Newsbusters

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.

I guess United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres didn’t think his hyping global warming risks brought him enough attention, so now he says, “The era of global boiling has arrived!”

Global boiling?

Give me a break.

Yes, the climate is warming.

We can deal with that.

What annoys me is politicians, activists and media pushing hysterical myths.

Myth 1: The Arctic will soon be ice-free.

It “could already be ice-free by the summer of 2030!” shrieks a DW report.”’Doomsday Glacier’ is melting faster than scientists thought,” adds the BBC. “Earth’s biggest cities are at risk!”

Nonsense.

“It’s not happening at nearly the catastrophic pace that they claim,” says Heartland Institute fellow Linnea Lueken in my new video.

But the media show dramatic images of melting and missing ice.

“No ice! There’s all these walruses laying out on a stony beach. … It’s because it’s the summertime! In the winter, it all comes right back!”

As far as ice disappearing in winter, too, “Compared to the amount of ice that’s in the Arctic,” says Lueken, it “is like a grain of sand … so minuscule compared to the amount of ice that’s there, it doesn’t even show up on a trend chart when you plot it.”

But zealots push hysteria.

In 2009, Al Gore, while collecting a Nobel prize, said there was “a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap … during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years!”

In just five to seven years! Oh, no!

Wait … seven years have passed. In fact, 16 years passed. The ice cap has plenty of ice, even in summer. Yet nobody calls him on it.

“They absolutely should be calling him on it,” says Lueken.

Myth 2: Polar bears are going extinct.

Polar bears look cute, so environmental groups use them in ads to sucker you into donating money.

But Polar bear populations have increased!

In the 1960s, 17,000-19,000 was the highest of three scientific estimates of polar bear population. Today, there are about 26,000 polar bears.

Yet the Environmental Defense Fund collected almost a quarter-billion dollars from gullible donors running ads that say: “Your support can help Environmental Defense Fund save the polar bears!”

The EDF hasn’t agreed to my interview requests. I understand why. I would call their advertising sleazy.

“Absolutely,” agrees Lueken, “the data is right there. It’s not hard to find out that polar bears are fine.”

OK, maybe polar bears aren’t going extinct, but we might starve!

That’s Myth 3.

MSNBC shrieks, “Climate change could create a massive global food shortage.”

President Barack Obama said, “Our changing climate is already making it more difficult to produce food!”

“There is no claim less true.” sighs Lueken. “Food production has skyrocketed.”

She’s right, and the data is there for everyone to see. Agriculture output sets record highs year after year.

In fact, the extra carbon dioxide in greenhouse gasses probably increases food production.

“We inject CO2 into greenhouses for a reason,” Lueken points out. “It helps to fertilize plants for faster and better growth.”

As the climate has warmed, the world experienced the biggest drop in hunger and malnutrition ever.

Still, when food prices rise, media idiots still blame climate change.

The New York Times claimed “devastation that climate change had wrought” caused a rise in coffee prices.

But global coffee production has increased by 82% since the 1990s.

The Times story focused on a brief decline in coffee production in Honduras. But since the ‘90s, coffee production there rose more than 200%.

“They never apologize,” I note. “They never say, ‘Oh, we got this wrong.’”

“No,” replies Lueken. “Even if they did have a retraction, the damage is already done.”

Alarmist media and environmental groups never apologize.

When doom doesn’t happen, they just move on to the next scare.

I’ll cover four more myths about climate change next week.

Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and individual freedom.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Justice Department is suing Maine for violations of Title IX because it refuses to protect the competitive integrity of women’s sports, but CNN’s chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid didn’t understand what the big deal was. According to her, the state only has two transgender high school athletes that compete in women’s competitions, but she failed to mention that one of them won a state indoor pole vaulting championship back in February.

Co-host Pamela Brown set the table, “All right, let’s go live now to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, how do we expect Maine to respond to this lawsuit?”

 

 

Pole vault competitions weren’t the only things that happened in February, as Reid recalled:

Well, so far, the governor of Maine has made it clear she does not intend to comply with President Trump’s order to ban transgender athletes in girls’ sports. So, it is unlikely that this lawsuit is going to change her mind. Now, following that highly publicized confrontation between the governor of Maine and President Trump back in February, where she made it clear she was not going to abide by this executive order and told him, ‘I’ll see you in court,’ she has faced a barrage of federal retaliation from various agencies targeting federal funding.

