WATCH: @MegynKelly grills @JakeTapper over his coverage on CNN of the Biden presidency in light of his #OriginalSin book (1/)...

Kelly: “Jake, the criticism has been that you're complaining about a cover-up about Joe Biden's mental acuity that failed that right wing pundits saw, the right-wing in general saw, that independent media saw and reported on and that was no mystery even to left-wing and so-called mainstream reporters who were not fooled but chose willful blindness instead of honest reporting and that you were part of it. How do you respond?”

Tapper: “It — it's a — it's a tough and fair question. I would say that Alex and I, after Election Day, interviewed more than 200 people. 200 mostly Democratic insiders and all these interviews were — almost all of these interviews were after the election and they justified to themselves what they had done in terms of misrepresenting how the President was, not just, to me and Alex and other reporters, but also just to each other and to the world and to Democrats and to the cabinet, etc. by — by saying that there was this existential threat of Donald Trump and only Joe Biden could beat Donald Trump, and that justified everything in their minds. After that existential threat was over because the election was over and Donald Trump won, they were, we found Alex and myself, remarkably willing to talk to us either off the record or on background or in some cases on the record about what they saw. One of the things that emerged was that there were two Bidens. One was the fine Biden, serviceable, adequate, and the other one was a — is a non-functioning Biden, and that's the one we saw the night of the debate, and that's the one we saw some clips of here and there that you just showed. And that non-functioning Biden, the one that lost his train of thought in — in a significant way, not in the way just that every human loses their train of thought, but in a way that shows that he's having trouble articulating his very views and the one who forgot the name of close aides, who was not able to come up with George Clooney's name, didn't seem to recognize him, all that sort of thing. That non-functioning Biden was, according to our reporting, showed up as — as far back as 2015, after the death of Beau, where one top aide said it that — that tragedy, the loss of Beau, um, was like, uh, watching somebody pour water on sand. That was the effect on his psyche. And there were other moments in 2017, 2018, you hear some — the Hur report, one of the reasons he came to that conclusion was because of the recordings they heard of Joe Biden in 2017 talking to his ghostwriter in which he was similarly inclined. Obviously, in 2019, 2020, there were other moments like that. Most of his campaign staff and others would say like he's, you know, he's 78, he's 79, he has senior moments, but he's fine, he's fine, he's fine. Well, he wasn't fine and in — in — throughout his presidency, that non-functioning Biden would show up more and more and more, and he was worse and worse and worse, really, from deteriorating tremendously. The next time there was a really horrible family incident which was when Hunter Biden's plea deal fell apart in the summer of 2023. And then obviously in June, he was convicted and the thought, the fear of losing his son, not to jail, but maybe to another, to a relapse, to an overdose, to a suicide, who knows, was a very real fear. And the — the — the threat of losing a third child — really just diminished him tremendously according to top aides. So, all of which is to say that this was a deterioration, this was a — this was a progression and look, knowing what I know now, obviously, I feel tremendous humility about my coverage. That Lara Trump interview, for example, etc.”

Kelly: “We’ll get to that.”

Tapper: “She saw some — she saw something that I did not see at the time. 100 percent. And I own that. I did ask Joe Biden to be transparent about his health records in an interview in 2020. I did ask him about the fact that voters thought that he —”

Kelly: “But then he wasn’t.”

Tapper: “— he was not transparent at all. No.”

Kelly: “He — he promised you that he would be transparent about his health records, and then he wasn't and when you sat with him again —

Tapper: “At all.”

Kelly: “— including one month — including one month after the Jackie Walorski thing, you didn't ask him about it. You didn't follow up on the fact that he was falling up the stairs, that he was losing his train of thought regularly, that he was slurring, that he was incomprehensible, that he was getting lost in the White House lawn. You sat right across from him and you asked none of that, notwithstanding the fact that he had promised you he would be fully transparent about his health issues.”

Tapper: “That's true, but I did ask him about his age and the fact that the American people had concluded that even though he said whenever anybody brought up the subject of his age, watch me, and I said —”

Kelly: “Yes.”

Tapper: “— they're watching you and they are concerned —”

Kelly: “You did.”

Tapper: “— that you are too old for this job.”

Kelly: “But you — you — you — you know as well as I do that there's a way of, you can say, hey, there's this poll on your age, or you could say, you just forgot that Jacki Walorski was dead. You — you asked where she was moments after watching a videotape tribute to her. You lowered the flags at the White House after she died. This happened 13 days before you sat with him. There is a way of pressing a man like that on the actual infirmities to bring it home to him and to the audience, and you didn't do it.” FIREWORKS on @MegynKellyShow between Megyn Kelly and Jake Tapper....

