INVESTIGATIONS

Considering they just spectacularly lost a major defamation suit, CNN has seemed remarkably unconcerned about throwing around wild accusations. On Monday’s episode of Inside Politics With Dana Bash, Bash seemingly suggested that billionaire Elon Musk had made his money through illegal means, though she never provided evidence. She also lashed out at President Trump’s voters, calling them “the problem.”

Bash summed up what has always been CNN’s transparent view of Trump when she said that what we “cannot lose sight of,” is that the President had a “history” of “being litigious, slowing things down. I mean, we’ve seen that throughout his career in real estate and in business, and of course, as he made his way back to the presidency.” 

“Elon Musk,” she continued, “has that same MO, just the rules are there to be broken effectively, and that’s how he became the richest man of the world, when it comes to disrupting. But now he is applying that to the federal government” 

In effect, she accused Musk, while offering zero actual evidence, of being a criminal, of becoming the “richest man in the world” through illicit means, and of now bringing his criminality right into the heart of the Capitol itself. Not the best look when your outfit was just found liable of defamation.

 

 

Bash went on to trash Musk for his proposal to systematically weed out corrupt and incompetent judges, which she sneered was “just a window into his worldview.”

Washington Post national political reporter Sabrina Rodriguez agreed:

I think hearing Elon Musk express his world view, and hearing Trump and J. D. Vance and other Republicans talk this way is chipping at public confidence in these institutions. I think that is something that Donald Trump has done very effectively since he came into politics…The way he’s talked about the justice system over many years, can make people skeptical of it.

It could be pointed out that when the Biden administration came down very hard on more conservative courts and judges that they viewed as an impediment, CNN applauded heartily, particularly with Biden’s action on student loans. CNN also gushed about the ProPublica hit pieces on conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices funded by liberal dark money, which the liberal media eagerly amplified because it damaged the court’s credibility. Hypocrisy or double standard, anyone?

The conversation then turned to Republicans who the panel felt were too passive in the face of the monstrously evil Trump and Musk. “A lot of them don’t want to stick their neck out,” chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju opined, “because not only will they get Donald Trump on them, they also get Elon Musk. And that’s just simply a bridge too far at this point. We’ll see if that changes.”

Bash had an addition to that, though: “Because their own voters who are going to reelect them are Donald Trump’s voters. So, therein lies the problem that we’ve seen since the beginning of Trumpism.”

“So, therein lies the problem.” The “problem,” the root of what is wrong in America, being the American voter, according to CNN.

To read the transcript, click “expand”:

CNN Inside Politics
January 10. 2024
12:10:56 – 12:11:51 p.m. Eastern

(…)

DANA BASH: And the thing that we cannot lose sight of. And you mentioned that Donald Trump’s history is being litigious, slowing things down. I mean, we’ve seen that throughout his career in real estate and in business, and of course, as he made his way back to the presidency. Elon Musk has that same MO, just the rules are there to be broken effectively, and that’s how he became the richest man of the world, when it comes to disrupting.

But he is now applying that to the federal government. Just one example of one of the many, many things he posted: “I’d like to propose that the worst one percent of appointed judges as determined by elected bodies, be fired every year. This will weed out the most corrupt and least competent.”

I don’t want to read that as like something that’s necessarily going to happen. Although, in this environment, who knows. But just I think as a window into his world view.

SABRINA RODRIGUEZ (national political reporter, Washington Post): I think hearing Elon Musk express his world view, and hearing Trump and J. D. Vance and other Republicans talk this way is chipping at public confidence in these institutions. I think that is something that Donald Trump has done very effectively since he came into politics.

The way that he talks about the media, it can make someone who doesn’t follow it closely become a little more skeptical. The way he’s talked about the justice system over many years, can make people skeptical of it.

And I think that having Elon Musk on X every day, raising questions about different agencies, raising questions about different media institutions, raises questions in the American public. And I think that is the point.

I think Donald Trump wants for the American public to say, well, he did say he wanted to change it up, and he’s changing it up, and that’s how he gets to do it. And of course, the justice system here. Of course, judges are this backstop. But I think there’s a bigger question about, what impact does this rhetoric have on Americans listening in on what’s happening?

(…)

12:15:56 p.m. Eastern

MANU RAJU: A lot of them don’t want to stick their neck out because not only will they get Donald Trump on them, they also get Elon Musk. And that’s just simply a bridge too far at this point. We’ll see if that changes.

BASH: Because their own voters who are going to reelect them are Donald Trump’s voters. So, therein lies the problem that we’ve seen since the beginning of Trumpism.

