Newsbusters

“Apophasis” is a favorite Greek term of James Taranto, the great Wall Street Journal opinion editor. It’s a rhetorical device by which someone sneakily raises a subject by saying they will not mention it.

CNN host Audie Cornish gave a perfect illustration of the term on today’s CNN This Morning. In a discussion of the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members, which some claim violated a judge’s order, Cornish said:

“This is one of those things that people end up talking about constitutional crisis. I will try not to kickoff Monday with that term, but . . . ”

Nicely played, Audie! And by the same token, we’re not going to raise the issue of your blatant liberal bias, despite the abundant evidence thereof!

At the end of the segment, Lourdes “Lulu” Garcia-Navarro, formerly an NPR host, now of the New York Times, complained, “We don’t know that these are Venezuelan gang members,” who are being deported. Just like they claim you can’t know the pro-Hamas protesters are pro-Hamas, like we can’t read placards and pamphlets. 

Is that the hill that the Democrats and the liberal media want to fight on — that the Trump administration is being too tough in deporting vicious gang members illegally in the United States? Make Donald’s day!

As for Cornish’s stealthy suggestion that the deportations have created a constitutional crisis, CNN contributor Alex Thompson mentioned that Trump’s advisers “spent the last four years when they were not in power studying every single obscure statute . . . They are going line by line to try to justify all these things.” And “they want this to go all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Meticulously studying and applying laws on the books “line-by-line,” and wanting the Supreme Court to ultimately rule on the issues, sounds like the diametrical opposite of fomenting a constitutional crisis!

Amusingly, when Thompson mentioned that the Trump administration defended its actions by citing a law from the 1700s signed by President John Adams, Garcia-Navarro whined, “This is the problem with having old laws on the books.”

Wait a second. CNN and its media allies thought the Logan Act of 1799 was worth exploring against the Trump team in 2017. Weren’t libs like Lulu the same people who were outraged by the overturning of Roe v. Wade because it had been on the books for almost 50 years? 

Here’s the transcript.

CNN This Morning
3/17/25
6:01 am EDT

AUDIE CORNISH: Good morning, everyone. I’m Audie Cornish. Thank you so much for waking up with us. 

We’re going to talk today about the showdown between the president and the courts. Is the White House ignoring a judge’s ruling? 

DONALD TRUMP: That was a bad group of, as I say, hombres. They invaded our country. So this isn’t, in that sense, this is war. In many respects, it’s more dangerous than war because, you know, in war, they have uniforms. You know who you’re shooting at. You know who you’re going after. These are people that came out, they’re walking down the streets. 

CORNISH: That’s President Trump, of course, defending a flight which sent hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. In a made-for-TV moment, they were unloaded under heavy guard and taken to the country’s notorious super prison. 

The problem? A federal judge had actually issued a restraining order and instructed the Trump administration to turn around any flights that had already left. That didn’t happen. 

In a statement, the White House claimed the judge’s ruling, quote, had no lawful basis. Secretary of State Marco Rubio even shared a post from El Salvador’s president saying, oopsie, too late. 

. . . 

ALEX THOMPSON: Yesterday, my colleague Marc Caputo, basically reported that after the judge’s order, they, Stephen Miller, basically went and said, like, is there a way we can potentially challenge this? And that’s why they essentially ignored it, and just let the flight go on, because they want this. And they said, you know, a senior White House official told my colleague Marc Caputo that they want this to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The fact that they are defying or ignoring these challenges is intentional. They want these things to ascend up to the Supreme Court. 

CORNISH: And this is one of those things that people end up talking about constitutional crisis. I will try not to kick off Monday with that term. But I want to play for you the White House press secretary and how she talks about the judiciary. 

KAROLINE LEAVITT: Clearly, there are left-wing activists, who sit behind a bench in a courthouse, who don’t like this president and his policies. But the fact is, everything President Trump is doing is within his executive authority to do it. He is acting within the bounds of the law. All of his actions are constitutional. And our White House and the entire administration are prepared to fight back against this resistance. 

. . . 

THOMPSON: You know, they spent the last four years when they were not in power studying every single obscure statute, I mean, it’s not a —

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is the problem with having old laws on the books, let me also just say. 

THOMPSON: I mean, over the weekend, they used a law from the 1700s that John Adams signed. They also, in order to try to deport the pro-Palestinian campus protester, they’re using an obscure statute that’s never really been used in this way that requires the Secretary of State himself to intervene. They are going line by line to try to justify all these things. 

. . . 

DOUG HEYE: But Donald Trump’s trying to set up a conversation here. Are we going to talk about the doctor who was unjustly removed from the country, or are we going to talk about Venezuelan gangs? He wants us to focus on the latter, and he wins on that. 

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But we don’t know that these are Venezuelan gang members, and I think that is the point. No, no, because you’ve seen —

HEYE: But you’re inserting logic and facts where they don’t necessarily exist, right? 

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, well, I’m not… Well, but… Okay.

HEYE: But that’s what Donald Trump wants the conversation to be. 

It should go without saying, but America does not need more Hamas sympathizers.

Yet this simple truth seems to confound a wide variety of commentators across the political spectrum. This week, the White House announced that Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be deporting an apparently green card-holding Columbia University graduate student named Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil came to the United States after a stint at the Hamas front United Nations Relief and Works Agency, to study at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. There, he quickly became a leader of the Columbia University Apartheid Divest group, a group that repeatedly and openly sympathized with Hamas after the Oct. 7 massacres in Israel. He acted as a spokesman for the takeover of Hamilton Hall on the Columbia campus.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained, “This is not about free speech. This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with.” He added, “No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card.”

