Newsbusters

CNN host Jake Tapper announced that he and Axios reporter (and CNN analyst) Alex Thompson have a book coming out in May titled Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. They promise “an unflinching and explosive reckoning.”

Conservative reaction was fierce. CNN was part of the coverup. You can’t find them running this kind of “sinful” expose in 2023 and 2024 on Biden’s decline. You can easily find Brian Stelter and others promoting the notion of a 25th Amendment removal of President Trump as “mentally unfit” in his first term. You can also find then-CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy echoing Biden spokesman Ian Sams, ripping the liberal media for helping the Republicans push a Biden-decline message.

That said, we need a book like this, that finally exposes what happened behind the scenes in the Biden White House. We can hope these journalists spend time on how the Biden-voter media failed to reveal these ugly realities in real time. A book like this should have been written in 2022 or 2023. If Tapper and Thompson viewed it as “disastrous” for Biden to run again, journalists were cowed into being part of the disaster.

A year ago, Dylan Byers of Puck laid out this spectacle: “For better or worse, many in the WH press corps have spent the last couple years noticeably avoiding the topic of the president’s agility and acuity because it felt indelicate or irrelevant. Now, the Hur report has stirred some soul-searching.”

It was considered “indelicate” to investigate. It was “unseemly.” Special counsel Robert Hur’s report – where he said Biden couldn’t be prosecuted for possessing classified documents in his garage because he’d come across to a jury as an “elderly man with a poor memory” — could have been the moment where Pelosi & Co. pressured Biden to drop his re-election bid.

As usual for Democrat presidents, the “mainstream” book publishers had no appetite for a Biden tell-all. In 2021, Politico announced that Thompson (then on their staff) signed a contract with Simon & Schuster to author “a comprehensive book on Biden’s presidency.” Later, Politico announced the publisher changed its mind, citing the “soft market for books about President Joe Biden.”

Liberals always find a “soft market” for books critical of Democrats when it could harm their chances. But they stuffed the bookcase full of Trump “tell-alls.” Journalists tend to wait to admit Reality until the election is over. Hence the Hunter Biden laptop wasn’t real until the media acknowledged it in 2022. This feels the same – it’s too late, unless you’re going to shame some very dishonest Biden insiders out of power in the future.

The irony of all of this is the Democrats were running around preaching about “threats to democracy” while they allowed a secret cabal running the White House for an (at least occasionally) incapacitated president. They tried to shame Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) for running in the primary for president with an explicit message that Biden didn’t have the capacity for a second term. Democrats kept Phillips off some state ballots.

Tapper and Thompson’s book carries this promotional blurb: “In the name of defeating what they called an existential threat to democracy, Biden and his inner circle ensured it, tossing aside his implicit promise to serve for only one term, denying the existence of health issues the nation had been watching for years, dooming the Democrats to defeat.”

More revelations about the audacity of Team Biden should underline that it’s the Democrats that presented more of a threat to democracy in the last four years. 

In today’s DOGE-deranged news environment, stories seeking to spotlighting the adversity endured by federal workers often draw top billing. A new CBS Evening News report goes to that well again, and manufactures a link between the DOGE buyouts and Musk’s purchase of Twitter, in an attempt to imply malfeasance.

CBS goes so far as to revive the witness protection gimmick made famous in the early days of the Second Trump Administration (click “expand”):

ED O’KEEFE: Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan represents more than 2,000 cautionary tales, former employees of Twitter, now X, owned by Musk. When you first saw him offer a fork in the road to federal employees, after everything that went on at X, what did you think?

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN: Oh, my god, he couldn’t even come up with a new subject line?

O’KEEFE: Musk offered an early exit to Twitter employees in 2022: quit and accept three months of severance, or stay employed. Nearly 70% of the company opted to quit. Most of Liss-Riordan’s clients, including some who were laid off or fired, are fighting for severance payments they claim they are owed, which X denies.

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: We were essentially lied to, you know, we did not get what we were promised, and it left me in a terrible financial space.

O’KEEFE: One of those clients is this former employee, fearful of retribution. 

The situation left you homeless.

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: It did, yes.

O’KEEFE: How do you explain that to your child?

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: It was very hard to explain my child because he thought Elon Musk was a pretty cool guy.

O’KEEFE: Would you have taken the deferred resignation plan offered by Musk to federal workers?

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: Based on what I have gone through, I would be immediately looking for new work and not trusting any of that.

Immediately preceding was the testimony of a veteran working in the VA who accepted the buyout just in time for his retirement to vest. No problems, no issues. From there, O’Keefe shifts to the exchange you see above. The snarky attorney making fun of the buyout process, and the former Twitter employee.

The former employee is brought forth with the level of concealment accorded to turncoat mob bosses as part of their entry into the Witness Protection Program. It is difficult to ascertain what this person, if anything, has in common with the first guy. It is unclear whether she accepted a buyout at Twitter. There is no evidence shown to viewers that she accepted a buyout. Viewers are just expected to figure out what is real and fake, and accept Witness protection sympathy.

The whole purpose of this story is to flood the zone with smoke bombs, and lead the viewer to imagine that DOGE is up to no good. Without evidece.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, February 27th, 2025:

MAURICE DuBOIS: So far about 100,000 federal workers have been fired or accepted buyouts offered by President Trump, and advisor Elon Musk.

JOHN DICKERSON: Ed O’Keefe talked to one who took the deal, and to a former Twitter employee who believes she and others like her got taken by Musk.

ED O’KEEFE: Cole Kracke reviews education applications for the Veterans’ Benefits Administration outside of Minneapolis, and didn’t initially believe an offer that came in late January. A deferred resignation plan inspired by Elon Musk, called “a fork in the road. Leave and get paid to do nothing through late September or stay but risk getting laid off.”

COLE KRACKE: A couple of my coworkers actually reported it as phishing because it did not look official.

O’KEEFE: But Kracke did the math. His 13 years in the Navy, plus five years in the VA, means he vests into the federal retirement system in June, so he sent a one word reply.

Did you think to yourself, maybe this is too good to be true?

KRACKE: Once the Acting Secretary of the VA flat out said this offer is valid, it’s legal, and it will be honored, what more do I need?

O’KEEFE: Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan represents more than 2,000 cautionary tales, former employees of Twitter, now X, owned by Musk. When you first saw him offer a fork in the road to federal employees, after everything that went on at X, what did you think?

