable plan for the reconstruction of Gaza that would undoubtably include the involvement of Arab states like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others.

To see the relevant CBS transcripts from February 5, click here (for CBS Mornings) and here (for CBS Mornings Plus). 

For all their claims that President Trump, conservatives, and America were bigoted and full of hate, the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View were just projecting their own ugliness. During Wednesday’s show, the cast flaunted their ageism, smeared a certain immigrant with lies about their status, and baselessly lashed out at pro-lifers to blame them for something the attacker admitted they didn’t know the truth of.

Despite her staunch support for then-President Biden’s run for re-election and denial of any issues with his age and obvious failing mental facilities, moderator Whoopi Goldberg suggested that President Trump was too old for the job

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But I kind of look at Trump bluster from three lenses. Is he just saying I to distract from other things so we all go crazy? Very possible. Is he just always a real estate developer who sees things as dollar signs? And third —

GOLDBERG: Or is he too old for this job?!

This wasn’t the first time Goldberg had shown her hypocrisy on the Biden/Trump age comparison.

 

 

TV judge and original cast member of The View Star Jones was filling in for Joy Behar when she whined about it being “day 16 of Trump 2.0 and it’s just typical of him to throw a bunch of cray-cray up against the wall and so it distracts you from what’s really going on…”

Jones then flashed some anti-Immigrant bigotry when she lashed out at Elon Musk’s leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency. She claimed he was “foreign agent” “who’s not been vetted by the United States government.”

That was a lie.

Musk had been an American citizen since 2002 and had a security clearance for many years, possibly dating back to the George W. Bush administration because of SpaceX’s contracts with the federal government. Both of these prove that he was not a “foreign agent” and had been vetted by the federal government.

“And the media is playing into it in my opinion. I mean, you’re allowing foolishness to distract us from facts and what is going on,” she continued to bellyache. It used to have people stand on the corner and just be crazy at Times Square. Now, they’re all over the place. Okay?”

Following a commercial break, the cast came back to discuss a Hollywood actress and her director husband being criticized on social media for using a surrogate to have their baby girl.

Without evidence, and admitting she didn’t have any, co-host Sara Haines lashed out and suggested it was pro-lifers who were leaving the nasty comments:

Having a family whatever that family looks like, it’s hard and not something that shows up on your doorstep. You to build it, make it, grow it. And I think it’s so sensitive to touch into this area. People just want to love. And when you find a baby it’s always interesting that the online haters, I’m curious what their bios say because for a pro-family world we live in that’s all about life, you know, all the time, the second someone has it, we tear them down. So, like, we don’t know why. It’s none of our business. But I commend them for just saying, like, step out.

In the past, Haines has made very heinous comments about pro-lifers and how they should just die. In the days leading up to Christmas in 2023, she proclaimed it was “God’s will” that pro-lifers die rather than seek life-saving cancer treatment. She’s also asserted that pro-lifers hate mothers and the poor.

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

ABC’s The View
February 5, 2025
11:06:13 a.m. Eastern

(…)

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But I kind of look at Trump bluster from three lenses. Is he just saying I to distract from other things so we all go crazy? Very possible. Is he just always a real estate developer who sees things as dollar signs? And third —

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Or is he too old for this job?!

FARAH GRIFFIN: Right. Or third which could be all of the above. Is he simply starting with the most extreme version of the deal so that what he ultimately does in Gaza seems less crazy than the U.S. taking it over? I don’t know which it is, but it’s a terrible idea.

(…)

11:09:13 a.m. Eastern

STAR JONES: Yeah, I mean, this day 16 of Trump 2.0 and it’s just typical of him to throw a bunch of cray-cray up against the wall and so it distracts you from what’s really going on and the federal employees that are scared that don’t know if they’ll have a job, if they’ll have their retirement.

[Applause]

And civil rights being diminished and human rights being diminished and –

GOLDBERG: And people knowing your business.

JONES: And people knowing your business.

