Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes face a $30 million defamation settlement after MSNBC falsely accused Dr. Mahendra Amin of "uterus robbery," while Fox News grapples with a separate $2.7 billion Smartmatic lawsuit and President Trump's FCC demands regarding CBS's edited Kamala Harris interview. The episode contrasts these legal battles, highlighting Stephen Miller's corrections on El Salvador deportations, to argue that media bias distorts election integrity narratives and fuels political fallout over voting machine vulnerabilities and voter ID laws. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
MSNBC Defamation Lawsuit00:02:16
Happy Monday, everyone.
We got a lot going on.
For starters, MSNBC has just been forced to settle a $30 million defamation lawsuit.
This one's pretty, pretty wild.
They were accusing a doctor of robbing uteruses.
We're going to get into all the gory details on that one.
Plus, oh my gosh, Donald Trump sitting down with the president of El Salvador.
And just moments before they spoke, you had Stephen Miller really coming out hard against Fox News.
I hate to do it, Bill, but I got to correct you on every single thing that you said because it was all wrong.
So we're going to get into all of that.
It's pretty good.
I promise you that.
Meanwhile, meanwhile, meanwhile, we also are seeing this media uproar over one Muhammad Khalil.
You remember the student that got the visa to come here and then ignited all these protests all over college campuses, including on Columbia University, my alma mater.
It became a total mess.
They had to actually shut down classes and graduation.
And there are those on the left and in the media that are defending him and defending him and defending him.
And like everybody's like, I'm sorry.
Like he's here as a guest.
Trey Gowdy said it well.
So for someone who had the privilege of living and studying in this country to support a group that doesn't believe in any due process or any appeals for innocent victims is just a little too rich for me.
Yeah.
A little too rich for me too.
And good news, we've got the market turning higher.
Look, volatility is still here.
Plenty of it in the weeks ahead to come.
But a little glimmer of hope coming out of NVIDIA.
Gigantic commitment of a half a trillion dollars.
If we don't have those chips, NVIDIA's in all the missiles, Quill.
Here's some checking on this.
All the missiles are driven by NVIDIA chips.
So, those NVIDIA chips matter.
Semiconductors matter.
Is there a method to Donald Trump's madness?
We will get into all of it.
Welcome to the program.
Make sure you subscribe, share, like.
I'm watching you in the live comments.
This is live, baby.
We're off to the races on this Monday.
Subscribe.
Here we are, beginning with MSNBC.
Totally busted here.
There's a $30 million defamation lawsuit filed against the network.
Dr. Amin Detention Allegations00:12:27
And the reason it was filed against the network is because they went out and called a doctor, an individual who was apparently treating some of the migrants that were coming into a Georgia facility, including women.
They were calling him a uterus robber.
Apparently he had performed a couple, I believe his lawyer says two hysterectomies that were needed on people that were there.
And suddenly, according to Rachel Maddow, now he's doing all kinds of weird stuff.
Here's her on with a guest talking about this very story.
Lawyers alleged abuse of migrant women by a gynecologist for Georgia Ice Detention Center.
She's interviewing not the doctor there, but somebody, gosh, who looks a little bit like her.
Why is it that everybody on MSNBC kind of looks like Rachel?
She's like cloning herself, right?
Anyway, the lawyer came out and cited her as one of the big, big problems in this case.
But let's go back in time to September of 2020.
Here's Chris Hayes, who also picked up on this story.
Let's listen to what he was saying.
Tonight, we can report there are three women who say they had procedures they either did not consent to ahead of time or felt coerced into consenting to.
Tonight, we could bring you part of an exclusive interview with one of those women detained at that very facility who says she felt pressured into a full abdominal hysterectomy by this doctor.
The woman is in immigration proceedings and fears for her status, so we are calling her B and not showing her face.
She was in the Irwin County Detention Center during the Trump administration.
We've reviewed medical records that corroborate that she had this procedure.
She went to this doctor who NBC News has identified as Dr. Mahendra Amin, an OBGYN in nearby Douglas, Georgia.
We are aware of the whistleblower's allegations as they relate to Dr. Amin, and Dr. Amin has issued a statement saying, We are aware of the whistleblower's statements as they relate to Dr. Amin, and he vehemently denies them.
We look forward to all of the facts coming out and are confident that once they do, Dr. Amin will be cleared of any wrongdoing.
Here is how B described her experience with that doctor at the facility.
I felt like I had no right to say anything.