This should be perfectly obvious under the law. U.S. Code 1227 includes among the classes of deportable aliens “an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” Obviously, having Hamas sympathizers who help lead groups that openly advocate for terrorist violence would be within this category. Furthermore, as lawyer Andrew McCarthy writes, “If reports are correct, Khalil was active as an agent of agitators who carried out lawless activities. That is not mere speech and association, and it would be unlawful if engaged in by Americans — indeed, that is why dozens of Americans were arrested in connection with the campus unrest.”                

Nonetheless, Democrats came rushing to Khalil’s aid. The Senate Judiciary Committee tweeted out a picture of Khalil with the caption, “Free Mahmoud Khalil.” They have issued no such tweet in support of actual American citizens being held hostage by Hamas in terror tunnels. Their purported argument is that Khalil’s speech is being violated — even though his activities clearly fall within a category of behavior that is not protected by law, as deemed by the Secretary of State. In fact, as law professor Eugene Kontorovich points out, the Biden administration announced that it would ban travel visas to Israelis who “disrupt or prevent efforts to achieve a two-state solution.” None of the Democrats at that time fulminated about free speech rights. There is a reason why. And that reason is simple: The Democratic Party, writ large, sympathizes with those who sympathize with Hamas.

A fringe on the Republican side of the aisle feels similarly. There is great inconsistency in the fact that many on the right who object to Khalil’s deportation are the strongest advocates of immigration restrictionism; apparently they are deeply perturbed with Indian engineers working at Google on H-1B visas but are all in on behalf of terror supporters who hate Jews.

Then again, most Americans look at this case and innately understand President Donald Trump’s simple take: “I think we ought to get them all out of the country. They’re troublemakers. They’re agitators. They don’t love our country. … You can have them.” If Trump’s opponents keep taking the side of people like Mahmoud Khalil, they will keep ending up on the wrong side of the American people.

We regret to inform you that, once again, CBS’s Margaret Brennan has attempted to stump Secretary of State Marco Rubio on matters of free speech. And, once again, she has been absolutely wrecked for her troubles.

WATCH their full exchange regarding the denaturalization of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student organizer detained by ICE and being processed for deportation pursuant to U.S. immigration law (click “expand” to view transcript):

On @FaceTheNation, @MargBrennan v @MarcoRubio on case of Mahmoud Khalil. Rubio: “I find it ironic that a lot these people out there defending the first amendment speech, alleged free speech rights of these Hamas sympathizers, they had no problem pressuring social media to censor… pic.twitter.com/x557ko0Ecw
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 16, 2025

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about a decision you made to revoke a student visa for someone at Columbia University this past week. The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, “the administration needs to be careful, it’s targeting real promoters of terrorism not breaking the great promise of a green card by deporting anyone with controversial political views.” Can you substantiate any form of material support for terrorism–

MARCO RUBIO: Yes.

BRENNAN: –specifically to Hamas, from this Columbia student–

RUBIO: Yes.

BRENNAN: –or was it simply that he was espousing a controversial political point of view?

RUBIO: Well, not just the student, we’re going to do more. In fact, we- every day now we’re approving visa revocations, and if that visa led to a green card, the green card process as well and here’s why, it’s very simple. When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest, and you’re coming as a student, you’re coming as a tourist, or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertations and if you tell us when you apply for a visa, I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events, that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America. It’s that simple. So, you lied. You came- if you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you’re here. Now you do it. You lied to us. You’re out. It’s that simple. It’s that straight forward.

BRENNAN: But, is there any- but is there any evidence of a– 

RUBIO: Yes. Sure.

BRENNAN: –link to terrorism, or is it just his point of view?

RUBIO: Yeah, they take over. I mean, do you not- I mean, you should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings–

[CROSSTALK]

BRENNAN: We covered it intensely. 

RUBIO: –They vandalized colleges. They shut down colleges– 

BRENNAN: I’m asking about the specific–

RUBIO: –well then you should know that this is–

BRENNAN: –justification for the revocation of his visa– 

RUBIO: Well, this specific individual was the spokesperson–

BRENNAN: –was there any evidence the material support for terrorism?

RUBIO: –was the negotiator- on negotiating on behalf of people that took over a campus? That vandalized buildings? Negotiating over what? That’s a crime in and of itself, that they’re involved in the being the negotiator, the spokesperson, this that the other. We don’t want- we don’t need these people in our country that we never should have allowed them in in the first place. If he had told us, I’m going over there, and I’m going over there to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of a movement that’s going to turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down, people can’t even go to school, library buildings being vandalized. We never would have let him in. We never would have let him in to begin with. And now that he’s doing it and he’s here, he’s going to leave, and so are others, and we’re going to keep doing it. We’re here- and by the way, I find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the First Amendment speech, alleged free speech rights of these Hamas– 

BRENNAN: Yes.

RUBIO: –sympathizers, they had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor American political speech. So it’s, I think it’s ironic and hypocritical. But the bottom line is this, if you are in this country, to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and riots on campus. We never would have let you in if we had known that and now that we know it, you’re going to leave.

BRENNAN: Is it only pro-Palestinian people who are going to have their visas remote- revoked, or other points of view as well?

RUBIO: No, I think anybody who’s here in favor- look, we want to get rid of Tren de Aragua gang members. They’re terrorists too. We, the president, designated them, asked me to designate and I did, as a terrorist organization. We want to get rid of them as well. You’re- we don’t want terrorists in America. I don’t know how hard that is to understand. We want people- we don’t want people in our country that are going to be committing crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety. It’s that simple, especially people that are here as guests. That is what a visa is. I don’t know what we’ve gotten it in our head that a visa is some sort of birthright. It is not. It is a visitor into our country, and if you violate the terms of your visitation, you are going to leave.