GOLDBERG: Who shouldn’t know your business.

JONES: Because a foreign agent has now access who’s not been vetted by the United States government.

GOLDBEGR: That’s right.

JONES: And the media is playing into it in my opinion. I mean, you’re allowing foolishness to distract us from facts and what is going on.

It used to have people stand on the corner and just be crazy at Times Square. Now, they’re all over the place. Okay?

(…)

11:15:10 a.m. Eastern

GOLDBERG: Welcome back. Emily in Paris star Emily Collins and her director husband Charlie McDowell recently welcomed her first child. And he’s responding to criticism about the couple using a surrogate. He posted that, ‘It’s okay not to know why someone might need a surrogate to have a child regardless of what you assume and it’s okay to spend less time spewing hateful words into the world especially in regard to a beautiful baby girl who has brought a lot of love into people’s lives.’

SUNNY HOSTIN: Yeah.

GOLDBERG: You know.

[Applause]

People criticizing people’s personal choices. What – What is the point?

SARA HAINES: Having a family whatever that family looks like, it’s hard and not something that shows up on your doorstep. You to build it, make it, grow it. And I think it’s so sensitive to touch into this area. People just want to love. And when you find a baby it’s always interesting that the online haters, I’m curious what their bios say because for a pro-family world we live in that’s all about life, you know, all the time, the second someone has it, we tear them down.

So, like, we don’t know why. It’s none of our business. But I commend them for just saying, like, step out.

(…)

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is investigating a radio station owned by the George Soros-controlled Audacy. The development comes as a response to an MRC bombshell which revealed that the radio station unmasked undercover law enforcement agents conducting operations in the gang activity-plagued San Jose, California.

MRC Business released a report January 27 documenting how KCBS 740 AM elevated the unmasking of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from the leftist Rapid Response Network, which fights against deportations during the January 26 edition of KCBS Radio Weekend News. Anchor Bret Burkhart shockingly gave exact descriptions of the unmarked vehicles the undercover ICE agents were reportedly using, including specific locations.

NewsNation confirmed January 27 that the agents were conducting an operation in the area around that time, meaning their cover was potentially blown and they were placed in significant danger.

In response, Fox News reported that the FCC Enforcement Bureau “has already sent a formal Letter of Inquiry to the radio station as part of the FCC investigation.” According to Fox News, “The Enforcement Bureau proceeding is inquiring whether the radio station–which is licensed to operate by the FCC–is violating the terms of their FCC license, which requires that they operate in the ‘public interest.’ In accordance with MRC’s reporting, “The formal Enforcement Bureau Letter notes that the ICE agents were operating at the time in an area known for violent gang activity.”

You can listen to the insane reporting by KCBS 740 AM unmasking ICE agents below.

Carr released a statement to Fox News formally putting KCBS 740 AM on notice:

‘I want to express my thanks and appreciation to DHS and ICE agents. These law enforcement professionals are honorably serving this country and carrying out vital missions. Their safety is paramount. The FCC will hold broadcasters accountable for complying with their public interest obligations.’

Soros purchased $400 million, or a 40 percent stake, of the bankrupt Audacy in February 2024. Notably, Audacy, which is America’s second biggest radio company, features or streams at least 16 powerful 50,000-watt radio stations, which means that their coverage is especially widespread. KCBS 740 AM was one of the stations prominently implicated in that deal. Biden’s FCC, prior to Carr taking the lead, arbitrarily fast-tracked Soros’s purchase of the radio giant in a dubious detour from the regulatory agency’s rigorous review process.

Former USAID Administrator Samantha Power was not the only liberal guest on Tuesday to enter the liberal echo chamber that is CBS’s The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Also making an appearance was CNN’s favorite comedian, W. Kamau Bell, who declared President Donald Trump to be “a first ballot hall of fame racist” and attacked “white people” for being unwilling to say so.

Colbert set Bell up by sarcastically asking, “Last time you were here was 2020, and Trump was president then, and now he’s back for a second… what are you looking forward to most?”