They just, Dr. Amanda told me, listen, you're going to get hysterectomy done and schedule an appointment for that.
And then.
I had nothing, no saying this.
And then you did go and he did perform a full hysterectomy on you.
He said to remove the cancerous tissue.
Yes, that's what he, I was told.
Like, maybe he actually saved her life, right?
You saw how they put his picture up, and well, the whole like uterus robbery started on Twitter, etc.
And there were lots of allegations made.
Now, this guy's an individual citizen, and he's trying to defend himself in all of this.
It turns out that the whole thing was bogus, and the judge had decided that because it was all bogus, it could, in fact, go to trial.
So it could have been much more than $30 million in defamation that they would have been wound up.
in terms of needing to settle and pay.
So granted, they took their get out of jail free card.
But just to go back to what was being alleged and how this relates, by the way, I'm going to get into Smartmatic and Fox because in this case, they're believing this whistleblower who's a nurse.
And, you know, I don't know.
Like, what do you, you know, on the one hand, on the one hand, there's got to be space for whistleblowers.
But on the other hand, what is it?
Like anybody can say anything and can just go out and libel somebody, in this case, an attorney who's being accused of stealing.
Women's uteruses?
I mean, that is pretty bad, right?
Like, you don't want to run with a story like that unless you're really, really solid on your facts.
But Rachel ran it.
You had Chris running it, like you just saw.
And then that other woman that's on at four o'clock that always looks so miserable running it.
Here, take a listen to this interview with the so called whistleblower, a woman named Don Wooten.
In the complaint, a hearing from women who are detained there, talking about a specific doctor performing hysterectomies, referring to him as a uterus collector.
Tell us about how you heard about this doctor and what women said about their experiences with him.
You have detained women.
I had several detained women on numerous occasions that would come to me and say, Ms. Wooten, I had hysterectomy.
Why?
I had no answers as to why they had those procedures.
And one lady walked up to me here this last time around between.
October of 19 until July the 2nd.
And she said, what is he?
Is he the uterus collector?
Does he collect uteruses?
And I asked her, what does she mean?
And she says, everybody that I talked to has had a hysterectomy.
And you just don't know what to say.
I mean, I don't have an answer for why that they would come to me and they would say, is he the uterus collector?
How would you describe the standard of care, the general sort of medical environment in which these migrants were detained?
The standard of care was, it wasn't timely all the time.
They would have a procedure to where they would fill out forms to be seen.
Those forms would be shredded.
They would be told in area instances that, you know, there's nothing going on with them just on numerous occasions.
And as a human, you just don't treat people inhumane.
I have a title as a licensed practical nurse, and I protect my title with dignity to where I was raised by you treat people as you want to be treated.
The sanitation, especially during COVID, the sanitation was horrible.
So you see where this is going, right?
So they've got the whistleblower who comes on and makes all these allegations.
How much information she had, it's not really clear.
But again, the onus is sort of on the reporter, right, to make sure that that story is pretty buttoned up before you just run wild with it because it is somebody's reputation.
But in this case, because it was Donald Trump's ICE, right, agenda that may have been going out and sealing uteruses from migrants' wombs, well, you know, it was just too good for Rachel and Chris and the other one to resist.
Here's a look at the other one, the blondie.
Julia, can you widen the lens on the medical care that is standard for female detainees?
It just sounds like a whole lot of gynecological care when we read about the complete and abject neglect Around COVID.
Yeah, you're hitting it.
These are the conversations I've been having all day, Nicole.
I mean, I've been talking to lawyers who say, look, I have clients in detention who had diabetes and couldn't get their medication.
Yet they were told to go back for a pap smear and then to go again when that seemed irregular.
It seems like they were getting way too much care from a gynecologist and perhaps doing very unnecessary procedures and not enough of what you would need in a short term detention situation.
We know that they aren't supposed to stay longer than six months.
Why were they getting so much care on this one area?
And I will also point out that this doctor was part of a civil settlement with the Justice Department in 2015 where he and other doctors had to pay over $500,000 and a fine for fraudulent claims to Medicaid.
So that means that we're already looking at a doctor who has at least been alleged to have tried to inflate his claims in order to get more money.
And that, I think, is the allegation here.
Why was he doing so much work if, as it seems, a lot of these Procedures were not necessary.
And I should also mention, very tragic.
One of the lawyers described a woman of childbearing age who has now had a hysterectomy that perhaps she did not need.