It was exactly one month ago today that Brennan had Rubio on, and blamed the Holocaust on free speech. She got duly annihilated for her troubles. As we noted at the time:

Such historically inaccurate views, especially paired with contempt for actual freedom of speech, are quite commonplace in our politics. What is uncommon is for a supposedly reputable media outlet to have a person with such views as its chief political correspondent.

We may need to revise that first sentence to “contempt for Americans’ freedom of speech”. Brennan had no problem condemning the idea of free speech when Vice President Vance gave the Euros the what-for last month, but is now a ferocious advocate of the free speech rights of a terror-adjacent student agitator. 

Even more offensive, Brennan tries to play dumb with Rubio- pretending that Khalil’s detention and denaturalization process is about viewpoint censorship. This is what led to the epic “you should watch the news” burn.

The broad-ranging interview, which also covered the Houthis, tariffs, China, and Ukraine, ended with this exchange. In a sad St. Patrick’s twist, CBS saw its chief political correspondent exposed again on free speech, this time advocating for what could be generously described as a terror spokesperson while wearing kelly (and Hamas) green.  

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on CBS Face the Nation on Sunday, March 16th, 2025:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let’s get straight to it this morning with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who joins us from Miami, Florida. Mr. Secretary- for our audience, just to explain, this Red Sea area is a really important transit point for global shipping. The Houthis out of Yemen have been disrupting transit there for some time. President Trump cited these concerns when he announced the strikes. I’m wondering, how long will this campaign last, and will it involve ground forces?

MARCO RUBIO: Well, first of all, the problem here is that this is a very important shipping lane and in the last year-and-a-half, the last 18 months, the Houthis have struck or attacked 174 naval vessels of the United States. Attacking the U.S. Navy directly 174 times, and 145 times they’ve attacked commercial shipping. So we basically have a band of pirates, you know, with guided precision anti-ship weaponry and exact- exacting a toll system in one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. That’s just not sustainable. We are not going to have these people controlling which ships can go through and which ones cannot and so your question is, how long will this go on? It will go on until they no longer have the capability to do that.

BRENNAN: Well, what does U.S. intelligence tell us at this point? Because the U.S. had been construct- conducting strikes for some time, but has not stopped the Houthis–

RUBIO: No. 

BRENNAN: –So what’s going to be different right now? Do you have more fidelity in the intelligence that would make this more successful?

RUBIO: Well, those strikes were a retaliation strike. So they launched one missile, we hit the missile launcher, or we sent something to do it. This is not a message. This is not a one off. This is an effort to deny them the ability to continue to constrict and control shipping, and it’s just not going to happen. We’re not going to have these guys, these people with weapons, able to tell us where our ships can go, where the ships of all the world can go, by the way, it’s not just the U.S. We’re doing the world a favor. We’re doing the entire world a favor by getting rid of these guys and their ability to strike global shipping. That’s the mission here, and it will continue until that’s carried out. That never happened before, the Biden Administration didn’t do that. All the Biden Administration would do is they would respond to an attack. These guys would launch one rocket, we’d hit the rocket launcher. That’s it. This is an effort to take away their ability to control global shipping in that part of the world. That’s just not going to happen anymore–

BRENNAN: and it could– 

RUBIO: –So, this will continue until that’s finished.

BRENNAN: It could involve ground raids?

RUBIO: Well, those are military decisions to be made, but I’ve heard no talk of ground raids. I don’t think there’s a necessity for it right now. I can tell you that as of last night, some of the key people involved in those missile launches are no longer with us, and I can tell you that some of the facilities that they use are no longer existing, and that will continue. The- look, it’s bottom line, easy way to understand it, okay, these guys are able to control what ships can go through there. They’ve attacked the U.S. Navy 174 times. They’ve attacked the United States Navy. We’re not going to have people sitting around with the missiles attacking the U.S. Navy. It’s not going to happen, not under President Trump.

BRENNAN: The President also referenced Iran in his statement. Iran provides some support for the Houthis as you know. Put this in context for me, because U.S. intelligence has been suggesting for some time that Israel has the desire and intent to conduct an attack on Iran’s developing nuclear program in the coming months. President Trump has extended an offer for negotiations. Have you heard anything back from Iran? Is this strike in Yemen a signal to Iran? 

RUBIO: This strike in Yemen is about their ability, the ability of the Houthis, to strike global shipping and attack the U.S. Navy, and their willingness to do it. 174 times against the U.S. Navy, 145 sometimes against global shipping. That’s what the strike is about. What we can’t ignore, and the reason why the President mentioned Iran is because the Iranians have supported the Houthis. They provided them intelligence, they provided them guidance, they provided them weaponry. I mean, there’s no way the Houthis, okay, the Houthis would have the ability to do this kind of thing unless they had support from Iran. And so this was a message to Iran, don’t keep supporting them, because then you will also be responsible for what they are doing in attacking Navy ships and attacking global shipping. 

BRENNAN: They also get support from Russia, potentially, which you leveraged sanctions in regard to, but I want to ask you about tariffs because you were just in Canada this past week. China is Canada’s second biggest export market, Mexico’s third. In this ongoing trade back-and-forth, the U.S. is having, isn’t there a risk that China will ultimately be the winner? If it’s too costly to deal with the United States, won’t they benefit?