 

 

After Bell employed his own sarcasm by fake laughing at the question, Colbert urged him to “keep it positive.”

Bell then went off on his rant, “No, I will not. I will not be positive. So, here’s what annoys me about the Trump era, or error, depending on your pronunciation, is some people’s inability to admit that he’s a racist. When I say some people, I mean mostly white people. Okay, let me be clear. And a few rappers.”

He added, “So, like, the idea is that people who don’t like Trump, even don’t agree with him on left and right of the spectrum, still don’t want to admit that he’s a racist and let’s be clear: Trump has one of the greatest resumes of racism in the history of racism.”

Colbert then chimed in to add, “He’s an all-star.”

Bell upped the pejoratives, “He’s a first ballot hall of fame racist. He is the LeBron James of racism. For years and so, I hate the fact that I will be talking to people and be like, ‘You know, Donald Trump is a racist,’ and white people, I don’t know what happens to you when somebody says ‘Donald Trump is a racist,’ but you get all like, ‘I don’t know, I mean, he’s a bad guy,’ but I don’t know, their spines turned to jelly, ‘I don’t know, I just, I mean, I wouldn’t put him in charge of BET, but I wouldn’t call him a racist. I mean, I wouldn’t have him make the collard greens for the family reunion, but I wouldn’t call them racist.’”

Referencing inflatable tube men, Bell stood up and did a little dance, “I don’t know what it is, white people. When someone talks about Donald Trump’s racism, you turn into that thing outside of used car lots, like, ‘I don’t know. I wouldn’t have them get into a rap battle with Kendrick Lamar, but I wouldn’t call him a racist.’”

Of course, Bell thinks the country itself is racist, so people could be forgiven for not taking anything he says seriously.

Here is a transcript for the February 4-taped show:

CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

2/5/2025

12:28 AM ET

STEPHEN COLBERT: Last time you were here was 2020, and Trump was president then, and now he’s back for a second—

W. KAMAU BELL: What? What?

COLBERT: Yes, I’m sorry, I hate to be the one to tell you.

BELL: Oh my god, I’ve been studying for Celebrity Jeopardy! I didn’t really read the news.

COLBERT: Well, what are you looking forward to most?

BELL: [Sarcastic laughter]

COLBERT: Keep it positive.

BELL: No, I will not. I will not be positive.

COLBERT: You will not? Okay, alright.

BELL: So, here’s what annoys me about the Trump era, or error, depending on your pronunciation, is some people’s inability to admit that he’s a racist. When I say some people, I mean mostly white people. Okay, let me be clear. And a few rappers. 

COLBERT: Okay.

BELL: So, like, the idea is that people who don’t like Trump, even don’t agree with him on left and right of the spectrum, still don’t want to admit that he’s a racist and let’s be clear: Trump has one of the greatest resumes of racism in the history of racism. Yes.

COLBERT: He’s an all-star.

BELL: He’s a first ballot hall of fame racist. He is the LeBron James of racism. For years and so, I hate the fact that I will be talking to people and be like, “You know, Donald Trump is a racist,” and white people, I don’t know what happens to you when somebody says “Donald Trump is a racist,” but you get all like, “I don’t know, I mean, he’s a bad guy,” but I don’t know, their spines turned to jelly, “I don’t know, I just, I mean, I wouldn’t put him in charge of BET, but I wouldn’t call him a racist. I mean, I wouldn’t have him make the collard greens for the family reunion, but I wouldn’t call them racist.”

I don’t know what it is, white people. When someone talks about Donald Trump’s racism, you turn into that thing outside of used car lots, like, “I don’t know. I wouldn’t have them get into a rap battle with Kendrick Lamar, but I wouldn’t call him a racist.”

Jonathan Chait who recently came aboard The Atlantic magazine from his previous abode at New York magazine has made an important discovery:  The recent DNC forum, in which they chose their new leadership team, was so extreme it sounded like fuel for GOP attack ads.