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN: Oh, my god, he couldn’t even come up with a new subject line?

O’KEEFE: Musk offered an early exit to Twitter employees in 2022: quit and accept three months of severance, or stay employed. Nearly 70% of the company opted to quit. Most of Liss-Riordan’s clients, including some who were laid off or fired, are fighting for severance payments they claim they are owed, which X denies.

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: We were essentially lied to, you know, we did not get what we were promised, and it left me in a terrible financial space.

O’KEEFE: One of those clients is this former employee, fearful of retribution. 

The situation left you homeless.

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: It did, yes.

O’KEEFE: How do you explain that to your child?

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: It was very hard to explain my child because he thought Elon Musk was a pretty cool guy.

O’KEEFE: Would you have taken the deferred resignation plan offered by Musk to federal workers?

UNDERCOVER FORMER TWITTER EMPLOYEE: Based on what I have gone through, I would be immediately looking for new work and not trusting any of that.

MAURICE DUBOIS: And Ed O’Keefe joins us now from The White House. Ed, it is so striking to notice all the similarities between what is happening with the federal workers now and what happened to the workers at Twitter.

O’KEEFE: Which is why that former employee is advising federal employees to get out as fast as they can. She points out that when D.O.G.E. officials started showing up at federal agencies to get a handle on what exactly they were doing, it reminded her of when Tesla employees, owned by Musk, started showing up at Twitter after he bought the company. The buyouts offered, the layoffs that have happened, and the further reductions expected to come, she says all mirror what went on at Twitter, now X, in 2022. We should point out attorneys for the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and when asked about D.O.G.E. and Musk, The White House today tells us in part, quote: “It is a welcome change to have entrepreneurial giants leading the charge in making government more efficient.” Tomorrow, by the way, is Cole’s last day working for the Veterans Administration. John. Maurice.

DuBOIS: Okay. Ed O’Keefe. Yes. At The White House tonight. Thank you,

 

There is a lot of significant activity occurring south of the border, with massive implications for the United States. And yet, so-called “legacy media” can’t bring themselves to cover it.

Earlier this week, we told you about the head of the Sinaloa Cartel, and his demand to be repatriated to Mexico, which garnered briefs on Univision and Telemundo, and nothing at all on the legacy evening newscasts at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Now, there is news of a massive handover of wanted Mexican fugitives into United States custody, including Rafael Caro Quintero, wanted for the 1985 torture and murder of DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena. Only CBS covered this story. And by “covered”, I mean “buried it in their Evening News Roundup”:

JOHN DICKERSON: CBS News Senior Producer Andy Triay reports Mexico is sending drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero to the United States. Quintero is wanted in the killing of a U.S. narcotics agent in 1985. Mexico has also agreed to extradite 28 people suspected of being drug cartel members.

CBS’s 19-second coverage renders the story almost significant on an otherwise slow news evening dominated by the suspicious death of legendary actor Gene Hackman, the consensus top story on ABC, CBS, and NBC. CBS’s 19 seconds were 19 seconds more than ABC and NBC spared for this significant story.

For important details, we go to our friends at Breitbart Texas:

In an apparent attempt to appease U.S. officials who have been pushing for tariffs and punitive measures against Mexico for their alleged role in protecting drug cartels, that country’s authorities confirmed the extradition of 29 criminals wanted by the U.S. Department of Justice. These include a top drug boss behind the 1985 murder of DEA Agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena, the two supreme leaders of Los Zetas Cartel, and the brother of the supreme leader of Cartel Jalisco New Generation.

On Thursday afternoon, Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office confirmed the extradition of 29 wanted criminals who were all in custody in various prisons across Mexico. The confirmation of the extradition came at the same time that Mexico’s security cabinet was meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his staff over that country’s response to drug cartels.

29 big-time drug bosses in hopes of staving off tariffs, including one wanted for close to 40 years, is a very big deal. Massive story which led the Spanish-language newscasts, garnering 5 minutes, 40 seconds on Telemundo and 6 minutes, 40 seconds on Univision. 

As Breitbart Texas additionally reports, Mexico made sure the murderous Zetas bosses were en route to the U.S. before a critical meeting between their representatives and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Mexican authorities extradited the two supreme leaders of Los Zetas just hours before that country’s security cabinet was set to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his staff.

On Thursday morning, Mexican authorities working with U.S. authorities extradited Los Zetas supreme leader Miguel Angel “Z-40” Trevino Morales and his brother Omar “Z-42” Trevino Morales. Both men are facing multiple drug trafficking and money laundering charges in the United States. The two had been in Mexican custody for years, fighting their extradition and, according to law enforcement sources, controlling their criminal empire from behind bars.

This is a significant concession ahead of the date tariffs are supposed to go into effect. So significant, in fact, that reasonable individuals could conclude that the media refused to cover something that viewers might perceive as a Trump win. If true, one of the more egregious instances of bias by omission.

Exit question, one which under normal circumstances would be asked by a rigorous and intellectually curious media: Was Mexico’s big handover intended to stave off tariffs, or as a show of goodwill ahead of requesting the repatriation of Sinaloa Cartel boss “El Mayo” Zambada?

Tuesday’s PBS News Hour featured guest Brian Stelter, editor of CNN’s Reliable Sources newsletter (and reliable white knight for the mainstream media) to discuss the “chilling effect” of the Trump Administration blocking the Associated Press from the White House pool of reporters.

Geoff Bennett: ….The White House says it’s changing the traditional process of how reporters cover the president. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced today that the Trump administration will now choose which media outlets will be part of a select pool of reporters that cover smaller events and travel with the president and White House officials….Previously, the pool was organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association….The move is part of a broader effort to limit traditional press access. That’s after the White House blocked access for Associated Press reporters….

PBS’s guest, the ubiquitous media critic (er, defender) Stelter sounded a familiar cry:

Brian Stelter, CNN Chief Media Correspondent: ….As you mentioned, the White House Correspondents’ Association response, saying this tears at the independence of a free press in the United States, that is true. And, ultimately, when press access suffers, when press freedom suffers, the public suffers, maybe not right away, but down the line, we start to know less about the president, we start to know less about the administration, and ultimately everyone suffers.