RUBIO: Well, actually, China and Canada are involved in a mini trade war right now. In fact, the Chinese have imposed a bunch of tariffs, reciprocal or retaliatory tariffs on Canada after Canada imposed tariffs on them. So here’s the way everyone needs to understand this, okay? The president rightfully believes that the balance of global trade is completely off gilt- kilter. For 30 or 40 years, we have allowed countries to treat us unfairly in global trade, much of it during the Cold War because we wanted them to be rich and prosperous because they were our allies in the Cold War, but now that has to change. You look at the European Union. The European Union’s economy is about the same size as ours. It’s not a low wage economy. It’s very comparable to ours in terms of its composition and so forth. Why do they have a trade surplus with us? So what the President is saying is two things. Number one, there are critical industries like aluminum, like steel, like semiconductors, like automobile manufacturing, that he rightfully believes, President Trump rightfully believes, the U.S. needs to have a domestic capability and the way you protect those industries and build that capability is by ensuring that there’s economic incentives to produce in the United States. The second is global, and that is, we are going to put tariffs on countries reciprocal to what they impose on us. And so this is a global, it’s not against Canada, it’s not against Mexico, it’s not against the EU, it’s everybody. And then from that new baseline of fairness and reciprocity, we will engage, potentially in bilateral negotiations with countries around the world on new trade arrangements that make sense for both sides. Fairness, but right now, it’s not fair. We’re going to reset the baseline, and then we can enter into these bilateral agreements, potentially, with countries so that our trade is fair. What’s not going to continue is, of course, these countries are upset–

BRENNAN: So this is all just about leverage to get bilateral, not free trade- not North American Free trade deals– 

RUBIO: No, it’s not leverage–

BRENNAN: re- renegotiation–

RUBIO: – No, no, it’s not leverage, it’s fairness. It’s resetting baseline fairness. And then from there, we can work on deals and- and so forth, because they’ll have products we don’t make, we have products they don’t make. That’s where trade works the best. It has to be free, but it has to be fair, and right now it’s only free on one side, and it’s not fair for the other side– 

BRENNAN: Well you know, sir, that–

RUBIO: –It’s an unsustainable position.

BRENNAN: –the ad hoc nature of these policy announcements and pull backs are causing concern in the marketplace, as we saw this past week. So I heard you describe what seemed like a strategy to get to negotiations on a bilateral front. You also seem to negotiate- say this was national security minded. But then we also see comments by the President of like, 200 percent tariffs on champagne. That’s not a critical industry for the United States, that seems more emotional.

RUBIO: No, that means that’s- that’s called retaliation that’s what happens in these trade exchanges. They’re going to increase tariffs on- they already have high tariffs. They’re going to add more to their tariffs? Fine, then we’ll have to find something to- I mean, you tell me? I mean, Canada is going after whiskey and orange juice and you know I mean– 

BRENNAN: In retaliation. 

RUBIO: Yeah, exactly. So that sounds pretty petty to me as well. So what’s the difference? The point is, I get it. I understand why these countries don’t like it, because the status quo of trade is good for them. It benefits them, they like the status quo. We don’t like the status quo. We are going to set a new status quo, and then we can negotiate something, if they want to, that is fair for both sides. But what we have now cannot continue. We have de-industrialized this country. De-industrialized the United States of America. There are things we can no longer make and we have to be able to make in order to be safe as a country and in order to have jobs. That’s why we had a rust belt, that’s why we’ve suffered all these important jobs that once sustained entire communities wiped out by trade that basically sent these factories, these jobs, this industrial capability, to other places that cannot and will not continue. I don’t- President Trump, this is no mystery, he’s been talking about this since the 1980s actually, even before he was a political figure. This is going to happen, and it’s going to happen now.

BRENNAN: I want to ask you about Russia. You said envoy Steve Witkoff’s meeting with Vladimir Putin that happened last week would answer the fundamental question of whether we’re moving towards a ceasefire, or whether Putin is using a delay tactic? You spoke with Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, yesterday. Is this a delay tactic?

RUBIO: Well, I think that was a pro- promising meeting. As I’ve said repeatedly, we’re not going to negotiate this in the public. Hopefully we’ll have something to announce at some point fairly soon. I can’t guarantee that, but I certainly think the meeting was promising, the exchange was promising. I don’t take away from Steve’s meeting, from Ambassador Witkoff’s meeting, negativity. There are some challenges. This is a complex, three-year war that’s been ongoing along a very long military front, with a lot of complexity to it. So no one’s claiming that it’s easy, but I want everyone to understand, here’s the plan. Plan A is, get the shooting to stop so that we can move to Plan B, phase two, which is have everybody at a table, maybe not- maybe with some shuttle diplomacy, to figure out a way to permanently end this war in a way that’s enduring and it respects everybody’s needs and so forth. No one is saying that that second part is easy, but we can’t get even to that second part until we get past the first part. It’s hard to negotiate an enduring end of a war as long as they’re shooting at each other, and so the president wants a ceasefire. That’s what we’re working on, assuming we can get that done. That won’t be easy in and of itself. We move to the second phase, which is negotiating something more enduring and permanent. That will be hard. It will involve a lot of hard work, concessions from both sides, but it has to happen. This war cannot continue. The president has been clear about that, and he’s doing everything he can to bring it to an end. 

BRENNAN: Okay, we’ll talk about that later in the program as well with Envoy Witkoff. I want to ask you about a decision you made to revoke a student visa for someone at Columbia University this past week. The Wall Street Journal editorial board writes, “the administration needs to be careful, it’s targeting real promoters of terrorism not breaking the great promise of a green card by deporting anyone with controversial political views.” Can you substantiate any form of material support for terrorism–

RUBIO: Yes.