Reid added, “And back in February, the attorney general sent the state a letter saying that it has to comply with this administration’s interpretation of Title IX, that federal anti-discrimination law. The state of Maine, though, has made it clear they are not going to do that. So, that has set off litigation, including today’s lawsuit.”

Finally getting to the main issue, she argued:

The state of Maine has noted that there are only two transgender athletes participating in girls’ sports in the state. So, there have been questions about why so much, sort of, federal energy and resources have been poured into this specific issue. But, as we know, this is an issue that played out in the election. It’s been playing out in states across the country. And today the attorney general said that she is thinking of suing other states that don’t comply.”

The winning women’s score would have tied for tenth in the men’s competition. There is simply no excuse for CNN to omit such critical context. Even The Situation Room’s 10:00 AM Eastern hour MSNBC counterparts managed to point out the DOJ’s pole vaulter evidence.

Here is a transcript for the April 16 show:

CNN The Situation Room

4/16/2025

10:05 AM ET

PAMELA BROWN: All right, let’s go live now to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, how do we expect Maine to respond to this lawsuit?

PAULA REID: Well, so far, the governor of Maine has made it clear she does not intend to comply with President Trump’s order to ban transgender athletes in girls’ sports. So, it is unlikely that this lawsuit is going to change her mind. Now, following that highly publicized confrontation between the governor of Maine and President Trump back in February, where she made it clear she was not going to abide by this executive order and told him, “I’ll see you in court,” she has faced a barrage of federal retaliation from various agencies targeting federal funding.

And back in February, the attorney general sent the state a letter saying that it has to comply with this administration’s interpretation of Title IX, that federal anti-discrimination law. The state of Maine, though, has made it clear they are not going to do that. So, that has set off litigation, including today’s lawsuit. But the state of Maine has noted that there are only two transgender athletes participating in girls’ sports in the state. So, there have been questions about why so much, sort of, federal energy and resources have been poured into this specific issue. But, as we know, this is an issue that played out in the election. It’s been playing out in states across the country. And today the attorney general said that she is thinking of suing other states that don’t comply.

First it was the cow farts. Now it’s dog “shit.” Moral of the story: eco crazies will never be satisfied until people start seeing climate change threats in their soup. 

Leftist newspaper The Guardian published an April 9 story that reeked of being desperate for attention, even if that meant making its writers look like cats that have been overdosing on catnip. “Pet dogs have ‘extensive and multifarious’ impact on environment, new research finds,” read the headline coughed up like a hairball from science writer Donna Lu.

The syntax read like a Babylon Bee special, “An Australian review of existing studies has argued that ‘the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognised.”

The equally nutty outlet Mother Jones reposted Lu’s story and made dogs out to be the antagonists of the supposed climate war in its re-written headline: “Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains.” Talk about screwing the pooch. 

One of the so-called threats highlighted by Lu channeled the cow fart doom mongering perpetuated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): “Dog feces can also leave scent traces and affect soil chemistry and plant growth.” 

While Lu argued that “the environmental impact of cats is well known,” she whined that the supposedly more problematic climate footprint of “pet dogs has been poorly acknowledged, the researchers said.” She went even further, going as far as to insult dog owners in the process: “In the review, the researchers attributed the extent of the environmental impacts to the sheer number of dogs globally, as well as ‘the lax or uninformed behaviour of dog owners.’” “‘If nothing else, pick up your own dog shit,’” Curtin University Professor Bill Bateman quipped to Lu.

But it just got worse. Lu then expanded her insane thesis to condemn pets writ large:

The carbon footprint of pets is also significant. A 2020 study found the dry pet food industry had an environmental footprint of around twice the land area of the UK, with greenhouse gas emissions – 56 to 151 Mt CO2 – equivalent to the 60th highest-emitting country.

This pathetic excuse for a news item isn’t even fit to line the bottom of a litter box.