Yeah, or perhaps she did need, and maybe it actually saved her life.
But God forbid we actually think about that because, hey, we're MSNBC, and this is Donald Trump's ICE people going after migrants, and that's just too good a story for us to resist.
Listen, in this case, the judge.
Actually, made the decision that MSNBC had Hosan, meaning Rachel, and the four o'clock, four o'clock.
She's on in the afternoon.
Help me.
She used to be a Republican.
Nicole, Nicole Wallace.
So that one and Chris Hayes, they were all out there making what the judge said was, quote, verifiably false statements about Dr. Amin, including claims of mass hysterectomies leading to the cancellation of the scheduled trial.
Okay.
Okay.
So I don't think MSNBC really wanted this thing to.
come to trial because it would have then shown that they had a whole bunch of fake news anchors there.
Stacey Evans was the attorney that was representing none other than Dr. Amin, and she was the one that filed the suit for $30 million against NBCUniversal over MSNBC's coverage of her client, that Georgia doctor.
And apparently she's a Democrat, and she was blown away by what these people did, specifically Rachel Maddow.
So this is, you see on the left, Stacey Evans, who is a Democrat who Was just astonished, astonished by the falsehoods that were being told on one MSNBC, specifically by somebody that she used to watch, Rachel Maddow.
Here we go.
I'll read this to you.
This is in town hall and a rare rebuke from within her own political ranks.
You had Democrat attorney Stacey Evans slamming MSNBC's coverage of her client, the Georgia gynecologist Dr. Amin, calling the network's host Rachel Maddow's reporting on the so called, quote, uterus collector case preposterous, quote, and disappointing.
Evans who says she regularly tunes into the left-leaning network, spoke out to NBCUniversal, and she agreed there to the $30 million settlement with Dr. Amin, whose reputation was dragged through the mud following widely circulated and now discredited claims that he performed unnecessary hysterectomies on ICE detainees.
I mean, what a thing to say about somebody, right?
This is pretty bad, pretty bad stuff.
So this is a network which I think we have seen over and over and over again rewards sensationalism.
In fact, I don't need to say this.
This is what the lawyer is saying.
The lawyer for Dr. Amin said that, you know, this is pretty obviously disappointing to think that any media outlook could be so reckless as to, quote, have a classic example of chasing sensationalism over facts.
Well, I think that we all know pretty darn well that that is a specialty, shall we say, of MSNBCs.
It seems like they're always chasing, chasing, chasing sensationalism.
I mean, that is what this network has been about.
And we're still seeing it today in so many different ways.
But in this case, it is an individual.
So it makes it especially hurtful.
You got those three anchors, three of them right there.
You know, we are pleased that Dr. Amin is able to move forward from his years-long litigation, said his attorney, Stacey Evans.
I mean, years-long.
This has been going on since September 2020 when they were first making these statements.
Quote, it is unfortunate that he had to get sued, that they had to sue to get confirmation of what we knew all along, that he did not perform mass hysterectomies on women detained at Irwin County Detention Center.
We are glad that the judge found those statements false as a matter of law because, in fact, Dr. Amin performed only two hysterectomies, both of which were medically necessary and consented to by the patients.
So he's out there trying to do a good thing, trying to help people.
But, you know, the way MSNBC twists all of this, it's somehow Trump trying to rob migrant women of their uteruses.
Fox Smartmatic Free Speech00:14:46
Okay, that's where we are today, guys.
And you know what?
Good.
I hope that, you know what?
They should have paid more.
They should pay through the nose because when you are just so blatantly false and misleading, it is dangerous to public psychology, right?
Because then people are like, oh my gosh, Donald Trump's ICE department is putting in doctors to take these uteruses out of people.
So everybody's like, oh my gosh.
So that's frankly, I mean, that in and of itself, when you start just perpetuating these falsehoods, it's very damaging to public psyche.
But it's also enormously dangerous to the individual involved in this one case, Dr. Amin.
Unbelievable, right?
Unbelievable.
I mean, MSNBC should be absolutely appalled.
We can compare and contrast this with Smartmatic because, look, you don't want to say anything unfair about anyone.
But here they are with this nurse who doesn't seem to quite have all her facts lined up.
And they're running with her comments.
And they put her on and they say they got this big whistleblower.
I mean, at least in the case of Fox with Smartmatic, you can kind of understand it.
I mean, heck, you had the president's own lawyers, right?