Bennett at least brought up the main issue of contention — it’s not just “Gulf of America” vs “Gulf of Mexico” lingo, but AP’s pattern of propaganda in labeling.

Bennett: Because the White House is blocking AP access from covering major presidential events over that organization’s refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. And, Brian, it apparently is not just about the map, because the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is taking issue with the AP Style Book. She says it’s biased. She says it’s weaponized to push a divisive and partisan agenda. And we should explain this is widely used as a style guide….

The Associated Press itself went into some detail on why the White House is perturbed.

In an Axios story last week, [White House deputy chief of staff Taylor] Budowich noted other AP Stylebook entries that have rankled some conservatives. They include the decision to capitalize Black but not white in racial references, guidance on gender-affirming medical care and direction not to use the term “illegal immigrants.”)

After warning of “a chilling moment when it comes to First Amendment freedoms,” and a few sentences later, “there’s concerns about a chilling effect here,” Stelter borrowed a hysterical Soviet-era metaphor from New York Times White House reporter Peter Baker.

Stelter: ….I noticed earlier today Peter Baker of The New York Times, a veteran correspondent who used to work in Moscow, he said these changes remind him of how the Kremlin took over the press pool and banned certain outlets. He said it made sure that only compliant journalists were given access to the Russian government. So he sees parallels here to what’s happened in more repressive countries in the past.

Ironically, Stelter this morning plugged an upcoming book coauthored by CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, Original Sin — President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Stelter quoted a selection:

Biden, his family, and his team let their self-interest and fear of another Trump term justify trying to put an at times addled old man in the Oval Office for four more years,” the authors write. “What was the extent of it? Was it a cover-up? Was it a conspiracy? We will let the facts speak for themselves.

Left out of the Tapper-Thompson condemnation: Members of the press, who were instrumental in helping cover up Biden’s decline, including Tapper himself.

This segment was brought to you in part by Cunard, and taxpayers like you.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Hour

2/25/25

7:08:25 p.m. (ET)

Geoff Bennett: And some other news came out of the White House press briefing today about the media itself. The White House says it’s changing the traditional process of how reporters cover the president.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced today that the Trump administration will now choose which media outlets will be part of a select pool of reporters that cover smaller events and travel with the president and White House officials

Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary: A select group of D.C. based journalists should no longer have a monopoly over the privilege of press access at the White House. All journalists, outlets and voices deserve a seat at this highly coveted table.

Geoff Bennett: Previously, the pool was organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association. That’s an independent organization of vetted journalists who cover the president.

The move is part of a broader effort to limit traditional press access. That’s after the White House blocked access for Associated Press reporters.

Brian Stelter, chief media analyst for CNN, joins us now. Brian, it’s great to have you here.

So the White House is breaking with a century of tradition in which a pool of independently chosen news organizations covers the president’s movements and events when full press access isn’t possible either due to space or security constraints. The White House says it’s trying to make the pool more inclusive.

 

The White House Correspondents’ Association says in a statement that: “This tears at the independence of a free press. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

How do you interpret this decision by the White House?

Brian Stelter, CNN Chief Media Correspondent: Geoff, if you and I went out and launched a new news organization today we would be able to apply to be at the White House. We would be able to apply eventually to be in the press pool. So there already is a sense of inclusiveness.

It is possible for new brands, new outlets, new start-ups to join the press corps and even join the press pool. The reality is that the daily grind of covering the White House is expensive and demanding, and it’s been done by a handful of big news outlets like the Associated Press for decades and decades.

So the White House here is trying to break that and trying to say it decides who can cover the president, it decides who can ask questions of the president. As you mentioned, the White House Correspondents’ Association response, saying this tears at the independence of a free press in the United States, that is true.

And, ultimately, when press access suffers, when press freedom suffers, the public suffers, maybe not right away, but down the line, we start to know less about the president, we start to know less about the administration, and ultimately everyone suffers.

Geoff Bennett: Let’s talk a bit more about this specific predicament involving the Associated Press.

Brian Stelter: Yes.

Geoff Bennett: Because the White House is blocking AP access from covering major presidential events over that organization’s refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

And, Brian, it apparently is not just about the map, because the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is taking issue with the AP Style Book. She says it’s biased. She says it’s weaponized to push a divisive and partisan agenda. And we should explain this is widely used as a style guide. It’s a writing and editing guide for journalists and writers. How do you see what’s happening here?

Brian Stelter: Right.

The AP is having to go to court to try to get this ban reversed. They lost an initial court hearing yesterday. There’s another one in March. Maybe over the long term, the AP will prevail. But this is a chilling moment when it comes to First Amendment freedoms, because the AP has been a foundational part of the press pool and now it’s been blocked by the president.

This is over word choice. It’s over language. The AP says it has to be able to choose what words to use. It can’t let the president of the United States decree what words the AP is going to use. And that’s true for other news outlets as well. That’s why there’s concerns about a chilling effect here.

I noticed earlier today Peter Baker of The New York Times, a veteran correspondent who used to work in Moscow, he said these changes remind him of how the Kremlin took over the press pool and banned certain outlets. He said it made sure that only compliant journalists were given access to the Russian government.

So he sees parallels here to what’s happened in more repressive countries in the past.

Geoff Bennett: And there’s what’s happening at the Pentagon, where longtime defense reporters from traditional media outlets first were kicked out of their offices.

 

Brian Stelter: Right.

Geoff Bennett: And then they were told that they couldn’t use communal spaces, they couldn’t use the press briefing room to do their reporting or to broadcast their reports

How do you see the administration strategy playing out at the Department of Defense?

Brian Stelter: Right, and CNN one of the outlets affected, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post as well.

This is not stopping news outlets from doing the work, from showing up, from asking the questions. However, it is impeding the work. For example, at the Pentagon, there has not been a press briefing since the Trump administration took over. Today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went to Guantanamo Bay and did not bring the press, but he did bring his friend from FOX News his former colleague Laura Ingraham.

So what we see here is a strategy. The Trump White House and the administration, the Pentagon, they want to have a parallel media, a propagandistic, pro-Trump media. Now, in many ways, that parallel universe already exists. It exists on TikTok and YouTube and all across podcasts, et cetera.