As Big Tech and the U.S. government take steps away from their past censorship abuses, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) issued a warning to the anti-free speech bureaucrats across the pond. 

Jordan, in a letter to Henna Virkkunen, the new executive vice president of the European Commission (EU), warned that America would not tolerate further European efforts to punish American tech companies for allowing free speech. 

After noting that Virkkunen was in charge of enforcing the EU’s draconian Digital Services Act (DSA), Jordan wrote, “We write to express our serious concerns with how the DSA’s censorship provisions affect free speech in the United States.” He filled the letter with references to past and present EU actions that violate free speech and summoned the European Commission to explain itself to the House Judiciary Committee. 

[Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America] 

PBS News Weekend guest host Ali Rogin promised that a Saturday evening segment would “explore the deep roots of DEI in this country as it comes under increasing attack,” and it certainly delivered a strong if false defense, comparing the “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” push to the fight against Jim Crow, with the host agreeing wholly with the segment’s sole guest, a leftist professor from the “USC Race and Equity Center.” .

Rogin claimed Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI programs were “dismantling decades of federal anti-discrimination policy,” which sounds dubious, then introduced John Yang’s report with solemn fanfare.

ROGIN: For Black History Month, John Yang explores the origins of DEI in America in our latest installment of Hidden Histories.

Yang, who usually anchors the PBS News Weekend, suggested a choice between supporting DEI or Jim Crow, as if DEI was just a synonym for “civil rights.”

JOHN YANG (voice-over): Long before DEI became a household term, there were other efforts to move toward equal rights for all Americans. Some of the earliest were in the late 1800s, during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws making segregation in public spaces legal, Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau….pressure from white Southerners led to the closure of the Freedmen’s Bureau just seven years after it had been established. Nearly a century later, black Americans were still battling racism and discrimination.

Yang cycled through the history of racial politics up to the police killing of George Floyd that put “Racial justice was back in the nation’s collective conscience,” concluding his potted history with “Today, DEI has become a political lightning rod, but its roots run deep in American history, and the quest for equity and justice goes on.”

Whoa! Most people conflate “equity” with “equality,” but they are not synonyms. “Equality” means treating everyone the same, while “equity” means handing out more resources and opportunities to those in categories considered historically underprivileged. This naturally results in the narrowing of opportunities for members of “privileged” categories (i.e., whites, Asians) and can inflame racial tensions.

Back in studio, Rogin spoke with Shaun Harper from the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center.

SHAUN HARPER: I think that this is a very particular moment in which the three letters DEI are being scapegoated, villainized….most polling shows that most Americans actually believe that diversity is a good thing for our country, that people ought to be treated equitably….

(There’s that slippery word “equity” again.)

Harper said the George Floyd killing had “forced a global reckoning with structural and systemic racism here in the United States,” then indulged in happy talk about what DEI was meant to be, as opposed to its true nature on the ground, with no skepticism offered by journalist Rogin.

HARPER: The intended goal of those efforts was to right America’s past and present wrongs as it pertains to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, disability, discrimination….Those efforts certainly were not intended to divide people or to sort of force them into two categories, privileged and oppressed. That’s the narrative that’s sort of wrapped around misinformation….

Somehow asking people to “unlearn racism” and recognize their “racial microaggressions” is not “divisive.” 

Rogin asked Harper what ridding DEI from the federal government would mean.

HARPER: It’s bad for our democracy. It will lead to greater polarization. It will lead to more divisiveness. It will lead to lots of people losing their jobs. Federal professionals who do DEI work as well as professionals in corporations and in other places will lose their jobs because they`re caught in the political crosshairs, not because they`ve done something bad….

In other words, bureaucrats and grifters will lose jobs and influence.

Harper’s wishful thinking aside, DEI propaganda and training sessions do pit groups against each other. It’s become a lucrative complex, taken advantage of by racial grifters. Activist Christopher Rufo has exposed Bank of America teaching the U.S. “is a system of “white supremacy,” while Lockheed Martin asks its executives to “deconstruct their white male privilege.” 

None of these facts made it into PBS’s segment, which continues to shirk its congressional mandate to maintain “strict adherence to objectivity and balance.”

This segment was brought to you in part by Consumer Cellular.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Weekend

2/8/25

7:10:41 p.m. (ET)

Ali Rogin: Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives has been at the top of his agenda. He’s issued executive orders that target DEI programs, dismantling decades of federal anti-discrimination policy. For Black History Month, John Yang explores the origins of DEI in America in our latest installment of Hidden Histories.