The president of the United States lawyers saying things.
So it's a little bit different.
We're going to get to that in a second.
But first, you know we're fully independent here on The Trish Regan Show.
And we love being independent.
You know what?
I got to tell you.
Life is good on the other side.
I tell everyone that leaves networks, trust me, it's the right thing.
It's the right thing for you.
The other thing that I tell you, and I've told you for quite some time, is to think about yourself, put yourself first, to think about how you sleep best at night.
For me, part of that is investing in gold.
One of our sponsors here on the Trish Regan Show, American Heart for Gold.
You can find out more, including how you may get up to $15,000 with special offers there, up to $15,000 in free silver.
And of course, silver has been moving right along with gold lately.
Gold.
Trading down just a touch, I actually added to my position today because it's one of those things that, you know, you just want to make sure you have in the case of Armageddon.
Hopefully we're not getting towards any Armageddon, but even if you think everything's just fine and everything's going to move along, all these countries out there, their central banks are also getting nervous.
So what are they doing?
They're buying gold.
It's one of the reasons why gold has appreciated more than $3,200 an ounce.
I think I was telling you when I started this show, buy it when it was like at $1,400, $1,500.
Anyway, I was right.
I was right.
You know.
Not that I always have to be right, but generally I am on these things.
So go check them out.
Trishlovesgold.com.
Text Trish to get 6265532 to learn more about how to get up to 15,000 in free silver or call them at 1-844-495-1115.
So as we think about what's going on with MSNBC, look over to Fox for a moment because the judge just ruled something rather negative for Fox.
They can't go ahead and interview Reed Hoffman.
Reed Hoffman is the tech entrepreneur that started LinkedIn.
I'm over on LinkedIn.
I have like 400,000 followers over on LinkedIn, but it's kind of hard to get the word out.
Maybe it's because Reed is running it.
I don't know.
But Reed Hoffman is not exactly what you would call middle of the road.
No, he's the one that bankrolled that woman who accused Donald Trump of rape.
Remember her, the woman with all the cats?
He bankrolled her lawsuit.
And so he also bankrolled Smart Maddox lawsuit.
Now, look, I mean, it happens, right?
And it's part of freedom of speech.
You can kind of put your money wherever you want.
And there are plenty of people that have helped to defend, say, Donald Trump or Rudy Giuliani or others, right?
They have funds that go for their legal defense.
So again, you're putting your money where you want.
And so it's not necessarily illegal or improper.
I mean, maybe it looks a little bad that the tech entrepreneur is donating $25 million to Smart Maddox lawsuit.
But at the same time, it's sort of a matter of free speech.
I remember when Peter Thiel, right, helped with Hulk Hogan.
when he was trying to take down Gawker.
So these things happen.
But it was something that understandably, I think Fox wanted to explore and learn more about when they were trying to determine the financial liability that they may have for Smartmatic because Smartmatic is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion.
That's a lot of money.
I mean, I'm not going to make excuses for Fox.
I think they made a lot of mistakes and I was not there then.
But, but they paid $800 billion, nearly $800 billion.
To me, that's a big, big mistake.
And it's bad for journalism to pay 800 billion dollars to Dominion and then hey, you still got that smart mat thing hanging out there for 2.7 billion dollars.
Well, that's not exactly good precedent.
If you already paid 800 billion, now is it to Dominion?
I think you're going to be on the hook for something anyway.
They want to know how much they're really on the hook for, and so they had asked that they'd be able to depose and interview him and get his deposition, and the judge said nope nope, not happening, you can't do that now.
Getting into this, this comes from Court NEWS, a blog that covered this, because this didn't get a lot of attention.
I think it's a rather relevant and important story.
They wanted to interview Reed Hoffman because one, he was investing $25 million into the case and two, they wanted to get a sense of how much they really thought the company was worth.
In other words, what is his payout on the other side?
Was he an early investor in the company, etc.?
He had a guy that was handling his investments and that guy said to the Washington Post back in 2024 that he thought that the company basically could be worth $400 million right now.
Okay, if Smartmatic were worth $400 million today, if it hadn't been for the reputational damage that allegedly Fox News did to it and others, then why would they have to pay out $2.7 billion?
I think Fox wanted to try and understand that $400 billion valuation.
And so if Reid is investing his money, it makes sense that they would try and probe that, right?
Why, Reid, were you trying to, what were you getting out of this?
Well, it turns out the judge said you can't interview Hoffman, but you can.
