Newsbusters

On Wednesday afternoon, the White House called a last-minute press briefing featuring “a special guest,” which turned out to be Patty Morin, the mother of Marylander Rachel Morin, who was raped and murdered in 2023 by an illegal immigrant. Patty spoke in graphic detail about Rachel’s murder to a mostly liberal press corps that were left stone-cold silent.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was the only reporter to speak up aside from the perfunctory condolences of “sorry for your loss”:

But hours later on her own show The Source, Collins never paid tribute to Rachel or Patty Morin. The former conservative reporter never even brought up the surprise briefing by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Collins further showed her priorities (or at least what the CNN borg wants talked about) with over 18 minutes (18:34) lamenting the plight of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the illegal immigrant deported to an El Salvadoran jail the liberal media have affectionately called a “Maryland man” or “Maryland father and husband.”

Incredibly, Collins did show a clip of Leavitt, but not only was it about Garcia, it was from nearly a month ago on March 19.

Leavitt’s Wednesday briefing only fetched two allusions on CNN’s primetime programming.

First, CNN Thunderdome (aka CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip) played a snippet of her correctly laying out whom the left seems to care about most:

I think it’s atrocious that you have Democrats in Congress on Capitol Hill who swear an oath to protect their constituents and to serve them in Washington, D.C., spending more time defending illegal immigrant gang members than their own constituents and law-abiding American citizens.

In the next hour, Laura Coates Live had two Leavitt soundbites laying out the facts about Garcia not being the model citizen the left has heralded him as:

When Kilmar Abrego Garcia was originally arrested, he was wearing a sweatshirt with rolls of money covering the ears, mouth, and eyes of presidents on various currency denominations. This is a known MS-13 gang symbol of hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil. Abrego Garcia was also arrested with two other well-known members of the vicious MS-13 gang.

(….)

The court ordered that the respondent committed the following acts of abuse: Once in May of 2021, assault in any degree. And on May 4th of 2021, he punched and scratched his wife, ripped off her shirt, and grabbed and bruised her. This is from a court in Maryland.

Rachel Morin left behind five children and now a grandchild. Unfortunately, it sure seemed as though Patty discussing Rachel’s violent murder wasn’t even enough for Collins to feel like Rachel was worth mentioning on her show as it would have taken precious seconds away from the liberal media’s real priority: defending illegal immigrants.

Amid the Legacy Media’s willful omission of Patty Morin’s brutal reconstruction of the timeline of her daughter’s murder at the White House Briefing Room, we get a glimmer of intellectual honesty: Telemundo correspondent Lourdes Hurtado asserting inconvenience at having to note Morin’s presence to begin with.

Watch as Hurtado dismisses the horrendous murder of Rachel Morin as “having nothing to do whatsoever” with the matter at hand: the whole of media’s continued advocacy for deported MS-13 gangbanger Kilmar Abrego Garcia:

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY: Telemundo correspondent Lourdes Hurtado is salty about Patty Morin taking the podium at The White House, whining that Rachel Morin’s horrendous murder had “nothing to do whatsoever” with the deported MS-13 gangbanger known to the media as “Maryland Dad”. pic.twitter.com/ihAdQh2hDp
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 17, 2025

LOURDES HURTADO: After her statements, the White House spokesperson invited the mother of a woman murdered by an undocumented Salvadoran immigrant to take the podium, a case that has nothing to do whatsoever with that of Kilmar Abrego. The spokeswoman also criticized Maryland Democratic Senator Chris van Hollen for traveling to El Salvador to try to secure Kilmar’s release. Clearly, the White House remains firm in not allowing him to return to the United States.

The preceding statements to which Hurtado refers are White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s recount of the domestic violence allegations against Abrego García. It is then that Hurtado huffily addresses the inconvenience of having to acknowledge Morin, without so much as uttering Rachel’s name. 

Of course, Hurtado has it backwards. The brutal rape and murder of Rachel Morin has EVERYTHING to do with “Maryland Dad”, inasmuch as they are both the byproduct of an intentionally broken border, made exponentially worse by the previous administration.  

To acknowledge the words spoken by Patty Morin, in addition to just whining about her presence, would have meant mentioning the conviction of Rachel’s murderer by a Maryland jury, which the media didn’t do, either.  Doing so would prove disruptive to what matters most to Spanish-language Legacy Media: keeping the border as open as possible for as long as possible. And that is simply disgusting.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript as aired on Noticias Telemundo en la Noche on Wednesday, April 16th, 2025

ARANTXA LOIZAGA: The case of Kilmar Abrego García, mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador, has been the subject of protests during town halls held by Republican members of Congress. 

MANIFESTANTE: FREE KILMAR! FREE KILMAR! FREE KILMAR! 

LOIZAGA: In Georgia, shouting “free Kilmar,” protesters rebuked Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Three people here were arrested. However, today The White House defended the deportation of Kilmar Abrego and not only insisted that he has gang affiliations, but also showed an accusation of domestic violence. Lourdes Hurtado joins us with the details that are known so far. Lourdes, go ahead. Good evening.

LOURDES HURTADO: Good evening. Arantxa. That’s right. Today the White House spokesperson called out the media and the Democratic Party for describing Kilmar Abrego García as a “father from Maryland.” He affirmed that the Salvadoran, mistakenly deported, will not live in the United States again, reiterating that he is a foreign terrorist member of the MS-13 gang- although his lawyers and his family have said on multiple occasions that this accusation is false and that he has no criminal record. Let’s listen to Karoline Leavitt’s statements about his arrest in 2019.

KAROLINE LEAVITT: And when Kilmar Abrego García was originally arrested, he was wearing a sweatshirt with rolls of money covering the ears, mouths and eyes of presidents on various currency denominations. This is a known MS-13 gang symbol of “hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil.

HURTADO: She also stated that he was arrested along with two other alleged members of the MS-13 gang. That police report indicates that a reliable source told authorities that he belonged to the criminal organization. In the 2019 document, a detective stated that Abrego García was detained in connection with a murder investigation. However, he was never charged and as we have reported, has no criminal record. This afternoon, the White House spokesperson also accused the Salvadoran of domestic violence and showed documents from a Maryland court. Let’s listen.

LEAVITT: …that Abrego García’s wife petitioned for an order of protection against him for two instances of domestic violence in May of 2021. And here is the order- right here.

HURTADO: That court document from May 2021 indicates that he was accused of assault, punching and scratching his wife, Jennifer Vázquez. She has responded in a statement. She explained that she was a victim of domestic violence in a previous relationship and after a disagreement with Kilmar, she sought that injunction in a preventative way. The situation did not escalate, and that is why she did not follow up on the civil process in court. She said that her marriage was strengthened after that incident, and that what happened is not justification for him to be deported. After her statements, the White House spokesperson invited the mother of a woman murdered by an undocumented Salvadoran immigrant to take the podium, a case that has nothing to do whatsoever with that of Kilmar Abrego. The spokeswoman also criticized Maryland Democratic Senator Chris van Hollen for traveling to El Salvador to try to secure Kilmar’s release. Clearly, the White House remains firm in not allowing him to return to the United States. Arantxa.

LOIZAGA: Lourdes, thank you very much. We will follow up on this case.

 

The Wednesday edition of CBS’s The Late Show was defined by host Stephen Colbert giving two odes to liberal budget priorities. First, Colbert insisted that PBS documentaries on transgender people in Ohio bowling leagues are of vital importance before marveling at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “righteous anger” at President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE.