These people don’t usually do a lot of reporting, but they do a lot of talking and opining. The Trump White House is trying to empower those voices, trying to empower those podcasters and these pro-Trump media figures, while at the same time punishing real newsrooms.

Geoff Bennett: And it’s always useful, I think, for legacy media, for traditional media outlets to turn the mirror on itself. We have seen the rise of alternative media platforms. The scale of podcasting streams far outpaces the viewership of cable news these days, let’s say.

So how can traditional news organizations remain trusted, authoritative, and relevant sources of news and information these days?

Brian Stelter: One of my bosses at CNN has said it’s about being tough-minded and fair-minded, being tough and fair in the coverage, not shirking from the challenge that we face.

Ultimately, we do know that the Trump White House wants these fights with the media. And some Trump voters want this too. I live in a small farming community. My neighbor with the Trump flag that says “Revenge Tour,” he probably wants the AP to be banned.

But many other Trump voters don’t. And most people, regardless of party, they want to know what is true in the world. They want to know what is real in the world. So these efforts to push back the press, to punish the press, to investigate PBS, for example, to probe Comcast over diversity initiatives, all of these pressure points against the American media, they may ultimately come back to hurt the Trump White House, as people find they don’t know what’s going on, they can’t find accurate information.

But, to your question, the answer is, we just have to be steady. We have to be steady and courageous during a perilous moment for the press.

Geoff Bennett: Brian Stelter of CNN, thanks so much. We appreciate it.

Brian Stelter: Thanks.

On Wednesday night’s episode of MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, Stephanie Ruhle interviewed the brothers Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas, hosts of the MeidasTouch podcast. Ruhle took pains to present MeidasTouch as a non-partisan podcast put together by three ordinary brothers, but neglected to mention that the organization was actually a massive, left-wing super PAC, with a long history of virulent anti-Trump and anti-Republican reporting, including known fraudulent claims, and also shady fundraising tactics.

After she led in with the words, “You described the podcast as pro-democracy rather than one party or the other,” Ruhle warmly asked the brothers to “Tell us about your mission.”

 

 

Ben Meiselas responded:

Our mission is to just speak the truth each and every day… This is a time for fearless coverage, fearless reporting. And… there’s so much to report about every single day- what’s going on in the White House every single day… Really pushing back on that each and every day and- saying it in a way that doesn’t mince words. And I think that’s what’s connecting with our audience.

Ruhle turned to Brett Meiselas, and asked him, “Why did you guys start MeidasTouch in the first place?” adding “You do not have news or politics background [sic.].”

Brett responded that the three of them simply began using their social media presence to air their views in the early days of COVID, as they were “scared” by the first Trump administration’s actions. Adding: “[W]e figured, well, we have social media, so at least we could speak… And if anybody cares, great. If nobody cares, at least we’re getting our thoughts out there. And it turned out people cared and it grew very quickly.”

In response to Ruhle’s question about how they handled a “right-wing media universe,” he responded:

[P]eople want fighters. You know, the messaging on the right has worked so effectively, because the Republican politicians are meeting this generation of voters where they exist, in the digital ecosystems. Now…they’re lying right to their faces. But when lower-information voters hear a MAGA politician on XYZ comedian’s podcast say, ‘Hey, you know, I’m going to do this no-tax-on-tips thing. And for you younger millennials, I want to make housing more affordable,’ that sounds great. Sign me up. But what happens when these MAGA politicians get into office? Well, they align themselves with the billionaire and oligarch class, conveniently forget about those policies made on those podcasts.

When Ruhle asked if they considered themselves left-wing, Jordy Meiselas replied that “Well, I’ll say this. We’re unapologetically pro-democracy, right? I think we cast a big umbrella here at the MeidasTouch network,” but added briefly that “[T]here’s nothing wrong with being a touchy-feely progressive.”

He went on to assure the audience, “If you’re pro-the Constitution, pro-upholding norms, pro-democracy, there’s a spot for you on our roster,” and that “[I]f you’re focused on the main issues of our time, which is [sic] saving our democracy and protecting the United States of America as we all knew it, as our grandparents all knew it, then I think you have a place here.”

That sounded nice. The problem was, it demonstrably wasn’t accurate. Far from an organic, non-partisan, freedom-loving amateur podcast that had just happened to strike a chord with a lot of ordinary people, MeidasTouch was in fact a massive left-wing super PAC, known for being virulently anti-conservative, anti-Republican, and anti-Trump, and with a history of making demonstrably false statements.

The organization had, for example, made false accusations against then-Senator Marco Rubio following the 2020 election by taking out of context comments he had made months earlier. So untruthful were their accusations that even CNN felt compelled to fact-check them.

Their fundraising tactics even drew criticism from Rolling Stone Magazine, for which the brothers threatened to sue them. 

It was, in fact, this shady and unsavory political and fundraising machine which MSNBC cheerfully touted as “fighters” against “the billionaire and oligarch class.”

To view the full transcript, click “expand” to read:

MSNBC’s The 11th Hour
02/26/2025
11:49 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: ANTI-TRUMP PODCAST KNOCKS JOE ROGAN OUT OF FIRST PLACE ON CHARTS]

(…)

STEPHANIE RUHLE: Gentlemen, thank you for joining me tonight. Ben, I turn to you first. You described the podcast as pro-democracy rather than supporting one party or another. Tell us about your mission.

BEN MEISELAS, MEIDASTOUCH PODCAST HOST: Our mission is to just speak the truth each and every day. Unapologetically pro-democracy means that we’re just fact-checking all of the right-wing propaganda, we are making sure that we are loud and proud about- every single thing that- you know- we stand for.

And it’s just so critical for us each and every day to just be fearless. This is a time for fearless coverage, fearless reporting. 

And- you know- there’s so much to report about every single day- what’s going on in the White House every single day- when Donald Trump’s talking about a- $5 million Trump gold card, when Donald Trump’s talking about letting Russian oligarchs come into the United States, when Donald Trump is- talking about how he supports- Putin’s agenda. 

Really pushing back on that each and every day and- saying it in a way that doesn’t mince words. And I think that’s what’s connecting with our audience.

RUHLE: Bret, why did you guys start MeidasTouch in the first place? You do not have news or politics background [sic]. How did it come to be?

BRETT MEISELAS. MEIDEASTOUCH PODCAST CO-HOST: It came to be because, frankly, we were all kind of scared about what was going on during Donald Trump’s first term- the end of it- as COVID was breaking out.