BRENNAN: –specifically to Hamas, from this Columbia student–

RUBIO: Yes.

BRENNAN: –or was it simply that he was espousing a controversial political point of view?

RUBIO: Well, not just the student, we’re going to do more. In fact, we- every day now we’re approving visa revocations, and if that visa led to a green card, the green card process as well and here’s why, it’s very simple. When you apply to enter the United States and you get a visa, you are a guest, and you’re coming as a student, you’re coming as a tourist, or what have you. And in it, you have to make certain assertations and if you tell us when you apply for a visa, I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events, that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America. It’s that simple. So, you lied. You came- if you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa. Now you’re here. Now you do it. You lied to us. You’re out. It’s that simple. It’s that straight forward.

BRENNAN: But, is there any- but is there any evidence of a– 

RUBIO: Yes. Sure.

BRENNAN: –link to terrorism, or is it just his point of view?

RUBIO: Yeah, they take over. I mean, do you not- I mean, you should watch the news. These guys take over entire buildings–

[CROSSTALK]

BRENNAN: We covered it intensely. I’m asking about the specific–

BRENNAN: –They vandalized colleges. They shut down colleges– 

RUBIO: –well then you should know that this is–

BRENNAN: –justification for the revocation of his visa– 

RUBIO: Well, this specific individual was the spokesperson–

BRENNAN: –was there any evidence the materials support for terrorism?

RUBIO: –was the negotiator- on negotiating on behalf of people that took over a campus? That vandalized buildings? Negotiating over what? That’s a crime in and of itself, that they’re involved in the being the negotiator, the spokesperson, this that the other. We don’t want- we don’t need these people in our country that we never should have allowed them in in the first place. If he had told us, I’m going over there, and I’m going over there to become the spokesperson and one of the leaders of a movement that’s going to turn one of your allegedly elite colleges upside down, people can’t even go to school, library buildings being vandalized. We never would have let him in. We never would have let him in to begin with. And now that he’s doing it and he’s here, he’s going to leave, and so are others, and we’re going to keep doing it. We’re here- and by the way, I find it ironic that a lot of these people out there defending the First Amendment speech, alleged free speech rights of these Hamas– 

BRENNAN: Yes.

RUBIO: –sympathizers, they had no problem, okay, pressuring social media to censor American political speech. So it’s, I think it’s ironic and hypocritical. But the bottom line is this, if you are in this country, to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations, to participate in vandalism, to participate in acts of rebellion and riots on campus. We never would have let you in if we had known that and now that we know it, you’re going to leave.

BRENNAN: Is it only pro-Palestinian people who are going to have their visas remote- revoked, or other points of view as well?

RUBIO: No, I think anybody who’s here in favor- look, we want to get rid of Tren de Aragua gang members. They’re terrorists too. We, the president, designated them, asked me to designate and I did, as a terrorist organization. We want to get rid of them as well. You’re- we don’t want terrorists in America. I don’t know how hard that is to understand. We want people- we don’t want people in our country that are going to be committing crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety. It’s that simple, especially people that are here as guests. That is what a visa is. I don’t know what we’ve gotten it in our head that a visa is some sort of birthright. It is not. It is a visitor into our country, and if you violate the terms of your visitation, you are going to leave.

BRENNAN: Okay. Secretary Rubio, like to have you back. Talk to you about a lot more on your plate another time, but we have to leave it there. 

RUBIO: Thank you. 

BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in a minute.

 

Once again, CNN’s Scott Jennings says the one thing exposing leftist hypocrisy that causes a segment to go up in smoke. This time, he did it on CNN’s State of the Union.

Watch as Jennings “thanks” Chuck Schumer for defeating the “racist Jim Crow filibuster”, forcing host Jake Tapper to explain his joke to the viewing audience.  

.@ScottJenningsKY: First of all, I just want to say I’m grateful for chuck Schumer today. He helped defeat a racist Jim Crow filibuster in the Senate. And to stand up against the racist Jim Crow filibuster tactics was a moment of pure courage. And I just think he should be lauded… pic.twitter.com/bLn4S8ADy0
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 16, 2025

CNN STATE OF THE UNION

3/16/2025

9:44 AM

JAKE TAPPER: What do you see as the- is the dynamic going out here- going on here? Is it generational? Why are Jeffries and Schumer on such different pages?

SCOTT JENNINGS: Well, because- first of all, I just want to say I’m grateful for Chuck Schumer today. He helped defeat a racist Jim Crow filibuster in the Senate. And to stand up against the racist Jim Crow filibuster tactics was a moment of pure courage. And I just think he should be lauded by anybody, in any party. That’s number one. Number two…

TAPPER: It’s a deep cut. Let me just explain, for people at home…

JENNINGS: I’m just saying.

TAPPER: When there was a Democratic push against the filibuster, people in the Democratic party were saying it was a racist era, Jim Crow-era tactic, the filibuster.

JENNINGS: Terrible. And not only…

TAPPER: So he’s being cheeky. All right, back…

JENNINGS: And not only that. But he saves us from the Democrats in the House laying off every single veteran in the federal government. Chuck Schumer. Working with Donald Trump. Saved us from that. So I think he deserves a lot of credit…

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: Every veteran would’ve been laid off. 

The broader discussion was in regard to the apparent generational divide within congressional Democratic leadership, subsequent to passage of the continuing resolution that funded the government until the fall. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries held the line on a “no” vote, in hopes that the Senate would do the same. But they did not, and provided the votes needed to allow the CR to pass cloture and go to the floor.