Colbert declared that, “Voters are about to have even more to get mad about, because we just learned that Trump is planning to cut federal funding for NPR and PBS.”

 

 

He further added, “The White House says PBS funding does not ‘Align with the Trump administration’s priorities,’ including a PBS program from 2022 about a transgender woman who comes out to members of their bowling league in Ohio. Okay, well, I get that. ‘Cause America can’t be allowed to find out that trans people bowl.”

Colbert then tried to mock what he thought was the logic behind opposing such a subsidized documentary, “Because then, other trans bowlers might bowl as well, and if the bowling alleys—allow—the pins are women, the pins clearly are women, and the balls are boys, if you use two balls—and then—and then—and then where do the fingers go? And the bowling shoe spray turns my feet into women—I don’t—what would the problem be? I don’t—”

Are Ohio bowlers, transgender or otherwise, really so vitally important that taxpayers must subsidize documentaries about them? If Colbert really wants to go down this road, one could also recall that one time PBS rolled out allegedly conservative Christians to advocate for transitioning four-year olds.

Colbert concluded his defense of public broadcasting by warning, “Trump might get these cuts soon because all the administration needs is simple majorities in both the House and Senate. And with the administration calling the shots, it could mean changes to public programming. So NPR fans, get ready for Fresh Air to become *coughs* coughs and PBS fans can look forward to Sesame Street: Bert and Ernie Have Wives Now.”

Later, Colbert welcomed Warren for a three-segment love fest and pep talk, which he began by recalling, “We’ve had far too many conversations about the state of America under the Trump regime, but I love talking to you because you are a great explainer. You have a great love of the country, and you feel it with a good dollop of righteous anger about people who abuse their office.”

 

 

He then wondered, “He hasn’t signed many bills into law, but he’s managed to sow chaos with executive orders and this, sort of, made-up agency called DOGE, which isn’t even a real thing. It’s just handing power to some unelected billionaire. Is this what you expected, and if so, did you expect this much and this fast?”

Warren replied with the left’s usual list of horribles, even if there was precious little evidence for them:

The plan is Donald Trump and his co-president, Elon Musk, the guy with a chainsaw. What their plan is they want to make sure that billionaires get more tax giveaways, more out of this country, and they want to pay for it on the backs of cutting access to Social Security for seniors, they want to pay for it on the backs of little babies losing access to their health care, breaking our promises to our veterans and just cutting as much of the VA as they can, and on the backs of doing what they can to break the back of our public schools. 

Trump has not made entitlement reform part of his agenda, but if cutting money for PBS and NPR is worth freaking out about, then how do Colbert and Warren seriously plan to get the nation’s finances under control?

Sign the petition to help us defund another MSNBC in PBS and NPR at defundpbsnpr.org.

Here is a transcript for the April 16 show:

CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

4/16/2025

11:46 PM ET

STEPHEN COLBERT: Voters are about to have even more to get mad about, because we just learned that Trump is planning to cut federal funding for NPR and PBS. They can’t cut it anymore. They’re already operating on a shoestring budget! Daniel Tiger can’t even afford pants. The White House says PBS funding does not “Align with the Trump administration’s priorities” including a PBS program from 2022 about a transgender woman who comes out to members of their bowling league in Ohio. Okay, well, I get that. ‘Cause America can’t be allowed to find out that trans people bowl.

Because then, other trans bowlers might bowl as well, and if the bowling alleys—allow—the pins are women, the pins clearly are women, and the balls are boys, if you use two balls—and then—and then—and then where do the fingers go? And the bowling shoe spray turns my feet into women—I don’t—what would the problem be? I don’t—

Trump might get these cuts soon because all the administration needs is simple majorities in both the House and Senate. And with the administration calling the shots, it could mean changes to public programming. So NPR fans, get ready for Fresh Air to become *coughs* *coughs* and PBS fans can look forward to Sesame Street: Bert and Ernie Have Wives Now.

…

COLBERT: We’ve had far too many conversations about the state of America under the Trump regime, but I love talking to you because you are a great explainer. You have a great love of the country, and you feel it with a good dollop of righteous anger about people who abuse their office.

ELIZABETH WARREN: Right. Okay.

COLBERT: Let’s get straight into this—

WARREN: Okay.

COLBERT: — Trump has been in office for 86 days.

WARREN: Yeah, I’ve heard.

COLBERT: He hasn’t signed many bills into law, but he’s managed to sow chaos with executive orders and this, sort of, made-up agency called DOGE, which isn’t even a real thing. 

WARREN: Right.

COLBERT: It’s just handing power to some unelected billionaire. Is this what you expected, and if so, did you expect this much and this fast?

WARREN: So, it is not what I expected. It is worse. And worse because let’s just remember where we were. Donald Trump ran for president saying over and over and over “I will cut costs for American families on day one.” On day one. Those were his words. Over and over. So, after he’s a few weeks and, he is doing this tariff thing and people say to him, someone says to him, you realize that’s going to raise costs on American consumers. And his words were that “he couldn’t care less.” 

So why — but they got a plan here and the plan is Donald Trump and his co-president, Elon Musk, the guy with a chainsaw. What their plan is they want to make sure that billionaires get more tax giveaways, more out of this country, and they want to pay for it on the backs of cutting access to Social Security for seniors, they want to pay for it on the backs of little babies losing access to their health care, breaking our promises to our veterans and just cutting as much of the VA as they can, and on the backs of doing what they can to break the back of our public schools. 

Tuesday evening’s PBS News Hour, guest hosted by reporter William Brangham, opened with a full nine-minute segment on the “mistaken” deportation of El Salvadoran illegal immigrant (misleadingly named “Maryland man” by the press) Kilmar Abrego Garcia by reporter Laura Barron-Lopez.

Yet a Nexis search for “Rachel Morin” on this show  — including in the mix PBS News Weekend — finds the taxpayer-funded outlet has spent zero seconds (the same as all the other networks) on the case of the Maryland mother of five raped and murdered by an El Salvadoran illegal immigrant in 2023. The family blames lack of border enforcement under former President Joe Biden — he’d been nabbed at the border three times previously.

(That shutout would now include no mention of Morin’s mother appearing in the White House briefing room on Wednesday.)

Meanwhile, guest anchor William Brangham was aggrieved about the parallel Maryland illegal story, one where the Trump administration could be blamed.

William Brangham: On the “News Hour” tonight: A judge once again presses the Trump administration for answers on why it hasn`t tried to bring back a man wrongfully deported to El Salvador….Inside a Maryland courtroom today, another escalation in the legal battle over the man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Judge Paula Xinis says she’s not yet holding Trump administration officials in contempt, but she said she would not tolerate gamesmanship or grandstanding. She is ordering the administration to produce details about what, if anything, is being done to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

As usual, the judge was not described as “Obama-appointed.” Barron-Lopez, perhaps the NewsHour’s most biased reporter, was in her usual liberal mode:

Laura Barron-Lopez: William, Judge Xinis scolded the Trump administration for doing — quote — “nothing” to facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from El Salvador’s custody and return to the United States. The judge also said that comments made by El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office were not evidence. President Bukele said that he would not return Garcia to the United States.

Barron-Lopez was joined by guest Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University. A PBS News Hour favorite, McCord earlier this year defended Biden’s preemptive pardons of his family’s financial sleaze.

Barron-Lopez: You wrote in The Washington Post that Judge Xinis should order senior officials to testify what they’re doing to facilitate Garcia’s return. It appears as though the judge maybe did just that today. She launched this intense two-week inquiry phase and said that she would allow for deposition of up to six administration officials. What’s your reaction to that? And what do you make of the administration’s repeated claims that this is in President Bukele’s court?