Tapper: “That's correct. I didn't. And like I said, I feel humility about my coverage. I mean, it's not like I was asking him his favorite movie or his favorite color. We were talking about Putin. We were talking about other issues of national importance, but yeah, I mean, of course, I've said, I — I look back at my coverage with humility and — and I wish I did cover the issues of age and acuity, but I wish I had covered them much more, and I wish — I mean, of course, in — it's May 2025. Do I wish that in that 10, 15 minute interview I had with Biden in October 2022, that this had been the only subject because I had then what I know now —”

Kelly: “But it wasn't just that, though, Jake. It wasn’t just that. I mean you sat with him a couple of times in the course of his presidency —”

Tapper: “No, I didn’t.”

Kelly: “— and these issues were not pressed. Well, there was at least —”

Tapper: “No, I — I —”

Kelly: “— and then there was the time at the beginning and — but separate — apart from that —”

Tapper: “— No, I — but, Megyn —”

Kelly: “— you — you covered —”

Tapper: “— Megyn, hold on, hold on a minute.”

Kelly: “— the Biden's presidency.”

Tapper: “I sat with —”

Kelly: “No, no, no. Let me, let me just finish my point.”

Tapper: “I’m just saying I had one interview with him during his pres —”

Kelly: “You’ve covered the Biden presidency.”

Tapper: “— I had one interview with him during his presidency.”

Kelly: “Okay, right and it was 13 days after the Jackie Walorski thing. But you covered the Biden presidency aggressively throughout the four years, and — and you didn't cover mental acuity, hardly at all. I mean, time and time again when issues came up, you seem to be running cover for the president.

Tapper: “No, I don’t think that’s true.”

Kelly: “You didn’t seem interested.”

🧵[Thread] Mondays’ CBS Mornings had a syrupy puff piece on trans “influencer” Dylan Mulvaney, lamenting all the “painful” “trans hate” Mulvaney faced due to the Bud Light debacle and claiming Mulvaney thought of dying by suicide because people opposed it.

Let’s break the piece down, starting with the first of two teases by co-host Vlad Duthiers cheering “transgender trailblazer Dylan Mulvaney, who’s out with a new book about..facing down hate by finding joy” The second tease from Duthiers on Mulvaney was even dumber: “Alright, ahead, trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney opens up about her journey and navigating the painful fallout from the controversy over an ad campaign for Bud Light.”

CBS’s @EdOKeefe: “When you’re standing there at the White House lectern, you are White House press secretary speaking on behalf of the President conveying his thoughts and views of the administration. And it's for that reason that you said on his behalf all those times that he had no plans to do what he did on Sunday. Has he expressed any regret to you directly personally for having put you in this position —”

KJP: “You know —”

O’Keefe: “— and now having to go back?”

KJP: “— uh — look, I understand this question, and you started off, I think the way you started off, the question is basically how I feel, right? And I think all of us who work in this administration. I worked for the President. I speak for the president. I — uh — I comment on behalf of what he feels and thinks, and that's my job. That's my job as the press secretary, the White House press secretary, the person who speaks on behalf of the President of the United States and that's how I feel. I feel like it's my —” CBS’s @EdOKeefe: “But did he apologize to you?”

KJP: “Look, there's no apol — apology needed — maybe to answer that question. No apology needed. What I will say is — um — this is a President — you've heard me talk about the legal experts, what they have say — said, how they agreed with the president — um — in taking this action — uh — you've heard me say that over and over again. I've laid out quotes from different U.S. attorneys, prosecutors who really laid out how the underlying factors of Hunter’s — Hunter's case would not lead to what had occurred in the past several months, and I will also say this, and you heard this President say this many times before — um — he believes — um — when it comes to his family, when it comes to — um — how he moves forward about thinking about his family, they're the beginning, the middle — uh — and the end, and — um — he wrestled with this. It was not an easy thing for him to decide. Uh — there's a reason why I keep bringing up Congressman Jim Clyburn is because this is someone who spoke to the President just two weeks ago and encouraged him to do so to pardon his son, and at the time — um — the congressman said, two weeks ago that this president was reticent. So, obviously, obviously he wrestled with this, so no apology needed from him to me.”