The panel Democrats mirrored that same divide prior to Jennings taking over and essentially blowing up the segment. Brad Todd of OnMessage could barely stifle a giggle as Jennings sent the Democrats up. Jake Tapper’s explainer was a clever way of cutting in, albeit more subtle than Abby Phillip’s referee stoppages at the Thunderdome. 

Tapper may have called it “cheeky”, but Jennings exposed a double standard. In the process, he also exposed the media which went along with the Democrats’ push to end the filibuster when they controlled all the levers of power in Washington. As we often note: if it weren’t for double standards, there’d be none at all. 

 

 

MSNBC Senior Washington Correspondent and incoming The Weekend Host Eugene Daniels gave us a preview of what to expect, as he lamented the “missed opportunity” by Democrats while on the Meet the Press panel. In the process, proving that Musk Derangement Syndrome is alive and well.

Watch as Daniels, Democrat pollster Cornell Belcher and host Kristen Welker lament the Democrats’ misfortunes in near unison:

New MSNBC senior Washington correspondent, ex of @Politico and still @WHCA President, @EugeneDaniels2 playing Democratic operative on #MTP rued “another missed opportunity” by Dems to attack Trump and @ElonMusk over Teslas on the South Lawn: “Immediately the next day there should… pic.twitter.com/qSuIB3R3rA
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 16, 2025

NBC MEET THE PRESS

3/16/25

10:57 AM

CORNELL BELCHER: And the idea that what Biden did at The White House is similar to- to Trump basically being a salesman and hawking the Teslas on the front lawn of The White House is completely different.

KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah. BELCHER: The ad writes itself.

WELKER: Yeah.

EUGENE DANIELS: Right? But Democrats aren’t doing it. Immediately, the next day, there should’ve been just- that ad, destroy that over and over again.

WELKER: You’re saying another missed opportunity for Democrats. Shocking!

DANIELS: Another missed opportunity to get on the same–

BELCHER AND DANIELS, IN UNISON: Shocking that the Democrats are bad on messaging!

DANIELS: But I mean, you know, like, when you talk to them behind the scenes they explain the Elon of it all in a much better way than they do when they go on television- they don’t talk about him as a oligarch behind the scenes, right? They talk about him as someone who is, in their eyes, doing this- doing DOGE because he wants to help his businesses at the end of the day, right? They talk about that conflict of interests. That’s something that the American people actually understand but they, again, continue to miss an opportunity to do that.

Daniels serves a public purpose here by reminding us that what passes for “news analysis” in the Acela Media is really a bunch of liberal Democrats talking to each other and sometimes cosplaying as fantasy political consultants. Hence, you get an NBC corporate correspondent (remember, MSNBC is not yet fully spun off of NBC) foaming at the mouth about “destroying” Elon Musk’s appearance at The White House alongside President Donald Trump and a bevy of Teslas.

Daniels pseudostrategized not once but twice. First, by fantasizing about an ad, then chiding Democrats for how they talk about DOGE- urging them to frame Musk as a robber baron who wants to plunder the federal government. Without evidence.

If this is what Daniels is spitting out on Sunday show panels, we can’t wait to see him unburdened by what has been next to Jonathan Capehart every weekend on MSNBC air. “Men on Politics” is going to be EPIC.

 

One of the swampy spring media-insider events every year is the Gridiron Club dinner, and Team Trump decided this year that it didn’t feel like playing nice. It sounds like they weren’t nice. Puck’s Dylan Byers reported those in attendance did not toast the president for the first time in the dinner’s history. Instead, the journalists toasted the First Amendment.

In the same way that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced to Sean Spicer this week that she’s not attending the White House Correspondents Dinner, they’re go to act a different way in the second term. They’re still granting far more access to Team Biden, but they don’t need to pander to a hostile press at Saturday night dinners.

PBS correspondent (and retired News Hour anchor) Judy Woodruff, the president of the Gridiron Club who emceed the dinner, told Politico in a statement:

“At most of the Gridiron Club’s Spring Dinners, the President of the United States has spoken. In some years, the Vice President has filled in, and on occasion a high-level Administration figure. I invited the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, and the Interior Secretary — all declined. I was told the Secretary of State would not be available.

To close the evening — when the sitting President usually speaks — we showed video and audio excerpts of the past four Republican presidents, starting with President Trump in 2018. These demonstrated the good humor and fellowship this dinner is all about.”

The New York Times summarized the “good humor and fellowship” with this headline: “At Gridiron Dinner, Jokes About Trump, Musk and Russia Abound.” The first joke quoted by reporter Shawn McCreesh came from Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.): 

“If I actually wanted to be president, I wouldn’t do any of this,” he said. “Instead, I would take my case directly to the people who are in charge of our democracy. The Kremlin.”

Even after all these years, jokes about Mr. Trump and Russia still play with the official Washington crowd.  Those in the Hyatt basement, which was packed with reporters, editors, television anchors and ambassadors, laughed along.

“Fellowship” spreader Woodruff “opened up the room with jokes about Mr. Musk’s fathering so many children and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s drinking.” Woodruff also wisecracked about “Big Balls,” a young Musk DOGE worker. She mocked the Democrats as disorganized. Another act featured men playing Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer being “lost in the woods.” 

Democrat reporters feel free to mock their fellow Democrats as disorganized, and then later, they’ll them how to organize it, with media assistance. 

One song-and-dance number involved a man dressed as Elon Musk in his “Tech Support” T-shirt waving a chainsaw around, singing about his turn toward from left to “far right,” ha ha: ‘I’ll turn the G.O.P. into the AFD,’ he sang, referring to the German political party in favor of an immigration crackdown.