So much executive power demanded, and so much media airtime expended, on a single deportation controversy!

Mary McCord, Former Justice Department Official: So, obviously, we have two separate things there. And I think Judge Xinis did exactly what she had to do at this point, because last Friday she ordered daily progress reports — not progress reports, a daily declaration by a person with individual knowledge, a government official with individual personal knowledge, answering the three questions she had. Where is Mr. Abrego Garcia? That question did finally get answered on Saturday. What is the government doing to facilitate his return? And what additional steps will the government take to facilitate his return?….

Barron-Lopez: On the lack of those criminal charges, in the last 24 hours, senior administration officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio have repeatedly accused Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang and a terrorist. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused him of human trafficking. And, so far, the administration has appeared to provide no evidence to back up those allegations….

McCord took Garcia’s old testimony at face value, with a sympathetic spin.

McCord: ….he was able to testify before an immigration judge that he had left El Salvador because he was persecuted by gangs. He was a teenager. His mother sold pupusas. Gangs were trying to extort her and threatening her children and wanted her to put them into the gangs. He was sent here by his family. He’s never broken any laws here. There are no criminal convictions here….

This segment was brought to you in part by LetsMakeAPlan.org.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Hour

4/15/25

William Brangham: Inside a Maryland courtroom today, another escalation in the legal battle over the man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Judge Paula Xinis says she’s not yet holding Trump administration officials in contempt, but she said she would not tolerate gamesmanship or grandstanding. She is ordering the administration to produce details about what, if anything, is being done to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States.

Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, has the latest.

Laura Barron-Lopez: William, Judge Xinis scolded the Trump administration for doing — quote — “nothing” to facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from El Salvador’s custody and return to the United States.

The judge also said that comments made by El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office were not evidence. President Bukele said that he would not return Garcia to the United States.

For more, I’m joined now by Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University and former acting assistant attorney general for national security.

Mary, thanks so much for joining us this evening.

You wrote in The Washington Post that Judge Xinis should order senior officials to testify what they’re doing to facilitate Garcia’s return. It appears as though the judge maybe did just that today. She launched this intense two-week inquiry phase and said that she would allow for deposition of up to six administration officials.

What’s your reaction to that? And what do you make of the administration’s repeated claims that this is in President Bukele’s court?

Mary McCord, Former Justice Department Official: So, obviously, we have two separate things there.

And I think Judge Xinis did exactly what she had to do at this point, because last Friday she ordered daily progress reports — not progress reports, a daily declaration by a person with individual knowledge, a government official with individual personal knowledge, answering the three questions she had. Where is Mr. Abrego Garcia? That question did finally get answered on Saturday.

What is the government doing to facilitate his return? And what additional steps will the government take to facilitate his return? Those two questions, what they’re doing, what they have already done to facilitate, and what they’re continuing to do, are still not answered, because each declaration was really obfuscation.

So what she’s saying now is, I’m going to allow there to be discovery with depositions, meaning live testimony under oath by government officials, to get to the bottom of what they actually are doing to facilitate his release.

The government, at the same time, is arguing a couple things. They’re arguing that facilitate should be interpreted so narrowly that it simply means that, if the president of El Salvador decides to release Mr. Bukele — excuse me — Freudian slip there — release Mr. Abrego Garcia, that the government will receive him here, the government will accept him.

Of course, they have also said they would put him into immediate custody and initiate new deportation proceedings. The other thing they’re saying is that it’s out of our hands to even request that the president of El Salvador, Mr. Bukele, do anything, because this matter is now in his hands that Mr. Abrego Garcia is being held under the domestic authority of El Salvador.

But, mind you, he was not extradited there pursuant to some criminal charges or anything like that. So these things, these are constantly shifting explanations, and the court is getting to the bottom of it.

Laura Barron-Lopez: On the lack of those criminal charges, in the last 24 hours, senior administration officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio have repeatedly accused Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang and a terrorist. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused him of human trafficking.

And, so far, the administration has appeared to provide no evidence to back up those allegations. They also said what you noted, which is that, if he’s returned, they will try to deport him to another country. What is the typical pathway, legal pathway, for deporting someone who had protected status like Mr. Garcia did?

Mary McCord: So, in deportation proceedings — and this all goes to the same type of notice and opportunity to be heard, due process under our law, that the Supreme Court said that those who were deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, it’s the same thing he’s saying, that they get a chance to challenge that.

Here, deportation proceedings would be different than what the Venezuelans might do in terms of bringing a habeas corpus petition in the federal court. Deportation proceedings, there would be a chance for the person whose ability to stay here is being questioned for them to put on evidence about anything they can do to support that they are lawfully present.

And in terms of what he had achieved in 2019, he was able to testify before an immigration judge that he had left El Salvador because he was persecuted by gangs. He was a teenager. His mother sold pupusas. Gangs were trying to extort her and threatening her children and wanted her to put them into the gangs.

He was sent here by his family. He’s never broken any laws here. There are no criminal convictions here. And he fears that he would be persecuted if he were deported to El Salvador. That is where a judge held in 2019 that he may not be deported to El Salvador.

So, in order to reverse that order, the government would have to go back into immigration court and prove up something that would suggest why that needs to be reversed. They’re saying he’s a member of MS-13, newly designated a foreign terrorist organization in late February by the Trump administration, but they have not proved that he is a member of MS-13.

Laura Barron-Lopez: In another front of Trump’s anti-immigration agenda, a Columbia student, Mohsen Mahdawi, who is a legal permanent resident, was detained yesterday while appearing for a citizenship interview in Vermont.

The administration is trying to remove him under the same immigration provision that they’re using against students who engaged in pro-Palestinian protests. Mahdawi has not been charged with a crime. Is this an escalation on immigrants who have legal status?

 

Mary McCord: There’s no question.

I mean, just like with Mahmoud Khalil, also a student at Columbia University, also a lawful permanent resident or green card holder, that’s the same as the student who was taken into custody just today, or maybe it was yesterday.

This is what we’re starting to see on different campuses. Students, in some cases even faculties, here lawfully, sometimes on student visas, but these two men were — had a much higher level than that. They are lawful permanent residents. They have the right to be here. They have a right to work here.

It doesn’t mean you have your citizenship. You are on a path towards citizenship when you have your green card. And after being here a certain number of years without any criminal charges, you can oftentimes obtain your naturalization to citizenship. And that’s my understanding, what this young man thought he was going to see immigration to talk about, his naturalization.

And, instead, he’s being told essentially that his privileges are being revoked because the secretary of state has decided that he is a national security threat. He has filed — just like Mr. Khalil, he has filed suit in federal court, alleging First Amendment retaliation and due process violations.

Laura Barron-Lopez: Mary, with the limited time we have left, on another deportation effort front, President Trump is planning to convert a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico southern border to an Army base, with the intention of using it to deport migrants.

Could this potentially be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

Mary McCord: Well, let’s just be clear. The U.S. military may not engage in domestic law enforcement, including directly arresting and detaining and deporting people, under federal immigration laws without violating Posse Comitatus Act.

There would have to be an Insurrection Act invocation based on the things that are in the predicate for Insurrection Act that would allow the U.S. military to engage in domestic law enforcement, things like arrest, seizure, search, detention.

However, on a military base, military officers, military police could detain trespassers and pass them off to law enforcement, and I think that’s what is at risk of happening along this border.