So, this is a little bit, you know, a little bit of a reward of some sorts if you look at it that way.
They can interview the guy who was running this, Melhorn, that was running the investments.
He's the guy that told the Washington Post, forgive me, it's Barr, Jeremy Barr, who told them, whoops, Melhorn, told Jeremy Barr, Jeremy Barr is the reporter, forgive me, in 2024, they could be a $400 million company right now had it not been for the slander.
So in light of that, and in terms of trying to understand the valuation, if Fox is saying $2.7 billion is grossly inflated, there's no way that this company would be worth that, then they want to be able to understand the financial insight.
Maybe this Melhorn can help get them there.
And the judge is saying, you know what?
You can go ahead and you can interview Melhorn to get his financial insight.
You can't interview Hoffman, though.
So it's a little bit of a setback, but I'd say it comes with the silver lining, right, that they can go ahead and at least look more into. this valuation.
I think the problem is anytime you malign someone or a company, you're putting yourself at risk, especially if, in fact, your management team felt otherwise.
So we saw in the Dominion lawsuit, did we not, that Rupert Murdoch and his sons did not actually believe, his son specifically Lachlan, that there was any malpractice that had gone on or any problems with the voting machines, et cetera, and yet they allowed for the information to go on the air.
So why didn't they get in front of, say, my friend Lou?
Well, I get it.
Like Lou is a lot to handle.
Like Lou has a big personality and a mind of his own and may even had some, may have had some editorial rights over his show.
However, however, Fox still owned the airtime.
So that gets back to management and what kinds of decision management was making.
Don't forget Tucker was sitting there going, I don't get this, Sidney Powell.
I don't understand what she's doing.
And yet.
They took Tucker off the air.
I mean, I think that had to do with other things like J6 and pressure from Schumer, et cetera.
But it all kind of happened around this time with Dominion and Smartmatic.
About a day after the Smartmatic thing happened, they took Lou Dobbs off the air.
They left Maria on.
Maria's, listen, Maria's great.
And I don't think that they're doing this with such bad intentions.
I don't think that Maria or Lou or anybody that was reporting on this thought that, oh, we're going to go take Smartmatic down just for the heck of it.
Just for the heck of it, because we want an excuse for the election.
They actually believed in the reporting that they were doing, and when you have the president's lawyers out there saying things, it's actually somewhat relevant, is it not?
Is it not news?
Now it?
You know Smartmatic is going to say well, you ruined us over it, but maybe it's not actually the messenger's fault in this case.
Could it actually have been Cindy Powell's or the lawyers that were saying this?
I mean, why are you going to go after the messengers?
That's what's sort of complicated, because As a journalist, you got to be free to report on things.
Now, I don't mean like MSNBC going after some poor doctor and they can't figure out that he only performed two hysterectomies and they're going on and on about the uterus robber.
I mean, that's a little bit different.
But in this particular case, you actually have the president's lawyers.
And so Smartmatic has a thing on their website right now saying that they're taking serious steps to defend their reputation and their attacks by actors trying to further their agendas and profits.
These attacks don't just hurt Smartmatic.
They damage the credibility and integrity of all elections and disparage the hard work of election officials, administrators, and poll workers.
You know, again, this is a tough one.
I remember when I was a young correspondent at CBS, this would have been in the year 2000, and I guess the other side was in.
So it was perfectly fine to do things on voting machines maybe when the other side was in.
I actually did a story on Diebold voting machines, and I interviewed some software experts who said, yeah, that these things could be vulnerable, and you needed to do everything you could to secure them.
So it got us back to like, well, why don't we just have paper ballots?
Wouldn't that be the most secure way where people have receipts, et cetera?
And I think that the reality is you can't just say we're not going to talk about this at all.
You want to actually make sure that everything is safe and everything is on the up and up.
You know, Tulsi Gabbard addressed this head on just the other day.
And I think it's an important soundbite to run because she was in the cabinet meeting and she said something that like, it's like no-go territory.
I get it right now.
But again, I go back to me reporting on this in the year 2000.
This sort of concern about software and voting machines has been around for a long time.
And so this didn't just come out of nowhere.
And I can understand why some reporters were, in fact, putting people on like a Sidney Powell or like a Rudy Giuliani.
Perhaps the real issue, however, is why is it?
Why is it that Fox itself, Fox itself, if it didn't believe this to be true, would continue to allow the reporters to do that?