 It was around March 2020 when we actually kicked things off. We were all home from our jobs, and we were speaking to each other in text message chats and over the phone. And we all live in different parts of the country, or- in Ben- in me and Ben’s case- different parts of the city. And we were honestly just nervous about what was going on, and we felt like no one was out there meeting the moment and speaking about these issues. 

So we figured, well, we have social media, so at least we could speak- you know- and- say what we want to say on this platform. And if anybody cares, great. If nobody cares, at least we’re getting our thoughts out there. And it turned out people cared and it grew very quickly. 

And now we’re on- we’re coming up to our five-year anniversary of MeidasTouch. It both feels like we started this thing a week ago and 20 years ago. I think you understand how time kind of- bends in the Trump era- or the multiple Trump eras- but- but you know- we’ve been working hard at this for five years now. And it’s great to- you know- be able to share our story with the folks on your network.

RUHLE: Jordy, why do you think your message is gaining so much traction right now? What is it about this moment?

JORDY MEISELAS, MEIDASTOUCH PODCAST HOST: I think people want fighters. And I think we’re authentically putting that message out there. We never try and be anything that we’re not. 

It’s really awesome to see this community- they refer to themselves as the Meidas Mighty- they’re the greatest pro-democracy warriors that-  frankly- exist- shout out to the Meidas Mighty. 

And it’s just been amazing- you know- we do everything. And- I come from the world of marketing- the term ‘authentic’ kind of gets overused, but I think people are really seeing what we’re doing as truly authentic. You know, we’re not trying to be anyone else. We’re just trying to put our heads down and do the work every single day.

RUHLE: Jordy, we talk about the right-wing media universe being so powerful, and the left has had no answer to it. What do you think about that?

JORDY MEISELAS: Well, look, people- people want fighters. 

You know, the messaging on the right has worked so effectively, because the Republican politicians are meeting this generation of voters where they exist, in the digital ecosystems. Now, they’re- they’re lying to them- they’re lying right to their faces. 

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: MEIDASTOUCH BEATS OUT CONSERVATIVE PODCASTS IN CHARTS]

But when lower- information voters hear a MAGA politician on XYZ comedian’s podcast say, ‘Hey, you know, I’m going to do this no-tax-on-tips thing. And for you younger millennials, I want to make housing more affordable,’ that sounds great. Sign me up. 

But what happens when these MAGA politicians get into office? Well, they align themselves with the billionaire and oligarch class, conveniently forget about those policies made on those podcasts.

RUHLE: Do you consider yourself left-wing media, Jordy?

JORDY MEISELAS: Well, I’ll say this. We’re unapologetically pro-democracy, right? I think we cast a big umbrella here at the Meidastouch network. 

You frame us a very funny way- and I actually like it, last week I heard it- you said, ‘Hey, these are- these aren’t your typical- you know- touchy-feely progressives. These are three bros from Long Island.’ Now, I’ll say this- 

RUHLE: Well, you are. 

JORDY MEISELAS: Quite literally, we are three brothers from Long Island. So I appreciate and understand that sentiment. But hey, there’s nothing wrong with being a touchy-feely progressive.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: MEIDASTOUCH DESCRIBES NETWORKS AS ‘PRO-DEMOCRACY’]

Like I said, we cast a big umbrella here. 

And so, more so than anything, I consider ourselves unapologetically pro-democracy. If you’re pro-the Constitution, pro-upholding norms, pro-democracy, there’s a spot for you on our roster.

RUHLE: But do you think, Bret, that sort of one of the reasons you land- because, a knock has been that- that Democrats are so focused on being super-inclusive, they’re leaving out guys who essentially look just like the three of you.

BRETT MEISELAS: Yeah. Listen, I think you need to speak authentically, and I don’t think you need to box yourself into any particular framework. And I think people frequently want to box you into frameworks, but I think you just got to be yourself and you got to focus on what are the biggest issues that are going on right now. 

And right now we have a President of the United States and his billionaire oligarch buddy, who are essentially leading a coup against the United States from within. And I think people are looking right now for people to call this out for what it is every single day, unapologetically, to meet the moment, to use the language that they are using. 

And I think you have to just understand your audience and understand what people are craving right now. To Jordy’s point, people are craving fighters. If you’re not meeting the moment, if you’re not speaking to these issues, and if you’re focused on kind of sideshows, then people are going to get distracted. People are going to want to tune out. 

But if you’re focused on the main issues of our time, which is [sic] saving our democracy and protecting the United States of America as we all knew it, as our grandparents all knew it, then I think you have a place here.

MSNBC just canceled “The ReidOut,” the most vicious, nasty, anti-white and pathologically anti-Trump show on air. Host Joy Reid, for five years, unleashed one hateful, often irrational attack after another. It was only after President Donald Trump’s reelection and her ratings plummeting nearly 50% that MSNBC pulled the plug.

Here are just some of her greatest hits:

“(The courts) are stacked now to essentially suborn our democracy to their very particular version of right-wing evangelical Christ … That’s no different than Talibanism.”

“The goal of the Republican Party today, is it to seize control of every level of government, to lock out voices of color and LGBTQ voices except those who conform to their demand that history and education uplift white Christian dominion …”

“Fascism isn’t a game, y’all. It’s real. And it’s in America, sometimes dressed as a kooky personality cult or carrying a confederate flag …”

“That’s exactly what (Make America Great Again) means when I hear it. It’s George Wallace. (Trump is) just a Republican George Wallace …”

“Donald Trump has two kinds of visions of black people: one, celebrities and sports stars that he wants to be around. And two, every other black person that he thinks is beneath him.”

“There’s evidence that Donald Trump has been red-pilled into a far-right movement that is inspired by white dispossession in Africa.”

“I think for a lot of conservatives, they believe DEI just means black people getting jobs, and so when they see a black person in any job, they say, ‘Oh, that person’s a DEI hire.’”

“Trump was returned to the presidency after staging a coup …”

“What Donald Trump is doing … it’s kind of David Koresh. It’s kind of Jim Jones. Because those two men started by saying, ‘You need to come to Jesus.’ They started as Christian evangelizers. But eventually, their evangelism said, ‘No, I get to have your wife. … This is (Charles) Manson stuff.”