The Legacy Media continue their disgusting advocacy on behalf of Kilmar Abrego García, the illegal alien and documented MS-13 gangbanger deported to El Salvador and detained within its notorious CECOT supermax. And they did so while deliberately ignoring gut-wrenching testimony from Rachel Morin’s mother, Patty. 

Additionally, the networks focused their attention on contempt proceedings initiated by Judge James Boasberg against the Trump administration for not turning planes around in midair. ABC and NBC ran this as their respective top story, running over four minutes on both ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News. The only acknowledgement of Patty Morin aired on NBC: 12 seconds that contained no mention of the horrific details of the murder of Rachel Morin:

CALLED IT: Other than a 12-second pro forma acknowledgement from NBC, Legacy Media completely ignore Patty Morin’s heartbreaking remarks at The White House. https://t.co/q0NZqL8omo pic.twitter.com/bEYfrEUwal
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 16, 2025

GABE GUTIERREZ: Late today, The White House highlighting the story of Patty Morin, whose daughter Rachel was killed by an undocumented immigrant.

PATTY MORIN: These are the kind of criminals President Trump wants to remove from our country.

That’s it. 12 seconds out of 8 minutes. We’re not surprised that the legacy news ignored Patty Morin and even took into consideration the fact that NBC might run with some portion of her remarks. But this is still disgusting.

Perhaps this is why Patty Morin was invited to the White House Briefing Room in the first place- to force the media (and perhaps their elected Democrat counterparts) to reflect on their perfidy, their continued advocacy on behalf of criminal aliens, and on the real damage that these inflict upon society. 

Based on the media’s reaction to her remarks, it appears that they’re all in on “Maryland Dad”. Even as the details of his gang affiliation and domestic violence allegations against him continue to drip, drip, drip.

Reasonable individuals might conclude that the unfolding of this story will humiliate the media. Unfortunately, this presumes that the media are capable of shame. Based on how we’ve seen them cover the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce the order, the exact opposite is true.

Speaking of shamelessness, I leave you with a portion of Tom Llamas’ hysterical open to the newscast. “Dramatic tactics”, indeed:

HYSTERICAL: NBC’s Tom Llamas decries the tackle arrest of a fleeing Venezuelan illegal immigrant as “dramatic tactics”. pic.twitter.com/0tqPMQjuyE
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 17, 2025
Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective newscasts on Wednesday, April 16th, 2025:

ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT

4/16/25

6:32 PM

LINSEY DAVIS: We begin with a federal judge blasting the Trump administration, threatening a contempt investigation over what he called a willful disregard of his order to halt deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Judge James Boasberg is accusing the administration of a hurried removal operation. The planes landed in El Salvador, even though he ordered them to turn around. The judge is now preparing to launch an official contempt investigation, which could include requiring testimony under oath, and appointing an Independent lawyer to prosecute the government for contempt. Caught in the conflict, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland husband and father the administration admits was wrongfully sent to El Salvador. A unanimous Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilate his return. Today The White House said he will never live in the United States again. In his ruling on contempt Judge Boasberg wrote, “The willful disobedience of judicial orders without consequences would make a mockery of the Constitution itself.” ABC’s Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott leads us off.

RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, a dramatic escalation in the battle between The White House and the courts. A federal judge threatening a contempt investigation into the Trump administration for deporting more than 200 Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, despite his order to turn the planes around and return to the United States. Judge James Boasberg declaring the administration displayed a willful disregard for his order, determining there was probable cause to find them in contempt. The judge now preparing to launch an official investigation, which could include officials testifying under oath. He even raises the remarkable prospect of appointing an independent lawyer to prosecute the government for contempt. President Trump has praised the deportations, claiming without evidence the men are violent gang members, inviting El Salvador’s president to The White House.

DONALD TRUMP: He’s done a fantastic job.

SCOTT: But the administration tonight facing mounting questions about the fate of this man. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Last seen, head shaved, in that Salvadoran prison. Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was working and living in Maryland with his American wife and children when he was put on that plane, because the government made an administrative error, a mistake they acknowledge. Tonight, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen traveling to El Salvador, looking for any information about Abrego Garcia.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: I’m asking President Bukele, under his authority as President of El Salvador, to do the right thing and allow Mr. Abrego Garcia to walk out of prison, a man who is charged with no crime, convicted of no crime, and who was illegally abducted from the United States.

SCOTT: The Supreme Court has ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States. But President Trump, who is paying El Salvador $6 million to hold the immigrants, says it’s up to that country to send him back.

PAM BONDI: He is not coming back to our country. President Bukele said he was not sending him back. That’s the end of the story. If he wanted to send him back, we would give him a plane ride back. There was no situation, ever, where he was going to stay in this country. None. None.

SCOTT: The administration insists Abrego Garcia is a violent gang member, but he does not have a criminal record either here or in El Salvador. His family says he fled that country as a teenager in 2011 to escape gang persecution. A judge had ordered that he not be returned to El Salvador, because of potential danger. According to court documents, in 2019, a confidential informant named him as a member of the gang MS-13, but a federal judge this month found that evidence unconvincing. Today, The White House noting that in 2021, his wife Jennifer obtained a temporary protective order against him. But that case was later closed, and now Abrego García’s wife is on the front lines, pleading for his return.

SCOTT: And Lindsey, tonight El Salvador’s president upping the ante, telling the Trump administration he plans to double the size of the prison of that prison in his country that’s now holding Abrego Garcia and those other migrants, Linsey.

DAVIS: Rachel Scott from The White House. Thanks, Rachel.

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS

4/16/25

6:35 PM

TOM LLAMAS: There are several breaking developments tonight on the president’s mass deportation plans and the way they’re being carried out. From courtrooms to the streets, including this one near Boston, we’re dramatic tactics from ICE agents making arrests. Part of the administration’s intensifying approach to immigration. And it comes as President Trump’s standoff with the courts took a high stakes turn today. The administration coming out swinging after a federal judge said it likely acted in contempt by sending deportation flights to El Salvador despite an order to keep them grounded. The judge threatening to begin criminal contempt proceedings if the administration doesn’t give the men a chance to challenge their deportation. Among them: an undocumented man who has been living in Maryland. And tonight, we have the documents the administration says prove he’s a gang member. Gabe Gutierrez with those documents at The White House starting us off tonight.

GUTIERREZ: Tonight, with immigration arrests like these playing out across the country, a federal judge now says the Trump administration is crossing a line with its mass deportations. After those controversial removal flights to El Salvador last month, Judge James Boasberg slamming the government for failing to comply with his court order to temporarily halt the planes. Writing, “probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

BARBARA McQUADE: The idea that one branch of government would ignore the orders of another is something we haven’t seen in our nation’s history.

GUTIERREZ: The judge writing: “the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders”, adding that disobedience “would make a solemn mockery of the Constitution itself.” The White House says it will appeal. A separate legal case involves one of those deportees: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man the Justice Department initially acknowledged was mistakenly sent to El Salvador. The Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration should “facilitate” Abrego García’s return to the U.S. But today, after days of requests, the administration released a document from 2019 detailing how an informant identified Abrego García as a member of the violent gang MS-13, even giving his rank and nickname.

KAROLINE LEAVITT: When Kilmar Abrego Garcia was originally arrested, he was wearing a sweatshirt with rolls of money covering the ears, mouth and eyes of presidents various currency denominations. This is a known MS-13 gang symbol.