In fact the DNC seemed so far gone that their forum, complete with a singing DNC Chair candidate, appeared to have channeled the much mocked Democratic Socialists convention back in 2019.

Chait came to his sad conclusion about the state of DNC sanity after watching the unintentionally hilarious meeting which he chronicled on Sunday in “The Democrats Show Why They Lost.”

The Democratic Party, at least in theory, is an organization dedicated to winning political power through elected office, though this might seem hard to believe on the evidence provided by its official proceedings. The DNC’s meetings included a land acknowledgment, multiple shrieking interruptions by angry protesters, and a general affirmation that its strategy had been sound, except perhaps insufficiently committed to legalistic race and gender essentialism.

…the official party’s influence is so meager, in part because the party has largely ceded it to a collection of progressive activist groups. These groups, funded by liberal donors, seldom have a broad base of support among the voting public but have managed to amass enormous influence over the party. They’ve done so by monopolizing the brand value of various causes.

…The 2020 Democratic primary represented the apogee, to that point, of the groups’ influence. The gigantic field of candidates slogged through a series of debates and interviews in which journalists asked if they would affirm various positions demanded by the groups. That is how large chunks of the field wound up endorsing decriminalization of the border, reparations, and other causes that are hardly consensus positions within the Democratic Party, let alone the broader electorate. It is also how Kamala Harris came out for providing free gender-reassignment surgery to prisoners and migrant detainees, which became the basis of the Trump campaign’s most effective ad against her.

Chait’s big worry is that such antics will continue to fuel mocking attack ads by those nasty Republicans.

If Democrats learned from Harris’s campaign that they should try to stop holding events that are easily repurposed as viral Republican attack ads, they showed no sign of it over the weekend. When activists repeatedly interrupted speakers, they were met supportively. “Rather than rebuff the interruptions,” observed the Wall Street Journal reporter Molly Ball, “those onstage largely celebrated them, straining to assure the activists they were actually on the same side and eagerly giving them the platform they broke the rules to demand.”

And now we come to the best and especially most hilarious part of Chait’s sad lament. The revelation that a joke he made in passing a few years ago was taken seriously by the person chosen as the new DNC Vice Chair which led to a wave of widespread mockery. Remember the Pillow Boy episode of 2021 which launched at least a thousand memes? Well, Jonathan Chait himself accidentally incited that as he explains:

The most sadly revealing outcome of the meeting may be the elevation of David Hogg as vice chair. Hogg, a 24-year-old activist, rose to prominence as a survivor of the Parkland, Florida, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and then quickly assimilated the full range of progressive stances—defund ICE, abolish the police, etc.—into his heavily online persona. And despite the horrific experience he endured, he does not seem to be notably wise beyond his years.

After the far-right activist and pillow peddler Mike Lindell gained prominence as an election denier, I joked online that progressives needed their own pillow company. (The joke, of course, is that there is obviously no need for your pillow company to endorse your political views.) The next month, Hogg went ahead and turned this joke into reality, founding Good Pillow before resigning a few months later.

Just one slight correction here. David Hogg left Good Pillow (he neglected to trademark that name which was quickly taken by someone else) not months later but just a month later. Hogg went into the pillow “business” in February 2021 and left in March 2021.

The good news for Chait is that the DNC isn’t so far gone as to require jazz hands applause …yet.

Reacting Wednesday on NBC’s Today to President Trump’s bombshell proposition Tuesday that the United States should take over the Gaza Strip to make it the Riviera of the Middle East, chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel decried this as having elicited “shock and horror” from Middle East leaders and argued a Trump administration rebuilding the terrorist state “would be the — tantamount to ethnic cleansing in the region because many Palestinians don’t want to go.”

Engel told co-host Savannah Guthrie that he had “been speaking, Savannah, since this announcement came from President Trump with powerful leaders in the region, members of royal families and their — the universal reaction was shock and horror.”