“… (R)ivers of blood will one day run deep enough … Because their tolerance for blood and the NRA’s tolerance for slaughter are bottomless …”

“This is the end of democracy in America. This is the beginning of the South Africa strategy. … It’s Jim Crow America.”

“What is going on with Republicans that they seem to be bringing back the lynching vibe?”

“There was a time when people had the double hashtags around their names because they were Jewish, and right-wingers were saying ‘get in the oven’ any time you made any benign comment on Twitter. … Elon Musk … misses the old South Africa in the ‘80s. He wants that back.”

“You can’t even say slavery was bad now in the Republican Party. That’s how far it’s gone.”

The real question is why MSNBC hired Reid. In the mid-2000s, she had a blog and wrote anti-gay comments. When she got her MSNBC show, those comments resurfaced. These included, “Most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing,” and “The nature of political correctness is that gay people are allowed to say straight sex is gross, but the reverse is considered to be patently homophobic.” She called conservative commentator Ann Coulter “a dude” and wrote “I like my drag queens fierce.” She suggested Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is gay, as well as then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. She even speculated that 9/11 was an inside job rather than a terror attack.

She denied that she wrote these things and claimed she had been hacked. Her network hired a cybersecurity expert who found no such evidence. Her response? “Here’s what I know. I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things, because they are completely alien to me …”

Apparently, an alien entity entered and temporarily possessed her mind. It happens.

She weathered that storm and kept her job. Until a salary cut last year, she reportedly earned $3 million per year. Who knew inventing different ways of calling Trump a fascist could be so lucrative?

On Wednesday night, Politico reporter and White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) president Eugene Daniels — who’s soon leaving both positions for MSNBC — sent a lengthy email to members strongly suggesting they refuse to participate in the new press pool rotations created by the White House Press Office (or at least make a fuss out of it) and complaining that expanding who participates “threatens the independence of a free press in the United States.”

He even went as far as to say America’s no longer “free society” because “leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

Someone should ask the nine other WHCA board members if they have that ugly view of America.

“What I do know is that this board will not assist any attempt by this administration or any other in taking over independent press coverage of the White House. Each of your organizations will have to decide whether or not you will take part in these new, government-appointed pools…I know there’s a lot to weigh…I wish we weren’t in this place,” Daniels not-so-subtly declared.

Daniels further cast doubt on those reporters who still choose to participate in the pool — now consisting of one wire reporter, two TV correspondents and AV crew, one radio, one print, three photojournalists, and one “new media” spot — by saying their dispatches from pool events (such as Air Force One travel and Oval Office events) couldn’t be definitively trusted since the WHCA’s “standards that we have had in place for decades” won’t be guaranteed.

“To be very clear, this change to our procedure is not about any of you that have been pooling and who understand what it means for that work product to be an unvarnished, independent and professional first draft of history,” Daniels said after he cast doubt on his colleagues.

This led into ten different questions the White House and reporters who still do participate in the pool have to ask themselves.

Of note, they included a legitimate question about whether pool reporters on Air Force One would still be charged airfare (including food) that the WHCA and news organizations themselves had footed.

Others were ominous, including casting aspersions on TV outlets outside of the usual rotation (ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC) wouldn’t share footage: “Will TV stations that are not one of the five networks share their material, or are they just taking up pool spots for their unilateral purposes?”

Daniels continued to dish the shade (click “expand”):

You should also ask if those rotations will be created as they were last night, by calling news organizations of choice instead of a rotation all of you can dependably rely on. One that is planned in advance, which allows it to be reliably staffed and ensures representation of our diverse membership.

As we have for decades, the WHCA stands ready to assist in pool organization, travel planning, and logistical support – and will never stop advocating on behalf of our members. But we cannot faciliate a pool where the President, rather than the press corps and the audience they represent, decides who can and cannot cover him Our work product demands basic guarantees about quality and impartiality, or the pool system does not work. And a pool system where outlets or reporters can be singled out and deprived access over arbitrary complaints related to their independent editorial decisions is inherently flawed.

Daniels also defended the WHCA with the insistence “[w]e have more than 60 news organizations that are a part of our different pools,” which “include those that are strictly nonpartisan and those that lean left or the right” and, throughout it all, “expanded the WHCA’s membership” for “new and emerging media.”

We guess he wants us to feel bad for him as he said “I know this is a very difficult time for all of you” and “[i]t is for me too” because this supposedly apocalyptic change threatens “the highest professional standards” and “accurate, timely and fulsome reports[.]”

In reaction to the letter, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung didn’t mince words: “The head of @WHCA just sent a chilling letter to their members threatening them if they work with the White House’s new expanded press pool system. He then goes on to say any pool reports from all media organizations (NYT, Reuters, NY Post, FOX News) should not be trusted.”

Former CNN media reporter Oliver Darcy melted down in his newsletter-based site, Status:

Can we talk about the utter hypocrisy for a moment? For years, the right has mocked liberals for pushing “safe spaces” and dismissed them as overly sensitive “snowflakes” who get “triggered” too easily. And yet, the Trump White House is actively trying to now construct a government-enforced bubble of protection around the person holding the most powerful office in the world. How does that add up?

The liberals are everything they accuse conservatives of being. During the Thursday edition of ABC’s The View, co-host Joy Behar went on an anti-immigrant tirade directed at billionaire Elon Musk. She viciously attacked him for being born in South Africa – something he had no choice in, accused him – without evidence – of being “pro-apartheid,” a “foreign agent” and “enemy of the United States,” and when she finally was told he was a naturalized citizen, she scoffed and wondered if he came in illegally.

And in an apparent attempt at heading off a possible defamation suit, she begged Musk not to sue her while weakly walking back only one of the baseless accusations.

Behar was coming unglued as she bloviated about how “Elon Musk kisses [President Donald Trump’s] butt and strokes his tiny ego or big ego, whatever it is.”

She apparently though people born elsewhere were beneath her and that only Americans born in the country should work for the government. She sneered as she decried how Musk “was not born in this country.”

And despite the fact that Musk was a child during and through the end of apartheid, Behar claimed it was something he embraced: “[He] was born under apartheid in South Africa, so has that mentality going on. He was pro-apartheid as I understand it!”