GUTIERREZ: Abrego García’s family denies he’s a gang member, and he’s never been criminally convicted. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland went to El Salvador today to push for Abrego García’s release, but was denied a meeting with him.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN This is about due process, this is about not letting people be just whisked off the street. Which the Trump administration admits was done in error.

GUTIERREZ: Late today, The White House highlighting the story of Patty Morin, whose daughter Rachel was killed by an undocumented immigrant.

PATTY MORIN: These are the kind of criminals President Trump wants to remove from our country.

GUTIERREZ: The Trump administration is promising deportations will ramp up. Outside Boston, the woman in this car says ICE officers used a hammer to break a window in order to drag out her husband, an undocumented immigrant who has no criminal record. This surveillance video shows plainclothes officers tackling a Venezuelan man as he arrives in a New Hampshire courthouse, knocking over another man in the process. Outrage over immigration now spilling into contentious town halls, including one held by Chuck Grassley, the most powerful senator on the Judiciary Committee.

CONSTITUENT: Are you going to bring that guy back from El Salvador? Why not?

CHUCK GRASSLEY: Well, because that’s not — that’s not a power of Congress.

CONSTITUENT: The Supreme Court says to bring him back.

GUTIERREZ: While in Georgia, police tasered two protesters at an event held by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: Bye. Just like that illegal alien, bye.

LLAMAS: All right. Gabe joins us live. Let’s go back to that man deported to El Salvador. I know you have new reporting tonight on his past?

GUTIERREZ: Yes, Tom. In 2021, a protection order was issued against him in a domestic violence case. The case was closed when his wife did not show up for court. As for the gang allegations, his attorneys have repeatedly questioned the credibility of that confidential informant. Tom.   

LLAMAS: All right, Gabe. We thank you for that.

 

Nicolle Wallace let her snooty slip show.
On Wednesday’s Deadline White House, the MSNBC show she hosts, Wallace suggested that Walmart is the place you shop only if you’re on the road and forgot an item.

“I mean, you might [be] someplace—travel baseball. So you go into lots of places and Walmart is where, if you forgot, you know, something you need. If you forgot a glove or a sock, you know, they have that.”

Right. NYC-based Wallace is presumably more of a Zabar’s person. Or perhaps Whole Foods–though Nicolle might be miffed after Bezos scotched WaPo’s endorsement of Kamala, and left her off the list to blast off into near-space with Lauren, Gayle King, et. al.
If Wallace were forced to wander into a Walmart, you could imagine her donning a hoodie and big sunglasses, lest her fellow elitists hear about her going so déclassé.

So this is rare for the rest of us? Walmart reports “Each week, approximately 255 million customers and members visit our more than 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 19 countries.”
FWIW, Walmart is my go-to store. I was there this morning, picking up raspberries, blackberries, green grapes, and two boxes of Quaker cereal. No hoodie required.

Blaming President Trump, Wallace also claimed that the economy is “in a state of mortal danger.” Her evidence? The Dow was down 700 points today.
Hey, it was chilly here in North Carolina this morning. Guess we’re in for an Ice Age!

Here’s the transcript.

MSNBC
Deadline White House
4/16/25
4:00 pm EDT

NICOLLE WALLACE: Hi, everyone. It’s 4 o’clock in New York. It is without question Donald Trump’s single biggest vulnerability right now, and the greatest threat to his standing even among his own voters and supporters. 

Remember, many Americans signed up for a wholesale disruption of the status quo and are not yet startled by the dismantling of federal agencies. Many of them wanted to turn the tables on some of our most trusted alliances, and many approve of more aggressive policies on immigration and deportations. 

But what no one, not a single voter, signed up for was an economy that is right now flashing red in a state of mortal danger. Just look at how the Dow closed today, down around 700 points. 

. . . 

STEVE LIESMAN: Get what you get. You know, you mess around and then you find out. And what we’re finding out is that these trade relationships are very important to big companies. And I think what you just said, Nicolle, is really significant, that individual Americans are finding out just how important these trade relationships are. 

WALLACE: What is the posture of sort of the largest retailers in the country? I mean, you might [be] someplace, travel baseball. So you go into lots of places and Walmart is where, if you forgot, you know, something you need. If you forgot a glove or a sock, you know, they have that. If you need groceries, you know that, you know, they have that. 

Even though it’s doubtful the liberal base or even establishment asked for it, former President Joe Biden gave his first speech Tuesday night since leaving the White House and, given the depths of their hatred for President Trump, ABC and NBC sang Biden’s praises for “sounding the alarm about how divided the nation is” and “defend[ing] Social Security.”

Tuesday’s NBC Nightly News found time for a full segment with co-anchor Tom Llamas boasting to senior White House correspondent Kelly O’Donnell Biden was “firing back against the current administration.”

 

 

O’Donnell — as much of an establishment liberal journalist as there is in the Briefing Room — boasted this was “just 85 days after” he left office and the speech marked a return to “the political arena with a very specific purpose: to take on the Trump administration and defend Social Security.”

“Now, he’s at a bipartisan conference in Chicago and there Mr. Biden is laying out what we sees as a threat to Social Security over cuts to staff, phone services, local offices that he says could affect seniors’ access,” she added.

After a clip Biden saying Trump has “[i]n fewer than 1000 days…done so much damage and so much destruction” to the country, especially Social Security.

“And tonight’s speech also highlights that this is a political side that feels very familiar to us from the Biden years, but it’s also right at the frontlines of where Democrats are today as they try to redefine their message in the Trump era,” she concluded.

Unsurprisingly, there wasn’t even sort of a fact-check like there was on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report thanks to host Bret Baier:

Shifting to Wednesday, ABC’s Good Morning America was far more overt in lamenting they’re no longer in control of the White House.

Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos cued up a wholly partisan Biden soundbite with a similarly partisan set-up: “We’re going to turn now to former President Biden making his first speech since leaving office, sounding the alarm about how divided the nation is and criticizing the Trump administration.”

 

 

In the clip, Biden complained “[w]e can’t go on like this as a divided nation as divided as we are” and he’s “never” seen America “this divided.” As for why, Biden said it’s “30 percent” of the country who “has no heart.”

Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott reacted as one would expect from a network that celebrated even the most benign Biden initiative (click “expand”): 

And former President Joe Biden is breaking his silence. These are his first public comments since leaving the White House. He took aim at the Trump administration, accusing them of taking a hatchet to Social Security. Biden saying that, in fewer than 100 days the new administration has done “so much damage and destruction,” calling it “breathtaking.” President Trump has promised not to cut Social Security benefits, but weeks ago, Elon Musk suggested it could be a primary target as he tries to reduce government spending. Since then, offices have received a flood of calls with questions from Americans who are worried about their benefit. Social Security is expected to be a key issue in next year’s midterm elections. Now, Biden did not mention President Trump by name, only referring to him as “this guy.” But he did talk about American values saying nobody is king.

Stephanopoulos briefly changed topics to Gary Shapley’s reported appointment as acting IRS commissioner, framing this as “Trump rewarding one of his political allies[.]”

Scott lamented this was “another sign the president is elevating a political ally” with Shapley’s mere qualifications being a supposed Trump partisan despite having been one of those non-partisan government workers the left are now lionizing:

Gary Shapley initially rose to fame among Republicans because he testified on Capitol Hill accusing the Justice Department of slow-walking the investigation into Hunter Biden, something that the Justice Department denied at the time. Well, sources tell me that the President is now elevating Shapley to be the acting commissioner of the IRS until the President’s pick is confirmed.

To see the relevant transcripts from April 15 and 16, click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC).