Like at some point, right, as business, you need to take an editorial stand.
Nonetheless, here's Tulsi.
I think it's worth just hearing.
We're investigating.
We have the best of the best going after this.
Election integrity being one of them.
We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast, which further drives forward your mandate to bring about paper ballots across the country so that voters can have faith in the integrity of our elections.
I mean, is it that controversial to say we want to make sure that the software is totally, totally, totally safe?
We're not pointing out anyone in this particular case.
She's just saying something that's been around for a long time.
And she's not wrong.
It has been around for a long time.
I did this story for the CBS Weekend Evening News in the year 2000.
So we've always been concerned about this.
We shouldn't act like it's different just because it's Donald Trump.
We should make sure that they're as secure as possible, that the entire process is as secure as possible.
In fact, that's what this voter ID is about, is it not?
I mean, that's what we're talking about when you've got the administration saying, hey, you know what, we're going to make sure. that everybody who is voting in these elections, they can vote, that they have the proper identification, if you would, to vote.
I mean, with Elon Musk finding that there were, what, $152 billion that he found in fraud, waste, and abuse, and that millions of social security numbers were being given out, you can understand that that causes some concern.
And then the left is all mad about the Voter ID Safe Act.
I don't get it.
Like, why wouldn't you want that?
If nothing else, just to make everybody feel better about this entire process, you can't. hide these things.
Hillary Clinton, I told you about this last week, coming out with this wild tweet that she even had to shut down comments on because it was so nuts, basically telling married women, if you changed your name, you may not be able to vote.
Gaslighting, gaslighting, gaslighting, fear mongering, just like we saw at the top of the show with back in 2020, MSNBC trying to suggest that Donald Trump's administration was robbing migrant women of their wombs.
I mean, it's bonkers to me that they get away with this.
Who's going to sue her, by the way?
Who's going to go after Hillary Clinton for her misinformation in misrepresenting things?
That's pretty bad.
I mean, the White House had to come out with a response saying, no, You know what?
The SAVE Act is not about that.
The SAVE Act is just there because you need an ID like anything else.
You know what?
You get a passport.
You get a real ID.
You get the license, anything.
I mean, I guess if you were just married yesterday, you might need to come in with your birth certificate to prove because your name change hadn't gone through.
But for Hillary to suggest this, and let me read it to you, are you a woman who changed your name when you got married?
Congress is considering a bill that would make it much harder for you to vote.
Call your rep. This is not a drill.
And then update the House just passed the Republican voters suppression measure.
That's what she's calling it, that threatens voting access for millions of Americans, including 69 million women whose married names don't match their birth certificates.
SAVE Act Election Fraud00:06:15
I mean, this is bonkers stuff, ladies and gentlemen.
Again, unless you were just married like a few hours ago, you probably have an updated ID.
You know Rob, my partner at 76 Research, his wife and he, they're in Japan and he's doing a ton of work for us, by the way, over there.
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful piece out just last night.
But he, you know, Japan, they own a lot of U.S. treasuries.
So 76 Research, they're on the ground in Japan.
Rob's working hard.
His wife traveled with him.
Guess what?
She has the same last name.
She has the same last name.
So it's on her passport, right?
Like it's on her passport.
It's on her license.
And yes, she can vote under it.
So this is the kind of fire drill that they're putting America through.
And it's highly, highly, highly irresponsible.
But this is what they do in general, right?
76 Research, by the way.
This market's crazy.
We'll get back to the market in a short time.
But if you're concerned about how to invest and miss all this volatility, I encourage you to go to 76 Research.
Use my code word dollar.
You can get it for a dollar a month for the first two months and it goes to $9.95.
But there's a lot of helpful advice in there.
And you know what?
You want to take care of yourself.
You want to be able to make money.
You want to have some income at some point in your retirement.
So with all that in mind, go get the basic newsletter.
And for those of you that really want to roll up your sleeves, get the model portfolios.
I can't stress that enough.
Trump is livid at this moment with CBS News and understandably so because the coverage is so freaking biased.
It's night after night after night after night.
And he's kind of had it up to here, right?
Well, guess what?
He's in control of the FC.
And he's now calling on Brendan Carr to not just look at ABC, as Brendan is doing, and NBC, as Brendan is doing, but also to take a good hard look at CBS News.