Then “another act had a mock Usha Vance singing about being a phony populist.” The media barely mention Usha Vance, but they still free to make fun of her.

The Times story ended this way: 

Margaret Brennan of CBS shouted out members of the diplomatic corps from Britain, France, Australia and the European Union. “You know,” she said, “all of America’s enemies.”

Then she introduced the Ukrainian ambassador — there was no joke told — and the many journalists in the room stood up to clap.

Five years ago this week (March 13, 2020), President Trump declared the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency. It was the beginning of a national trauma. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 1.2 million Americans have died of COVID in the past five years, while millions more suffered severe illness.

Compounding the misery, government-ordered shutdowns triggered an economic calamity. The March 2020 jobs report showed an immediate loss of 20 million nonfarm payroll jobs, as unemployment skyrocketed to 14.8%, the worst level since the government began tracking the rate in 1948. The U.S. economy contracted by a devastating 31.4% in the second quarter of that year, representing more than $2 trillion in lost economic activity.

But 2020 was also an election year, and President Trump had just emerged victorious from a Democratic-led impeachment effort. The COVID virus was definitely bad news for America, but liberal journalists weren’t about to let a crisis go to waste. So, during those precarious first weeks of the pandemic, the media unleashed a punishing assault on the President, claiming he was personally responsible for the suffering.

“More people are dead and dying in America tonight because Donald Trump is President,” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell thundered on March 12. “This is what happens when you elect a sociopath as President,” PBS’s David Brooks sneered the next night.

“We will see that the Trump administration, because of the character of the person at the top, created a reality distortion field that slowed and warped a response that is going to kill more people than the Vietnam War did,” ex-Newsweek editor Jon Meacham claimed on April 3.

While the airwaves were jam-packed with journalists blaming Trump, viewers heard almost nothing negative about China’s government for its role in creating the crisis. From January 17 through March 13, 2020, the weekday broadcast evening newscasts aired 634 minutes of coronavirus coverage, yet less one percent (just 3 minutes, 14 seconds) presented topics unflattering to the Chinese government.

Five years later, here are the most extreme quotes from the NewsBusters archives showing how liberal journalists cynically exploited the bad news to bash Trump in order to turn the crisis to Democrats’ advantage:

■ “This [coronavirus] may be Donald Trump’s Katrina….If there was any moment that would shake that 40 percent, the folks who would allow him to shoot someone and right down [on] Fifth [Avenue] — if there is any a moment, it’s this one. Because it’s babies, it’s friends, it’s loved ones….It’s grandparents. It’s your Nana….This is an event that could take down a presidency.”— MSNBC contributor/Princeton Professor Eddie Glaude on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, March 6, 2020.

■ Host Stephanie Ruhle: “You’ve called this his Chernobyl. Can you explain?”…Washington Post columnist Brian Klaas: “Since the beginning of this crisis, the important thing for Donald Trump has been protecting myths around his alternative reality which is to say that he has this completely under control. And in Chernobyl, what you had was a moment in which protecting the Soviet state’s myths were the most important thing and that caused people to die.”— MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle, March 12, 2020.

■ “More people are sick in American tonight, because Donald Trump is President. More people are dead and dying in America tonight because Donald Trump is President.”— Host Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, March 12, 2020.

■ “This is what happens when you elect a sociopath as President, who doesn’t care, who has treated this whole thing for the past month as if it’s about him, ‘How do people like me,’ minimizing the risks, ‘Does the stock market reflect well on me,’ and he hasn’t done the things a normal human being would do.”— New York Times columnist David Brooks on PBS’s NewsHour, March 13, 2020.

■ “I would stop putting those briefings on live TV…If he keeps lying like he has been every day on stuff this important, we should — all of us should stop broadcasting it. Honestly, it’s going to cost lives.”— Host Rachel Maddow on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, March 20, 2020.

■ “The cocktail of all his [Donald Trump] worst qualities is mendaciousness, his constant telling of lies, his narcissism, his lack of empathy for people in general, his obsession with money, classes, et cetera, has led to disaster, has led to delay….History will prove this — this will be something that’s paid in human lives, and that’s an enormous tragedy.”— New Yorker editor David Remnick on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 29, 2020.

■ “Do you think there is blood on the President’s hands, considering the slow response? Or is that too harsh of a criticism?”— Host Chuck Todd to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 29, 2020.

■ “Mr. Vice President, what is President Trump’s level of culpability, what’s his level of responsibility, say, toward the illness and fatalities we’re witnessing every few minutes these days?”— Host Brian Williams to Biden on MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, March 31, 2020.

■ “We will see that the Trump administration, because of the character of the person at the top, created a reality distortion field that slowed and warped a response that is going to kill more people than the Vietnam War did.”— Presidential historian and former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham on PBS’s Amanpour & Company, April 3, 2020.
 
■ “They believe him! There are people who believe him because he’s the President of the United States, and he’s giving misinformation to their own peril. People are dying because of some of the information that’s being disseminated from these clown press conferences.”— Co-host Sunny Hostin on ABC’s The View, April 6, 2020.

■ “What the President showed us today is what the nation’s top scientists have to deal with every day, a President who now uses these briefings as a re-election platform, an opportunity to lie, to deflect, to attack, to bully, and cover up his own deadly dismissals of the virus for crucial weeks.”— Host Anderson Cooper on CNN’s AC360, April 6, 2020.