In March, ABC’s nominal funny man Jimmy Kimmel sat down with Rolling Stone’s Stephen Rodrick for a wide-ranging interview that was published on Tuesday and naturally touched on Kimmel’s place in the Trump era. Among other things, on America’s ability to “do the right thing,” Kimmel mourned, “That’s obviously in the past.”

At one point in the interview, Rodrick simply stated, “I hate to do this, but let’s start with Trump.” 

Kimmel, who is, according to Rodrick, “a defender of democracy,” responded in grand, cosmic terms, “I think most comedians have a strong sense of justice, and he violates that so frequently. I know we should be hardened to it by now, but I’m not. It is shocking to me; it seems like a comic-book villain. He seems like the kind of character that would flame out after a few years, but the fact that he’s still with us is remarkable.”

A year ago, I would’ve said I’m hoping to show people who aren’t paying attention to the news what’s actually going on, and hoping to change things that way. Obviously, that didn’t have enough impact before the election, so now I see myself more as a place to scream.

Rodrick also wondered, “When did you realize, ‘Oh, shit, this is serious and no longer just ridiculous’?”

After recalling that in 2016 he was among those who thought Trump had no chance, Kimmel proclaimed, “Listen, when O.J. was found not guilty, I was just absolutely shocked. I had that same feeling. I had this faith in America that was shaken, and I still am not over it. I thought that when it comes down to it, this country, we do the right thing. That’s obviously in the past.”

Rodrick then moved on to Kimmel’s habit of making politics personal, “You saw this up close in 2017. Your son was born with a serious heart condition while the Republicans were trying to repeal Obamacare. What made you go public about such a personal thing?”

Kimmel replied with his typical answer of assuming that Republicans have never experienced anything like he has, “There were a few things. I was sitting in the hospital; I was watching them debate this in Congress. I was watching them decide on whether Americans would have access to health insurance or not. And I am looking around this hospital and seeing all these kids and families that are obviously poor. And the idea that if these people were your next-door neighbors, you’d do anything you could to help them struck me. Health care is boring, and most people don’t understand it, so I just wanted to humanize it the best way I possibly could.”

Rodrick then asked about the state of the GOP under Trump, “I wonder if that experience gave you insight into the Republican Party during the Trump years in terms of, they are not going to display a moment of courage even when it seems like it is in America’s best interest.”

After claiming Republicans are “so scared of him,” Kimmel admitted, “I just don’t understand how Americans can support what he’s doing and the stupid stuff that he gets hung up on, like transgender sports and the stuff that affects almost no one.”

Perhaps Kimmel fails to understand Trump voters because he doesn’t invite conservatives on to his show anymore unless it is to put them in an arcade machine in order to mock them as a crank. As it is, Kimmel added, “I know politicians do this; they pick little things they know are going to push your buttons, and those are the things that they go with, but this is an extreme that we’ve never seen before. There’s no decency. It’s just a bunch of animals, and it’s disgusting.”

Speaking of no decency, Kimmel thinks conservatives and Trump voters exist to provide cheap laughs for his liberal audience by cherry-picking certain people to claim they collectively lack intelligence.

Monday’s edition of Amanpour & Co., which airs on PBS and CNN International, was hosted by regular show fill-in Bianna Golodryga, who is probably even more bluntly liberal than the formidable Christiane Amanpour herself.

The opener teased the upcoming interview with Kenneth Stern, self-styled anti-semitism expert at the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, with his hostile thoughts on the Trump administration’s attempt to protect Jewish students on college campuses via cutting off funding to schools that refuse to clamp down on pro-Hamas hatred.

KENNETH STERN, DIRECTOR, BARD CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HATE: It’s giving an easy solution to a complicated problem.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Human rights advocate Kenneth Stern tells Michel Martin why he’s concerned that his own definition of anti-Semitism is being used to stop speech.

The producers must have thought they had an intellectual “gotcha” on their hands — the poster boy for defining anti-semitism leaping off the poster to condemn those who want to protect Jewish students from harassment on left-wing college campuses.

GOLODRYGA: Our next guest helped draft the working definition of anti-Semitism used by multiple governments and universities worldwide. Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, Kenneth Stern, is now worried that the definition he helped create is being weaponized. He joins Michel Martin to explain why it’s causing harm to everyone, including Jewish students.

There is nothing new in Stern’s spiel. He was complaining about “weaponizing” anti-Semitism in 2019.

Stern talked to regular Amanpour interviewer (and NPR host) Michel Martin, beginning by explaining how Stern’s “working definition of anti-Semitism” came about, then fretting about its weaponization on behalf of Jewish college students being harassed by pro-Hamas protesters.

Stern has described himself as a Zionist and “supporter of Israel,” and National Public Radio, for one, accepted that definition, though Stern is certainly eager to condemn Trump’s actions to protect Jewish students, while using exaggerated metaphors to defend the pro-Hamas haters on campus.

MARTIN: So, in fact, we spoke a, about a year ago, your concern then was that mainstream Jewish groups were putting more and more pressure on lawmakers to adopt the IHRA definition as well, and that you were worried that it would be weaponized for the purpose of suppressing free speech. So, what do you think now?

Stern responded by cranking his liberal-historian-worthy invective up to 11. “McCarthyism” figured into the mix, of course.

STERN: …we’re at a moment where I’m really worried about the levels of anti- Semitism when we’re targeting people that are seen as not part of our social contract, whether it’s immigrant or Muslims or transgender folks, because if you look at how anti-Semitism works, that is the environment in which it grows, when people fear somebody else among us and leaders can make that a problem.

The other thing that troubles me too, and this is new since the, you know, change in administrations and I see the wholesale attack on higher education and on legal profession, if you have the wrong side and all this. I look back at Jewish history, and it’s the times where democracy was under threat. The times of the Palmer raids, the time of the McCarthy era, where Jewish security was the most at risk, and I’m worried that we’re entering another one of those periods now. 

Demonstrating an Amanpour pattern, the liberal journalist Martin asked a single question that mildly challenged her even further left guest. PBS’s idea of balance?

MARTIN: ….some people would just say, look, some of these demonstrations really were anti-Semitic, things were said that created an environment of fear among Jewish students, in particular Jewish people who happen to be in that environment. And so, some people might look at that and say, well, why wouldn’t you employ a definition as a kind of a yardstick for behavior that is to be tolerated and behavior that is not?

Stern responded with a half-hearted admission that the left on campus can be intolerant of dissent (policing “micro-aggressions,” for example).

Martin brought up the well-publicized cases of two foreign-born graduate students, Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, and the Tufts graduate student who “was sort of detained on the street. Some people thought it was kidnapping….”

Martin concluded with a wellness check for Stern, who is presumably guilt-ridden about the part he is unwittingly playing in Trump’s attempt to protect Jews from harassment on campus.

MARTIN: So, before we let you go, how are you doing? I mean, as a person who’s been expressing concerns like this for some time now. How are you?

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

Amanpour & Co.

4/14/25

1:38:19 a.m. (ET)

GOLODRYGA: Our next guest helped draft the working definition of anti-Semitism used by multiple governments and universities worldwide. Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, Kenneth Stern, is now worried that the definition he helped create is being weaponized. He joins Michel Martin to explain why it’s causing harm to everyone, including Jewish students.

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Kenneth Stern, thank you so much for speaking with us once again.

KENNETH STERN, DIRECTOR, BARD CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HATE: Thank you so much for having me again.

MARTIN: So, just to remind people, you were the lead drafter of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or IHRA. It’s the working definition of anti-Semitism. So, just to remind people, what was the idea behind drafting this document and what does this working definition say?