John Yang (voice-over): Long before DEI became a household term, there were other efforts to move toward equal rights for all Americans. Some of the earliest were in the late 1800s, during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era, as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws making segregation in public spaces legal. Congress established the Freedmen’s Bureau. It provided formerly enslaved people basic necessities, helped them look for jobs and acquire land of their own.

In 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed legislation to enforce those amendments, arguing that it discriminated against white people. And pressure from white Southerners led to the closure of the Freedmen’s Bureau just seven years after it had been established. Nearly a century later, black Americans were still battling racism and discrimination.

Crowd: Freedom, Freedom, freedom.

John Yang (voice-over): Led by icons like the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., they united during the civil rights movement, pushing back against the systems that excluded them. At the height of the movement, John F. Kennedy became the first president to call for affirmative action, using the term in an executive order targeting racial bias in the hiring practices of government contractors.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act, which banned employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. By the 1990s, a backlash had emerged over affirmative action, voters in California, Washington State, Michigan and Arizona banned its use in public employment and higher education admissions. Then, May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, igniting months of protest across the nation and around the world.

Man: Stand Up and fight.

John Yang (voice-over): Racial justice was back in the nation’s collective conscience, this time with support from large corporations, many of them created DEI committees and pledged to invest billions of dollars to promote racial equity. But companies began ending these initiatives after the Supreme Court in 2023 banned affirmative action in college admissions.

Last month, Target joined a growing list of companies pulling back on their DEI commitments. At the same time, though, employers like Costco and Delta Airlines are doubling down on theirs.

Today, DEI has become a political lightning rod, but its roots run deep in American history, and the quest for equity and justice goes on.

Ali Rogin: Earlier, I spoke to Shaun Harper from the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center. I asked him to explain how the current debate surrounding DEI fits into its broader history.

Shaun Harper, USC Race and Equity Center: I think that this is a very particular moment in which the three letters DEI are being scapegoated, villainized. Everything is being blamed on those three letters. But as it turns out, most polling shows that most Americans actually believe that diversity is a good thing for our country, that people ought to be treated equitably, and that workplaces and retail environments and schools and so on ought to be inclusive environments. So the sort of broader ideals of DEI very much remain at the American core. But it’s just that those three letters, the three letter acronym, is being politically scapegoated during this time.

Ali Rogin: Why has it become so politicized?

Shaun Harper: Let’s rewind almost five years ago when Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. And we all saw it play out via Darnella Frazier’s video footage. You know, that forced a global reckoning with structural and systemic racism here in the United States. That was a conversation, frankly, that most Americans didn’t care to have, and they were certainly unprepared to have it, but yet they were dragged into it.

So what we saw almost immediately, you know, after that summer of racial reckoning, if you will, was a bit of an allergic reaction. Well, that allergic reaction then became legislative as states across the country began to defund and ban the teaching and learning about diversity, equity and inclusion in schools and DEI offices. So I don’t blame the whole thing, obviously, on Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd, but it certainly marks a pivotal chapter in our nation’s history.

Ali Rogin: As you mentioned, there are DEI programs that came about at companies and government entities across the country. What was the intended goal of those sorts of efforts?

Shaun Harper: The intended goal of those efforts was to right America’s past and present wrongs as it pertains to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, disability, discrimination, so on and so forth. Those efforts certainly were not intended to divide people or to sort of force them into two categories, privileged and oppressed. That’s the narrative that’s sort of wrapped around misinformation.

But most of those efforts were the antithesis of that. They intended to bring people together. They intended to help close gaps, and they intended to help us think about how to make our schools and companies and our communities, you know, more fair and more inclusive.

President Trump in his initial days announced that he was going to be ridding the federal government of anything pertaining to DEI and those individual words. Certainly we don’t yet know the scope of what that really means. There’s a lot in flux. But I’m wondering, from your perspective, what is that going to mean for Americans?

Shaun Harper: It’s bad for our democracy. It will lead to greater polarization. It will lead to more divisiveness. It will lead to lots of people losing their jobs. Federal professionals who do DEI work as well as professionals in corporations and in other places will lose their jobs because they’re caught in the political crosshairs, not because they’ve done something bad.

What we will also see is an uptick in costly litigation that will cost the American taxpayers millions, perhaps billions of dollars as many Americans are experiencing harassment, discrimination and abuse. You know, DEI policies and programs, again, help to protect against those things.

Ali Rogin: Sean Harper, founder of the USC Race and Equity Center. Thank you so much for joining us.

Shaun Harper: Thanks so much.