■ “I don’t think it’s actually an overstatement to say that Donald Trump has — there are tens of thousands of people who will die in the country, or have some hope of them have already died, more are still going to die because of Donald Trump’s incompetence and lack of leadership.”— MSNBC national affairs analyst and Showtime’s The Circus host John Heilemann on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, April 8, 2020.

■ “People are dying because of his foolishness. It’s really foolishness at this point. You know, America — you know, folks who loved him, fine. You voted for him. You stuck it to the elites for three years. But now your loved ones can die. The game’s over. This isn’t reality TV anymore. People are dying, and this guy is acting a fool.”— Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik on CNN’s Reliable Sources, April 12, 2020.

For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.
 

PolitiFact, the Poynter Institute’s liberal-tilting “independent fact-checking” website, has given White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a third fact-check within her first two months at the podium — two False ratings and one Half True. On March 13, Lou Jacobson threw a False flag for Leavitt fighting with AP reporter Josh Boak, where she claimed “Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people.”

The first two fact checks came on January 28.

Biden’s first press secretary Jen Psaki has two — on False and one True. Psaki drew her first fact check on November 18, 2021 — almost ten months into her tenure. She was never tagged while she was State Department Press Secretary under John Kerry in the Obama years, and hasn’t been tagged for anything she’s said as an MSNBC host.

We can guess that Leavitt will soon surpass the other Biden press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who has four fact-checks — two Mostly True and two False. There were lame checks, like this: KJP claiming “Because wages are rising, this Thanksgiving dinner is the fourth-cheapest ever as a percentage of average earnings.”

A self-described “queer” and “BIPOC-led” abortion business has just opened in Albuquerque, New Mexico, offering to murder babies up to birth.

The Valley Abortion group, also known as the “VAG” clinic (quite a fitting acronym), boasts they’re “one of the few” clinics that provide “care” for “all genders” in “all stages of pregnancy.” 

“At VAG our providers deliver care through an antiracist, survivor-centered, trauma-informed approach,” they advertise on their Facebook page. By “antiracist,” they mean murdering babies of all races… equitably!
In fact, free abortions are the only form of “care” they provide, thanks to New Mexico forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. 

For $17,500, VAG ensures a slow and painful death per each 32 week old baby. Their M.O.L.D procedure injects four deadly products into the mother, Misoprostol, Oxytocin, Laminaria, and Digoxin over the span of 3 to 4 days.

With the help of a guiding ultrasound, according to LifeNews, the abortionist injects a lethal dose of Digoxin into the baby’s heart either directly through the mother’s abdomen or vaginally. The drug, which is usually meant to treat heart disease, gives the child a heart attack. 

The mother’s cervix is then packed with thin tampon-like sticks named laminaria to expand it gradually over the next day. She’s repacked with larger sticks and pumped with Misoprostol, preparing her for active labor. 

On the final day of the barbaric procedure, LifeNews reports the abortionist injects Oxytocin into the mother, inducing labor to mimic the delivery of a healthy baby. Except the baby’s dead and delivered into either a toilet or a garbage can. 

It’s a “compassionate model of care,” according to VAG, which congratulates itself for “dismantling supremacy ideologies” while peddling some of the deadliest.

Aside from a throwup of every other woke cause imaginable, the abortionists at VAG also call for a “Free Palestine” on their social media pages.

Commitment to liberation is a core value at Valley Abortion Group. Therefore, we stand with the Palestinian people and their fight for liberation.
We believe all oppression is interconnected, and as a reproductive justice organization, we recognize the genocide in Gaza as a reproductive justice issue.

That’s fitting for a group who wages jihad on pre-born babies to support a terrorist organization which butchers babies in front of their mothers.

One way you can identify the leftist tilt on NPR stations is by listening to the callers that are taken on NPR-distributed talk shows. On the latest episode of Left, Right, and Center, coming out of KCRW out of California, the host (or “center”) David Greene set the agenda with a paranoid leftist caller. The “left” panelist, Mo Eleithee, was lamenting our “hyper-polarized times” where the “incentive structure” is for both Democrats and Republicans to avoid making compromises with each other. 

Then came the “hyper-polarizing” caller, selected by Greene, a former NPR news anchor, 41 minutes in:

DAVID GREENE: We’ve got a question I wanted to play from one of our listeners about watching this trend of both parties getting away from any incentive to make compromises. Here he is.

CALLER: Hi, this is Dan Buggy [ph] calling from San Diego. After listening to this week’s episode, I started thinking more about how this might all unfold. Considering that Congress has abdicated its role as a co-equal branch of government, and that the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has been strategically shaped by Republicans, I have a rather scary thought I can’t shake.

If national politicians are really just more focused on control than governance, what’s to stop Trump and the current Republican majority and the Supreme Court from further dismantling the checks and balances our founders created, altering election rules, or even extending power indefinitely? It sounds extreme, and I get they probably have to do it before the midterms, but democracies don’t collapse overnight, they erode over time, and I feel like ours has been eroding significantly ever since Obama was elected, and it became about both sides blocking agendas instead of finding compromise in moving us forward. Am I being paranoid, or is this a real concern?”

Greene didn’t find it paranoid at all: “Interesting, he takes the long view. He’s not looking at the last five, six weeks, a lot of people freaking out over Trump. He has seen a trend over time, since President Obama was elected. Does he have a point? Is his fear justified?”

When Democrats lose, they constantly insist Democracy Is Ending. Thankfully, the “right” panelist, Sarah Isgur, shot that question down. While she liked the concern over a lack of bipartisanship, she argued the Supreme Court has been curbing the power of the executive branch from Obama through Trump and through Biden.