 

 

As NewsBusters explained after Behar bullied and mocked Musk’s four-year-old son, Musk was born on June 28, 1971 and apartheid ended on May 4, 1990, so Musk was still 18 at the time. And according to a book about Musk written by Walter Isaacson, Musk was anti-apartheid and stood in solidarity even in the face of death on the streets:

South Africa in the 1980s was a violent place, with machine-gun attacks and knife killings common. Once, when Elon and Kimbal got off a train on their way to an anti-apartheid music concert, they had to wade through a pool of blood next to a dead person with a knife still sticking out of his brain. For the rest of the evening, the blood on the soles of their sneakers made a sticky sound against the pavement.

When faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin noted that “now, he’s a naturalized citizen” (failing to note that he’s been one since 2002), Behar couldn’t believe it and suggested Musk came into the country illegally. “Oh, really?! How did he do that?! Did he come over legally?!” she bitterly demanded to know, and when she was told he had an H1B visa, Behar irrationally shouted: “He flew in!”

Sunny Hostin chimed in to spew the lie that Musk, “allegedly overstayed that visa.”

Behar’s anti-immigrant bigotry didn’t stop there. She went on to gnash her teeth about “this foreigner,” and accusing him of being a “foreign agent” and “enemy of the United States.”

As NewsBusters debunked after Star Jones made the same accusations against Musk (while filling in for Behar), Musk had been an American citizen since 2002 and had a security clearance dating back to the George W. Bush administration because of SpaceX’s contracts with NASA. Both of these proved that he was not a “foreign agent” and had been vetted by the federal government.

Farah Griffin proved to be as useless as ever as she suggested Behar wait “a little bit of time” so that he could actually become “an enemy of the United States.”

Behar apparently got a talking to during the commercial break, because when they came back she whined about “getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid.” She refused to actually apologize but admitted that she had no evidence. And despite the facts, she suggested it was an unknown:

I was just going to say, now I’m getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I don’t really know for sure if he was. He grew up in that time when apartheid was full blown before the great Nelson Mandela fixed that. He was around at that time. But maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. He might have been a young guy too.

She then begged Musk not to sue her for defamation. “So don’t be suing me, okay, Elon?” she said.

As they pivoted to another topic, Behar seemed to admit she knew she was telling a lie when she huffed: “They’re allowed to say any lie they want but we have to be very strict. That’s why this show is important.”

Admitting to knowing you were lying is a good way to check off “actual malice” in a defamation suit.

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

ABC’s The View
February 27, 2025
11:04:28 a.m. Eastern

(…)

JOY BEHAR: And Elon Musk kisses his [President Donald Trump’s] butt and strokes his tiny ego or big ego, whatever it is. And he doesn’t get to do — he can take a nap while the guy who was not born in this country, who was born under apartheid in South Africa, so has that mentality going on. He was pro-apartheid as I understand it! Right?

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: He is a naturalized citizen now.

BEHAR: He’s a naturalized citizen?

FARAH GRIFFIN: Now, he’s a naturalized citizen.

BEHAR: Oh, really?! How did he do that?! Did he come over legally?!

FARAH GRIFFIN: He had an H1B visa, I believe.

BEHAR: He flew in!

SUNNY HOSTIN: He allegedly overstayed that visa.

BEHAR: Yeah, but I think this is just perfectly wonderful for Trump. He can take a nap and let this foreigner, foreign agent, you know, an enemy of the United States do his job!

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Anybody else?

[Applause]

FARAH GRIFFIN: I don’t like Elon, I wouldn’t go as far as to necessarily call him an enemy of the United States yet. Let’s give him a little bit of time.

BEHAR: Would you call him a friend?

FARAH GRIFFIN: This is my gripe with Elon Musk: There’s a world in which having him for free advise the U.S. government could be an asset. This is somebody who made incredible investments with EVs, with Teslas, with SpaceX. I’ve toured it the guy with the guy at NASA. He’s a brilliant person when it comes to rocket science, engineering; not federal staffing. Like, we’re using him in the dumbest possible way and the way he’s least qualified to be used and it just doesn’t really make sense to me.

(…)

11:15:09 a.m. Eastern

GOLDBERG: This is one of the reasons I love the show. Go ahead, Joy.

BEHAR: I was just going to say, now I’m getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I don’t really know for sure if he was. He grew up in that time when apartheid was full blown before the great Nelson Mandela fixed that. He was around at that time. But maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. He might have been a young guy too.

GOLDBERG: Might have been.

BEHAR: So don’t be suing me, okay, Elon?

FARAH GRIFFIN: [Laughter]

BEHAR: They’re allowed to say any lie they want but we have to be very strict. That’s why this show is important.

(…)

On Wednesday’s episode of MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Reports, former Republican Congressman David Jolly sounded off with the standard liberal media position on immigration enforcement. He went even further, though, than the usual failure to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, and specifically attacked Christians who wanted their nation’s immigration laws enforced, suggesting that they were hypocrites, and casting doubt on whether he even considered them true Christians. 

Jansing raised the subject when she suggested that many of those in the country illegally get assistance through churches.  But, she said:

[A] lot of the people who are railing against this, are people who talk about being Christian and believe in the Christian faith. And I wonder if there is a disconnect somewhere with some of their constituents who, frankly, and I’ve seen it all across the country, people who work in their churches, in their neighborhood, you know, gyms, to help people who come here get jobs, learn the language, go to school.

 

 

She spoke of Christians opposed to illegal immigration as “people who talk about being Christian,” suggesting that their political stance was incompatible with the religion they professed to follow.

Jolly was all too eager to follow up:

 So much of the narrative grabbed on by the religious right almost reflects more of Fox News than it does Biblical principles. And sometimes pastors sound more like Fox News hosts than they do faith leaders. And I think that’s a question of who we are as a country and how we get back there. I think something that is absolutely happening right now as a result of DOGE, is the rescinding of funding for refugee resettlement. This is kind of the purest form of bringing somebody to the country. It takes several years for a refugee to be approved to come here. Our resettlement agencies have to find them home, work, housing, transportation, you name it. And it is led often by faith-based charities that receive government funding. Trump has nixed that. This is not a matter of reforming immigration. Donald Trump is anti-immigration. Unless you got 5 million bucks to buy a gold card.