STERN: It was actually drafted in 2004, IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, adopted the text in 2016, but it was drafted at a time where there was a — the second intifada and an uptick in attacks on Jews in Europe and there was a group that was tasked with putting out reports about anti-Semitism, but they said, look, we have a problem. We have all these different data points across Europe, and there’s no common sort of score sheet of what people should be looking at. We need a common definition.

And then they said that anti-Semitism, in their view, is a series of stereotypes about Jews. But then there was a problem too. They basically said, look, we have — you know, what do we do if a Jew is attacked as a stand-in for an Israeli? And they said, well, you know, we have a — if the person is being attacked because the person has these stereotypes about Jews, applies them to Israelis and reapplies them to the person walking on the streets of London or France, that’s anti-Semitism. But not if they’re upset at Israeli policy. And I thought that was, you know, sort of nuts.And the work — we worked with the director of EUMC, I was the lead drafter, but it was never designed to say that you say something that violates the definition, we’re going to classify you as an anti-Semite, and that’s the problem of how it’s being used as a way to stop speech as opposed to just take the temperature or give clarity on what’s a hate crime and what isn’t.

MARTIN: So, in fact, we spoke a, a, a about a year ago, your concern then was that mainstream Jewish groups were putting more and more pressure on lawmakers to adopt the IHRA definition as well, and that you were worried that it would be weaponized for the purpose of suppressing free speech. So, what do you think now?

STERN: Sure. And you know, it predates the current moment. I mean, I started writing about this in 2010 and 2011, and I wrote a book about this in 2020. So, it, it’s not new. But what I see is the — you know, using it as a way to suggest what funding goes to programs, what speakers should come to campus.

What worries me more about somebody who’s spent decades dealing with hate and anti-Semitism is that it’s giving an easy solution to a complicated problem, saying, take this definition, use it, put something on one side of a ledger or another, and that’s how we should think about anti-Semitism, when we’re at a moment where I’m really worried about the levels of anti- Semitism when we’re targeting people that are seen as not part of our social contract, whether it’s immigrant or Muslims or transgender folks, because if you look at how anti-Semitism works, that is the environment in which it grows, when people fear somebody else among us and leaders can make that a problem. The other thing that troubles me too, and this is new since the, you know, change in administrations and I see the wholesale attack on higher education and on legal profession, if you have the wrong side and all this. I look back at Jewish history, and it’s the times where democracy was under threat. The times of the Palmer raids, the time of the McCarthy era, where Jewish security was the most at risk, and I’m worried that we’re entering another one of those periods now.

MARTIN: You know, we can debate about the degree to which some of these demonstrations that took place mainly last spring, you know, how appropriate they were. But some people would just say, look, some of these demonstrations really were anti-Semitic, things were said that created an environment of fear among Jewish students, in particular Jewish people who happen to be in that environment.

And so, some people might look at that and say, well, why wouldn’t you employ a definition as a kind of a yardstick for behavior that is to be tolerated in behavior that is not.

STERN: You know, one of the things is that the fundamental distinction is being lost here, which is that no student should be harassed or intimidated or bullied or threatened, let alone assaulted, but students on a campus, for a campus to work well, students have to expect that they’re going to hear things, that are going to disturb them to their core, and universities have a responsibility of how do we teach out of this moment? How do we support students and so forth? Not to say there are things that are not going to be heard. I think part of the problem on the campus at the moment also comes from the left with ideas about, oh, you have to be safe intellectually. There are things like, you know, microaggressions. Nobody should go and harm somebody, you know, intentionally and so forth, and be aware of what they’re saying. But the idea that somehow, we’re going to monitor speech means that, you know, there are certain ideas that are OK and certain ideas that are not OK. It’s going to prioritize group think, and that undercuts, you know, a campus education.

One of the other challenges here too is that there’s — you know, we’re forgetting that there are Jewish students on both sides of this. If you look, Jewish Voice for Peace was the group that went to the, you know, Trump Tower. So, there’s, you know, a debate inside the Jewish community too, about what it means to be Jewish and whether you have a particular attitude on Israel. I’m a Zionist. Israel is important to me, but for a lot of Jewish students, young Jewish students, the idea is that their Judaism leads them to an anti-Zionist position. And a case that’s really instructive is what happened in Germany when the IHRA definition was used to basically classify

Jews who were opposing the war on Gaza, calling them anti-Semitic. And one of the things that a person commenting on it said, isn’t it ironic that Germany has again decided what it means to be Jewish, what it means to have, you know, a Jewish position?

And I don’t want Congress deciding that here either. And I don’t want administrations deciding that. I want them to be able to get students to be engaged about differences about this issue. It’s a great topic to talk about how do we deal with differences. If we look at the history of the universities, when we try to say certain speech, it makes people uncomfortable, and that we’re going to outlaw that speech, it’s going to backfire and it harms the people that it’s trying to protect.

MARTIN: As we are speaking now, the administration has investigated dozens of universities, including Columbia, Penn, and Brown, for the use of DEI initiatives and also for what they claim is their failure to protect Jewish students, faculty and staff from anti-Semitism on campus. So, their failure to allegedly confront anti-Semitism on campus. And they are — the terms put forth have been very clear, either comply with very specific directions, in some case putting departments, hold departments under receivership or lose huge amounts of funding.

I mean, the administration froze over a billion dollars in federal funding to Cornell, nearly $800 million to Northwestern. They threatened Columbia with a loss of $400 million in funding. The irony being that there are a lot of Jewish students and faculty and researchers on many of these campuses.

And so, when you look at that, like what do you — what — do you think it’s really about anti-Semitism or what do you think it’s about?

STERN: Well, I think it’s actually has a much larger agenda that we’ve seen actually even before October 7th. There’s a view of attacking liberal education and seeing it as the enemy. And I think J. D. Vance had talked about things like that, about — I think it was after October 7th, but basically saying, we should, you know, follow the model of Orban and Hungary, is closed down universities. So, I see it as a broader attack.

You know, and one of the things when I testified in front of the Senate one committee a couple of weeks ago, another one back in September. And back in September, I think most of us, even the Republican witnesses, if my recollection is correct, all agreed that one of the challenges at the moment is that the Office of Civil Rights is underfunded, it’s backlogged, there are cases about anti-Semitism, and we all thought that that more funding needed to go to that, to resolve those cases. Because when they’re not resolved, it tells people, people don’t care.

And there are some cases that are — you know, are credible and should go through the system. You know, now they’re going claw backs, without the process, without due process. And what I really worry about the larger moment is that we’re an existential crisis for universities. And I get it that universities have tough decisions to make. They have a lot of pressure and political pressure and financial pressure. This may not be the only thing that’s coming down that’s going to threaten them, but, you know, I think about Benjamin Franklin, if we don’t, you know, hang together, we’re going to hang separately.

Columbia has a $14 to $15 billion endowment. Harvard has a big endowment. I don’t always agree with Larry Summers, but he’s right when he is saying, you know, what the heck is your endowment for? You know, to fight things like this. So, I think there needs to be an organized pushback and to focus on the real threat against higher education, which is going to affect Jewish students too, as you say, and not just say, oh, we’re really happy that we’re deporting somebody, or threatening funding for somebody that says something we don’t like.

MARTIN: There have been two very high-profile cases, graduate students in both cases, who were arrested summarily, they’re surprised. One was — this was Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia student. He is a — holds a green card. He’s a legal permanent resident. He’s married to an American citizen who is pregnant. And then, in the other case is this Tufts graduate student from Turkey who was on her way to a Ramadan breakfast dinner with friends to — and was sort of detained on the street. Some people thought it was kidnapping. They didn’t know what was going on.