 

 

“People don’t believe this is feasible. They’re not sure if Trump is serious, but they believe that this should not happen, that it would be destabilizing, that it would be the — tantamount to ethnic cleansing in the region because many Palestinians don’t want to go. The neighboring countries, Egypt and Jordan, don’t want to take them in,” he added in unsurprisingly hot rhetoric given someone with a long history covering for the Palestinians.

Engel further huffed that “in theory, if this were to go ahead, the U.S. military going in there and removing people with — with a barrel of a gun and putting them on some sort of busses and trains and sending them into a countries where they don’t want to go and countries where they’re not welcome.”

He conceded the “simplistic argument” was that Gaza has “been destroyed” and there’s “two million people living there without basic services, so why wouldn’t they want to go someplace elsewhere they could have a better life and create an opportunity to rebuild the — the territory[.]”

From there, however, he pivoted back to disgust:

But the question is President Trump talks about making this a Riviera — a riviera in the Middle East for whom? For Palestinians or for Israelis? Palestinians certainly believe if there is going to be any kind of construction there under Trump’s perspective. it would be for the Israelis and that the Palestinians would be displaced and never be allowed to return to their homes or their homeland.

Asked by co-host Craig Melvin what a U.S. intervention would look like, Engel responded Gaza would see “a gorilla war because some Palestinians could be incentivized no doubt that — when they go back to their homes and that is happening right now, Palestinians are moving from the southern parts of the Gaza Strip to the north…finding very little left.”

“[Y]ou’d have American troops occupying potentially for a long term one of the most problematic places in the entire Middle East and for administration and for a President who said that he wants to get out of foreign wars, this would certainly be a very potentially violent entanglement,” he concluded.

To see the relevant NBC transcript from February 5, click “expand.”

NBC’s Today
February 5, 2025
7:06 a.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: International Reaction to Trump’s Gaza Plan]

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Lots to chew on here. Let’s get to NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. He, of course, has covered this region for — for decades. Lived there as well. Richard, let’s start with the — the reaction that’s coming in. We’ve already heard from the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. How are world leaders, particularly in the Middle East, reacting?

RICHARD ENGEL: So, I’ve been speaking, Savannah, since this announcement came from President Trump with powerful leaders in the region, members of royal families and their — the universal reaction was shock and horror. People don’t believe this is feasible. They’re not sure if Trump is serious, but they believe that this should not happen, that it would be destabilizing, that it would be the — tantamount to ethnic cleansing in the region because many Palestinians don’t want to go. The neighboring countries, Egypt and Jordan, don’t want to take them in. So, that would mean, in theory, if this were to go ahead, the U.S. military going in there and removing people with — with a barrel of a gun and putting them on some sort of busses and trains and sending them into a countries where they don’t want to go and countries where they’re not welcome. There’s a very simplistic argument that could be made that sure, it makes a lot of sense. You’ve got an area that’s been destroyed. You have two million people living there without basic services, so why wouldn’t they want to go someplace elsewhere they could have a better life and create an opportunity to rebuild the — the territory? But the question is President Trump talks about making this a Riviera — a riviera in the Middle East for whom? For Palestinians or for Israelis? Palestinians certainly believe if there is going to be any kind of construction there under Trump’s perspective. it would be for the Israelis and that the Palestinians would be displaced and never be allowed to return to their homes or their homeland.

CRAIG MELVIN: Richard, this idea that the President floated yesterday that he’s not ruling out the possibility of sending troops to the region, and we heard a number of lawmakers seem pretty dismissive of that. What would that look like, Richard, and what — what could the potential fall-out of U.S. troops being in that part of the world — what would that fall-out look like as well?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Trump Says U.S. Will “Take Over” Gaza]

ENGEL: The U.S. would be entering into a gorilla war because some Palestinians could be incentivized no doubt that — when they go back to their homes. And that is happening right now, Palestinians are moving from the southern parts of the Gaza Strip to the north. They’re finding very little left. They’re seeing tremendous amounts of damage, so some Palestinians probably could be encouraged to leave, but many others would not. Hamas has already said it won’t leave. Other factions would certainly emerge, so you’d have American troops occupying potentially for a long term one of the most problematic places in the entire Middle East and for administration and for a President who said that he wants to get out of foreign wars, this would certainly be a very potentially violent entanglement.