Comedian Nimesh Patel swung by Comedy Central and The Daily Show on Tuesday to muse about Indian-Americans who support President Trump. Patel would ridicule former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and unrelated FBI Director Kash Patel, but he would direct his most venomous rhetoric towards the Vance family as he claimed to hope that Second Lady Usha Vance has Stockholm Syndrome because that is the only possible explanation for her marriage with JD.

Host Ronny Chieng wondered, “So what is going on with Indians and MAGA?… I mean, there is something interesting—”

Patel began his response by proclaiming, “Well, yeah, look, that’s Trump’s DEI: Indian people… there are so many Indians that love Donald Trump. Like, Vivek Ramaswamy.”

 

 

He then recalled how “He ran for president, and his main thing—his opening line was ‘God is real.’ Why did He make you 5’7″, Vivek? I don’t know if he is 5’7″, but he has 5’7″ energy, and then I will not say his name again because if you say it more than three times, he pops up behind you.”

Moving on, Patel declaring, “And there’s Usha Vance, who I’m praying for, I’m hoping she has Stockholm Syndrome because otherwise, why is she with JD Vance? She has to.”

Finally, Patel turned to Kash Patel, “I’m not saying shit about Kash Patel. I’m trying—not trying to get one of these one-way tickets to El Salvador.”

Seeking to educate the audience about the guy with whom he shares a last name, Patel added, “If you don’t know, Kash Patel, you guys don’t seem that concerned, but every Indian knows Kash Patel, but if you don’t know him, he is the director of the FBI and people don’t seem worried about him but his real name is Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel. He grew up in racist ass Long Island with the name Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel. He is out for revenge. You should be very concerned. I’m not a fan of the guy’s politics, but if I get pulled over, that is my cousin.”

Patel could have tried to give a level-headed answer to Chieng’s initial question. Instead, he mocked the idea that people of roughly average height are disfavored by God, an Indian woman married to a conservative white man is a hostage, and the FBI director is on a race-inspired vengeance tour. The Daily Show may call that comedy, but it isn’t.

Here is a transcript for the April 15 show:

Comedy Central The Daily Show

4/15/2025

11:26 PM ET

RONY CHIENG: So what is going on with Indians and MAGA?

NIMESH PATEL: As the Indian representative—

CHIENG: No, I mean, there is something interesting—

PATEL: Well, yeah, look, that’s Trump’s DEI: Indian people. The deek-eating Indians. Dude, there’s so many — there are so many Indians that love Donald Trump. Like, Vivek Ramaswamy.

CHIENG: Yeah.

PATEL: Some Indians are like, yeah.

CHIENG: Another Harvard guy.

PATEL: Was he a Harvard guy?

CHIENG: I’m pretty sure he’s a Harvard guy

PATEL: I mean, what a herb. If you don’t know what a herb is, a herb is what we call people in the 90s when they’re being herbs. Like he’s a herb, he ran for president and lost, obviously. He ran for president, and his main thing — his opening line was “God is real.” Why did He make you 5’7″, Vivek? I don’t know if he is 5’7″, but he has 5’7″ energy, and then I will not say his name again because if you say it more than three times, he pops up behind you.

CHIENG: Pops up under the desk, yeah.

PATEL [AS RAMASWAMY]: “Let’s end affirmative action, guys.” [NORMAL VOICE] Alright, dude.

CHIENG [AS RAMASWAMY]: Vivek Ramaswamy.

PATEL: And there’s Usha Vance.

CHIENG: Oh, Usha Vance, yeah.

PATEL: Who I’m praying for, I’m hoping she has Stockholm Syndrome because otherwise, why is she with JD Vance? She has to.

And then of course, of course—

CHIENG: The king.

PATEL: Kash Patel. I’m not saying shit about Kash Patel. I’m trying — not trying to get one of these one-way tickets to El Salvador.

CHIENG: Everyone else is fair game.

PATEL: If you don’t know, Kash Patel, you guys don’t seem that concerned, but every Indian knows Kash Patel, but if you don’t know him, he is the director of the FBI and people don’t seem worried about him but his real name is Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel. He grew up in racist ass Long Island with the name Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel. He is out for revenge. You should be very concerned. I’m not a fan of the guy’s politics, but if I get pulled over, that is my cousin. You don’t see the resemblance? That’s me, dude.