So, in the assessment of these two, the “Christian” thing to do was to simply fail to enforce a whole aspect of a nation’s laws, and leave its borders and society, completely vulnerable to any unscreened person from anywhere in the world, with no way of knowing who was entering, or what their intention might have been.

They were quite happy to ignore many obvious aspects of reality that did not fit their political narrative. To take just one example, just earlier that month a parishioner at a Washington, D.C. area church had posted an account of how the poor boxes at the church had been broken into and the money stolen. The crime was reported to the police, but it then turned out that the offender was an illegal alien, who was deported by ICE before the police could even issue a warrant for his arrest.

 

Last week, someone stole the money from the poor boxes and candle boxes at our church.
Our priest informed us this morning that police identified the suspect — an illegal alien.
But before police could even put out a warrant for his arrest, they discovered he’d already been…
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) February 1, 2025
 

It could have been asked why exactly this churchgoer should have been expected to put up with what happened at her place of worship and why her approval of the thief’s deportation would be somehow mutually exclusive with her faith.

And yet it was Jolly and Jansing who were throwing accusations of Christianity being politicized. 

To view full transcript click “expand” to read:

MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Reports
02/26/2025
2:19 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: TRUMP ADMIN. PLANS OPERATION TO FIND, POSSIBLY DEPORT UNACCOMPANIED MINOR CHILDREN]

(…)

CHRIS JANSING: But, a lot of folks who do get help, get help through churches.

FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN DAVID JOLLY: That’s right.

JANSING: And a lot of the people who are railing against this, are people who talk about being Christian and believe in the Christian faith. And- and I wonder if there is a- a disconnect somewhere with some of their- constituents who frankly- and I’ve seen it all across the country- people who work in their churches, in their neighborhood- you know- gyms, to help people who come here get jobs, learn the language, go to school.

JOLLY: I don’t think Progressive evangelism died with Jimmy Carter. I think there’s still a threat of Progressive evangelism around the country. I think there are evangelical Democrats still sitting in church pews. But you’re right. So much of the- the narrative grabbed on by the religious right almost reflects more of Fox News than it does biblical principles. And- and sometimes pastors sound more like Fox News hosts than they do faith leaders. And I think that’s a question of who we are as a country and how we get back there. I think something that is absolutely happening right now as a result of DOGE, is the rescinding of funding for refugee resettlement. This is kind of the purest form of bringing somebody to the country. It takes mult- several years for a refugee to be approved to come here. Our resettlement agencies have to find them home, work, housing, transportation, you name it. And it is led often by faith-based charities that receive government funding. Trump has nixed that. This is not a matter of reforming immigration. Donald Trump is anti-immigration. Unless you got 5 million bucks to buy a gold card.

Speaker Mike Johnson popped CNN’s bubble on Wednesday, and The Source host Kaitlan Collins was not happy about it. During an interview, Collins tried to tell Johnson that he simply couldn’t say that the anti-DOGE protestors who are showing up at town halls across the country are paid activists.

It began innocently enough with Collins wondering, “Do you have concerns that that’s anything that Democrats will be able to use to run against those Republicans in the midterms?”

 

 

Johnson replied, “No, because the—no, I don’t. Because the videos you saw of the town halls were for paid protesters in many of those places. These are Democrats who went to the events early, and filled up the seats. If you had—if the videos had panned outside the building—”

Collins interrupted, “You can’t argue they were all paid protesters, though, Mr. Speaker.”

Johnson held his ground, “Many of them were. I don’t know, we—”

Still not happy, Collins didn’t seem to understand that “paid protestors” and “constituents” are not mutually exclusive, “One of your— a Republican acknowledged they were his constituents.”

Clearly frustrated that he was expected to take that seriously, Johnson replied with some bitter sarcasm, “One Republican acknowledged they were his constituents. That’s fantastic, okay, but they had Democrats come and fill the seats early, all right? This is an old playbook that they pulled out and ran, and it made it look like that what is happening in Washington is unpopular.”

Johnson continued:

But I’m going to tell you, Kaitlan, the American people are behind what’s happening. The DOGE effort is polling over 80 percent right now. They want us to find efficiencies in the federal government. They want the government to be smaller and leaner and more accountable to the taxpayers.

And that’s what these efforts are all about. That’s what the Republican Party is about. That’s what our commitment is to do. To make government work better for the people. This is a restoration of commonsense above everything else, and I think the American people are going to remain in favor of what’s happening here.

Still not accepting Johnson’s answer, Collins brought the DOGE portion of the interview to a close, “Okay. I was just, those lawmakers do also represent Democrats. That doesn’t mean they were paid to show up, if they’re upset about this.”

It is a well-documented fact that liberal activists and groups like MoveOn and Indivisible are involved in these incidents, so the idea that these are just a bunch of concerned citizens who happened to bring their cameras to a town hall is a bit far-fetched.

Here is a transcript for the February 26 show:

CNN The Source with Kaitlan Collins

2/26/2025

9:27 PM ET

KAITLAN COLLINS: Do you have concerns that that’s anything that Democrats will be able to use to run against those Republicans in the midterms?

JOHNSON: No, because the—no, I don’t. Because the videos you saw of the town halls were for paid protesters in many of those places. These are Democrats who went to the events early, and filled up the seats. If you had—if the videos had panned outside the building—

COLLINS: You can’t argue they were all paid protesters, though, Mr. Speaker.

JOHNSON: Many of them were. I don’t know, we—

COLLINS: One of your — a Republican acknowledged—

JOHNSON: Yes.

COLLINS: –they were his constituents.

JOHNSON: One Republican acknowledged they were his constituents. That’s fantastic, okay, but they had Democrats come and fill the seats early, all right? This is an old playbook that they pulled out and ran, and it made it look like that what is happening in Washington is unpopular.

But I’m going to tell you, Kaitlan, the American people are behind what’s happening. The DOGE effort is polling over 80 percent right now. They want us to find efficiencies in the federal government. They want the government to be smaller and leaner and more accountable to the taxpayers.

And that’s what these efforts are all about. That’s what the Republican Party is about. That’s what our commitment is to do. To make government work better for the people. This is a restoration of commonsense above everything else, and I think the American people are going to remain in favor of what’s happening here.

COLLINS: Okay. I was just, those lawmakers do also represent Democrats. That doesn’t mean they were paid to show up, if they’re upset about this.