GUTHRIE: Alright Richard, we’ll continue to follow it. Thank you for your analysis. Appreciate that.

It seems as if The Washington Post has dropped its facade somewhat about how star-spangled fantastic the Biden economy supposedly was, but only now that President Donald Trump is in office. Coincidence? We think not!

The February 2 print edition of The Post had a pretty revealing headline by reporters Lauren Kaori Gurley, Federica Cocco and Andrew Ackerman buried on the front page of the “Business” section: “More Americans are taking second jobs to pay bills.” Quite a 180-degree turnaround from The Post’s asinine July 2023 claim in the middle of the Bidenomics-induced inflation crisis that “Americans are still better off, with more in the bank than before the pandemic.” Now, The Post seems to have flipped to some degree by admitting that “Late last year, the share of U.S. workers with more than one job hit the highest level since 2019, previously last reached during the Great Recession.” 

Specifically, wrote The Post, “A growing number of Americans have taken second jobs and side hustles, spurred partly by years of rapidly rising prices that have gnawed away at household incomes.” So much for Post propagandist Heather Long’s desperate pre-Election Day spin that “the data is clear: Americans are better off economically than they were four years ago.” Oof.

But, of course, The Post couldn’t make it too obvious that its non-stop Bidenomics cheerleading was a pile of hogwash. In effect, it tried to spin its reporting once again that people taking multiple jobs could potentially be a good sign of a strong labor market:

The trend is also the result of a strong labor market that has made job opportunities more plentiful for people seeking to boost their incomes through gig work or earn money off their hobbies.

The Post turned to Center for Economic Policy and Research senior economist Dean Baker, who obfuscated that “‘It’s pro-cyclical, meaning that you increase the number of multiple-job holders during good times.’” But as Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni retorted in comments to MRC Business, “The idea that the multiple job holder boom is pro-cyclical right now doesn’t make any sense if you look at the data comprehensively.”

But that’s not all. The Post still had the nerve to insist that “workers are better off, by several measures, than they were in 2019, another strong period for the labor market. Job creation last year outpaced 2019, as did the share of multiple-job holders in the labor market.” The rag just can’t help itself in refusing to admit that it was wrong. Antoni, who’s been sounding the alarm on the job data indications that Americans were taking multiple jobs to make ends meet for months, broke down for MRC Business why The Post spinning itself silly to downplay the severity of its own story was nothing short of ridiculous:

[W]e would not be hemorrhaging full-time jobs if this was pro-cyclical. We would not be seeing fewer native-born Americans employed if this was pro-cyclical. People are getting extra jobs because they can’t make ends meet or because that’s all they can find in terms of work.

The data, as Antoni noted, blows up The Post’s “muh, but the jobs market” spin.
On another note, a new Statista study found that the “largest blemish” on Biden’s legacy was that “Wages Haven’t Kept Up With Inflation.” Oh but “workers are better off,” right? Statista’s research found that wages have actually decreased under Biden, further skewering The Post’s attempt at twisting economic reality into an Auntie Anne’s pretzel:

[A]djusted for price increases, people went from $29.93 an hour to $29.49 an hour during the Biden years. Considering that these are average earnings, it’s fair to assume that many people suffered considerably larger and actually noticeable declines in real wages, leading to the widespread frustration with the Biden economy.

Perhaps economic hardship is much more of an accurate explanation for why people are taking multiple jobs than everything supposedly being peaches and cream, eh Washington Post? But what more can be expected from a leftist newspaper that has devolved into having the information value of bird-cage liner?