This story being reported in one of the trades known as Mediaites, they're saying in a truth social post on Sunday, Trump raged it to 60 Minutes reports, one featuring an interview with Ukrainian President Zelensky, during which Scott Pelly, who's the correspondent, Said that Trump, quote, rewrote history, saying falsely, that Ukraine had started the war.
So this was the voiceover narrative.
It showed a clip of Trump calling Zelensky a dictator without elections.
So that could actually be uh, interpreted in different ways, and I i'm sure Pelly has his interpretation.
The problem is, you know he's 60 NEWS.
He's supposed to be this big old voice of authority.
We know he's old, uh.
As for how big he is, that you know, I don't know.
I don't know what their audience size really is anymore, but a lot of people still watch.
In another segment you had some other correspondent i've never heard of talk to residents of Greenland who opposed the Trump administration's idea of joining the country and joining the U.S, including the prime Minister.
So Trump's response was this on Truth Social.
He wrote almost every week, 60 Minutes, which does air on Sundays, which is being sued for billions of dollars for the fraud they committed in the 2024 presidential election.
Don't forget, Donald Trump is accusing them of fraud.
They have not been proven to have had fraud, but they are being accused and they are being sued for billions by none other than the president.
He did get 16 million, don't forget, out of ABC News.
For their interview of failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris, mentions the name Trump in a derogatory and defamatory way for this weekend's quote broadcast, and this broadcast tops them all.
He writes, they did not one, but two major stories on Trump, one having to do with Ukraine, which I say is a war that would never have happened in the 2020 election.
Oh, if it had not been.
Uh well, in his view, it was totally stolen from him, right.
So he's getting into that rigged stuff, in other words, if I were president.
The other story was having to do with Greenland, casting our country as led by me falsely, inaccurately and fraudulently.
I am so honored to be suing 60 Minutes, he writes, CBS, FAKE NEWS and Paramount over their fraudulent, beyond recognition reporting.
They did everything possible to illegally, he said, elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to the interview questions, but it just didn't work for them.
I'm going to get to that in a second just to jog your memory.
They did everything, he writes, possible to illegally elect Kamala.
As I said, it just didn't work for them.
They are not a news show, he says, but a dishonest political operative simply disguised as news and must be responsible for what they have done and what they are doing.
They should lose their license, he writes.
That's a big deal.
He wants them to lose their license.
And guess what?
He's got the FCC.
Hopefully the FCC, as headed by its highly respected chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment, which is substantial for their lawful and illegal behavior.
CBS is out of control at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this.
Make America great again.
All right.
This is the particular segment he is referencing.
I'm going to show it to you.
This was Kamala Harris being interviewed on 60 Minutes.
What we learned was that there was a lot of dressing up of her answer.
They asked her a question.
She couldn't quite answer it.
We know this because they mistakenly aired it on Margaret Brennan's Face the Nation and then cleaned it up by the time it aired again on 60 Minutes that evening.
Let's go to the before and after, the sort of, you know, redo job that made her look so much better that he's arguing was a form of election interference.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not.
Listening.
Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening.
We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.
All right.
So very, very different answers, as you well remember.
Netanyahu Ignoring Advocacy00:03:11
So Donald Trump is sort of saying, you know what?
I'm sick and tired of it.
And, you know, Media Research Center, they have done a lot of investigating in this particular area in terms of bias.
And what they have discovered is that overwhelmingly, like 98% of the time on the network news shows, you have very negative news on Donald Trump.
And then 99% of the time, you have very positive news, say on Biden or it would have been Kamala.
And you've got to start to ask yourself, I mean, maybe he's right in the sense that they're trying to interfere.
I mean, the good news is it didn't work, right?
The good news is the American people saw through a lot of that.
They remembered, for example, the 51X spooks.
They remembered, oh, no, no, couldn't have possibly come from the Wuhan lab in China.
No, that virus, that was from the wet market.
All of these things, right, started to add up.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
We had to have the whole Mueller investigation.
That thing, by the way, has taken on new turns, as we've discussed over the last couple of weeks.
The reality is this, Americans no longer believe these institutional news services.
And that's actually kind of disturbing and sad in and of itself.
And that's where Brendan Carr actually has a leg to stand on.
As he wrote to Bob Iger, remember in the letter in December, he said, hey, Bob, who runs ABC News vis-a-vis Disney, Americans no longer like you guys, no longer actually respect you or trust you.
And the fact that you had to pay out $16 million because Georgie Poo decided he was going to libel the president on his show after you guys told him not to.
proves that Americans no longer actually respect or value you.