And in Khalil’s case, he was a very — he was high-profile and says that people remember those demonstrations at Columbia last spring, some of which became quite raucous. And he was a person who was sort of a spokesperson trying to articulate what the students’ concerns were.

In the case of this young woman, Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts graduate student, it seems to be that she had co-signed an op-ed criticizing Israel’s war in Gaza. And so, it seems that, because there hasn’t been any other evidence presented, that the reason she was picked up was that this op-ed. And you know, the argument the administration has made is that, you know, we don’t invite you here to tear up our campuses, we invite you here to study. And if you’re going to be causing ruckus, then, you know, you need to go. So, say more about why you think that’s concerning.

STERN: Sure. Well, you know, Khalil’s case, I mean, you know, he was one of the people that didn’t wear a mask, he was obviously very public. They didn’t charge him with crime or anything. And one of the concerns me even more is — as you talk about the Tuft student who signed op-ed. I just saw a thing from the Student Journalism Association that basically is warning people who are writing in student newspapers to go back and scrub out identities of people that you wrote about.

You know, to talk about using anonymous sources. And they’re worried about, you know, journalism is supposed to be also produced an archive for people to go back to, but they see that as a danger now. At Columbia, they were — at the journalism school, a professor said, and I think perfectly reasonably, and a horribly — you know, a horrible thing to say, don’t write about Gaza, don’t write about Ukraine. We can’t protect you.

And what worries me about all this too is one of the things I’ve done in teaching is that I’ve mentored students and had programs with students and taught students who are foreign students who come here, and one of the reasons that they come here to study is our tradition for free speech. More than one have told me that, gee, I really want to learn about your free speech tradition so I can go back to my country where we don’t have that protection and try to get people to think about the value of an open marketing place of ideas, to debate about ideas and not to have the state suppress it.

But we’re acting much more like those countries, like Russia and Iran at the moment, than we’re acting like the United States of America that I think, you know, we all know and love and hope we can get back to.

MARTIN: Is a concern here that this really has become about speech and not conduct?

STERN: Yes, yes. I mean, there’s no — listen. If somebody said, I assaulted somebody, you know, that’s a different thing. If somebody says, you know, you fundraise for Hezbollah or Hamas even held a bake sale, that would be something else, that would be material support for terrorism. The administration’s been very clear that this is about speech.

And again, to, you know, your point, of what I testified about, I’m just — you know, the — I’m sort of blown away by the idea that somebody saying something that I find totally disagreeable is somehow a threat to our national security and foreign policy. Are we that weak as a country that we can’t tolerate kids on campus saying something? I mean, again, it’s different than harassing, intimidating, bullying, threatening all those things, but to say something, which is the premise of — apparently of a lot of the actions of the administration and the legislation that’s, you know, being promoted, that to me is very scary.

MARTIN: So, before we let you go, how are you doing? I mean, as a person who’s been expressing concerns like this for some time now. How are you?

STERN: I’m deeply concerned about what this means for the university with this full-scale assault on higher education, with the claw backs of money, the threats, the bullying, the — as you talked about, the receivership. There was just an article about maybe having a consent decree with Columbia to enforce — you know, with a judge enforcing whatever resolution, you know, that becomes your handing over the university to politicians. And that deeply worries me because, you know, the higher educational system is one of the things that’s best about America.

We produce students that can think, that have spaces where they could be wrong and learn how to be critical thinkers. And what we’re doing isexactly what, you know, we’ve seen on some of the other side on — from the progressive side from time to time is saying, no, there’s only one right way of looking at this. But when you have the state doing it and threatening significant financial penalties, that should scare us all.

MARTIN: Professor Kenneth Stern, thank you so much for speaking with us.

STERN: Thank you so much for having me.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the left-wing New York Times were back in a New York courtroom on Monday for jury selection in the retrial of the former’s defamation suit against the latter. Palin scored a retrial after a biased judge inappropriately announced that he was going to rule against her no matter what the first jury found, with jurors subsequently finding out. The start of the retrial drew begrudging coverage from NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik, who lamented that the case had new life.

It was clear from the opening sentence that Folkenflik didn’t hold the case in high regard, quoting Yogi Berra while quipping: “As another New York City institution once said, it’s déjà vu all over again for The New York Times and former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin.”

Folkenflik tried to downplay how The Times accused Palin of being responsible for the assassination attempt of former Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords (AZ), suggesting it was only something “Palin’s attorneys argued” happened.

Omitting how the editorial was written by The Times’ editorial board (not just one of their columnists) and how the correction in the piece admitted to what they did, Folkenflik then disclosed: “No proof was ever found suggesting the shooter was motivated by, or even knew about, the Palin ad cited by the editorial.”

So which was it; only something the lawyers argued happened or something that really did happen?

Folkenflik took solace in how conservatives were struggling to get the results out of the case they wanted, while boasting about how “Palin had an uphill battle” to hold The Times accountable:

Conservative allies had hoped to use the case to upend protections for the press stemming from a six-decades-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a defamation case that also involved the Times.

Thanks to that ruling, Palin had an uphill battle: the bar to prove defamation is high for public figures such as Palin — a former governor, vice presidential candidate and vocal supporter of President Trump. She has not been able to make a credible case that she suffered tangible damages as a result of the Times’ editorial, and the newspaper moved relatively quickly to remedy its errors.

 

 

Regarding the judge’s misconduct that resulted in the retrial, Folkenflik downplayed it as just a “misstep” instead of the miscarriage of justice that it was.

Despite the years of pre-trial hearings that were supposed to act as a gatekeeping function to see if the case was worth being brought before a jury, which it was, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff announced that he would rule against Palin no matter what the jury found during their deliberation, which they were actively doing at the time.

“The next day, the jury unanimously found against Palin,” Folkenflik admitted. “Upon being questioned by the judge’s law clerk, however, several jurors conceded that they had learned of Rakoff’s ruling dismissing the case through push alerts on their smartphones before they had finished deliberating [sic][.]”

A panel of appeals judges later ruled that they had “no difficulty concluding that an average jury’s verdict would be affected if several jurors knew that the judge had already ruled for one of the parties on the very claims the jurors were charged with deciding.” Thus, a retrial was permitted, to Folkenflik’s apparent chagrin.

Folkenflik cautioned that this time around “the media landscape has shifted since that first trial,” after several media organizations had been held accountable for their defamation and lies in several ways:

CNN recently settled a case filed by a former security contractor whom it had accused of “black market” rescue operations after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. A Florida jury had awarded the man $5 million in pain and suffering; CNN agreed to pay him more to stave off the jury’s decision on how much to award him in punitive damages. MSNBC settled a defamation claim brought by a physician falsely accused in 2020 of performing mass hysterectomies on female detainees at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.

Of course, Folkenflik misrepresented the nature of Navy veteran Zachary Young’s victory in his defamation suit against CNN.

The case was not “settled.” In fact, CNN was found liable for malicious defamation and forced to pay out $5 million in economic and emotional damages. What did get settled were the punitive damages, which were only on the table because the jury found that CNN acted with actual and expressed malice.

It matched Folkenflik’s flippant attitude toward the case. He first wrote about Young’s case on the eve of the trial’s jury selection on January 6 and injected President Trump into it for no reason.

Meanwhile, NPR thought this kind of reporting was worth being subsidized by your tax dollars.