And that's a problem because we got to give out the FCC license and maybe we shouldn't be giving it to all these affiliates all around the country.
Maybe they shouldn't be carrying Whoopi Goldberg and George Stephanopoulos.
And now the same thing is going to happen, you see, to CBS News.
I would not be surprised if in the coming days, you see a letter going from one Brendan Carr to CBS News saying, guys, you know, you got to clean it up.
You have to have both sides.
In my estimation, I think Donald Trump is probably right that you may not have seen an escalation in the war in Ukraine had he been president because he would have found some kind of diplomatic solution.
I mean, I think that there were opportunities and there were missed opportunities.
And whether or not he's able to get there or not now, I don't know.
It's unclear, right?
It wasn't very good to see what happened over the weekend there with the bombing, et cetera.
And I don't think Donald Trump is one bit happy about any of it.
But we are where we are right now.
And for everyone in the media to have only one. position and only one viewpoint.
It's actually weird.
I've never seen anything like it.
I mean, I mean, granted, and I used to work at CBS.
Heck, I'm the one that did the story back in 2000, right?
On how these voting machines could be in jeopardy.
That was back in a day when they were willing to talk about these things.
It's so biased right now that I think whether you're talking about CBS, ABC, NBC, I've worked for all of them.
There is so much animosity and fury and frustration with this president and his administration.
Supreme Court Deportation Ruling00:03:36
that they can't even see straight.
And when you can't see straight, you can't actually be a decent reporter anymore.
You're so clouded by your judgment.
And that's where we are.
Stephen Miller getting into this here today on Fox News because Stephen Miller, who's the policy advisor to the president, is like, this is crazy.
Why is the entire media so worked up over the guy from Maryland that was sent to the El Salvador prison?
Now, granted, maybe they shouldn't have sent him to the prison, but they had every right to send him back to El Salvador.
And he's making the point that not only did they have every right, to send him, the Supreme Court decided that they had every right to send him back to El Salvador and really, at this point it's not the U.s's problem anymore.
He defended this argument in kind of a blow-up, if you would, on FOX NEWS.
I want to show you this, but before I do, keep in mind what's going on in the background.
You get a judge saying, I want updates, I want updates.
What's going on with the people that we sent to El Salvador?
You know we got to get them back.
We got to get them back and Miller's like.
You know, i'm sick of the media trying to say this and spin this narrative.
Why are they taking sides like this?
The Supreme Court already made its decision.
I'll let you see this here.
He kind of goes right after Bill Hemmer in a show just this morning, moments Ago.
Number one, DOJ said a federal court cannot compel the executive branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation.
So, your argument is that you don't have to bring him back home, but will you?
So, I want to correct.
I hate to do it, Bill, but I got to correct you on every single thing that you said because it was all wrong.
First, we won the Supreme Court case.
Clearly, 9 0.
A district court judge said unconscionably that the president and his administration have to go into El Salvador and extradite one of their citizens, an El Salvadorian citizen.
So, that would be kidnapping.
That we have to kidnap an El Salvadorian citizen.
Against the will of his government and fly him back to America, which would be an unimaginable act and an invasion of El Salvador's sovereignty.
So he appealed to the Supreme Court and it said clearly no district court can compel the president to exercise his Article II foreign powers in any way whatsoever.
DOJ called me after that Supreme Court ruling and they said, This is amazing.
We won this case, 9 0.
We are in excellent standing here.
So this has been portrayed wrong for 72 hours in the media.
They said the most a court could ever compel you to do.
Would be to facilitate return, which would basically mean if El Salvador voluntarily sends him back, we wouldn't block him at the airport.
We would put him back into ICE detention, and then he would be deported either back to El Salvador or somewhere else.
The Supreme Court said that is the most the government can be expected to do.
So we won the case handily.
The misreporting on this has been atrocious.
Secondly, he was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador.
So do you still believe that he's an illegal alien from El Salvador?
Hold on, this is important.
In 2019, He was ordered deported.
He has a final removal order from the United States.
These are things that no one disputes.
Where is he from?
El Salvador.
Where is he a resident and citizen of?
El Salvador.
Is he here illegally?
Yes.
Does he have a deportation order?
Yes.
A DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing incorrectly that this was a mistaken removal.
It was not.
This was the right person sent to the right place.
Now, some have said, Well, but he had a thing called a withholding order.
So a withholding order means you've been ordered supported.