CNN’s @MJ_Lee: “Zeke asked this question. I just didn’t hear an answer. The next time that the President says he will or won’t do something, why should the American people believe him?”

KJP: “I answered that question. I don’t have anything else to add.”

Lee: “Well, what’s your answer?”

KJP: “I — I answered the question. I answered the question.”

Lee: “Can — can you explain it in a way that’s understandable?”

KJP: “I — well, I — I — can’t speak to you understanding the question or not or my answer or not on this. I — I don’t have anything else to say. I’m not gonna re-litigate this. I — I did this on Monday for 30 minutes. I went back and forth. I laid out — I said, please read the President’s — uh — really comprehensive — uh — statement on this, and I even said the last paragraph of that statement, he talks directly — directly to the American people, and that’s how I answered that question.” CNN’s @MJ_Lee: “Can you acknowledge that it may have been a mistake by the President, you to say multiple times unequivocally that he would not pardon his son?”

KJP: “The President laid out in that statement, what changed — why his mind — mind changed, how he wrestled with this decision. The President laid that out. I don’t have anything else yet to add.”

CBS's Norah O'Donnell with an INSANE open to the 'CBS Evening News' smearing @PeteHegseth like it's the campaign all over again: "We begin with new reporting by CBS News. The highest priority of the president of the United States is the safety and security of the American people. As the commander-in-chief, presidents rely on their defense secretaries to help carry out that solemn task. President-Elect Donald Trump wanted a Fox News weekend host to hold that post. The 44-year-old combat veteran, Pete Hegseth. Tonight, that nomination appears to be on the rocks. Hegseth is facing new allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. Tonight, CBS News has learned Hegseth may not have the support of enough Republican senators to be confirmed for the job, meaning his nomination is in serious jeopardy." CBS's Nikole Killion also contributed to the network being out on the warpath vs. @PeteHegseth. Here's just a snippet: "Sources tell CBS News at least four Republican senators would likely withhold their support for Pete Hegseth if a confirmation vote were held today...op Republicans are voicing concerns about the 44-year-old former Fox News host was forced to step down as head of that nonprofit Concerned Veterans for America in 2016 after staffers accused him of financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct, and repeated intoxication."

🧵WATCH: CNN's @ScottJenningsKY absolutely NUKES President Biden from orbit for pardoning son Hunter:

"Joe Biden is leaving office making the strongest possible case for Donald Trump that anybody could possibly make it and that's that our government and our justice system is of, by and for the elites and nobody else. He ran to banish Trumpism from our political system in this country, and he has left it politically and now institutionally, the strongest possible political force in this country. It is a complete and utter failure by the head of the Democratic Party and the President of the United States. Never again do I want to hear, 'oh, Donald Trump's a liar. You can't believe anything he says. Donald Trump will abuse his power Donald Trump will only use the system to benefit himself and his family, and so on and so forth.' Never again. I have one question for Karen [Finney] and that is why did he need an 11-year blanket pardon going back to 2014, when Joe Biden was the Vice President? We are sitting on the biggest cover-up of who knows what crimes and Joe Biden amazingly knows exactly, roughly when it started. He knows just about when it all started. He's leaving office in complete and total disgrace. He is a liar and there is no other way to spin this today. This has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the character of Joe Biden." CNN's @ScottJenningsKY on those claiming President Biden pardoning Hunter is just like when Trump pardoned key allies on his way out of office in 2021:

"Listen, you guys can spend all day long trying to spin this, that this is Donald Trump's fault that this is somehow caused by Donald Trump. 'Oh, he's appointing the wrong people.' 'Oh, he did it. Oh --" This is the worst possible thing a President could possibly do to his party and to the country to sit for a year and say, 'I will not do this. I will not do this. The rule of law is sacred. We have to respect the justice system, juries. We have to respect juries. We have to respect the guardrails and the norms of our democracy.' These people are liars. 'Inflation is transitory.' 'Afghanistan is a success.' 'The border is secure.' 'Robert Hur is a liar.' 'The videos are cheap fakes.' 'Biden has a cold.' 'He'll never drop out.' 'Oh, I'll never pardon Hunter.' It's all a lie. It is all a grift. Every American except the most partisan, brain rotted people are going to be outraged by this today. He is going to leave off -- you think 38, 39% job approval is bad? Just you wait. Just you wait. He's disgraced -- disgraced today. Outrageous."

.@ScottJenningsKY face-palms after @JamalSimmons says Trump “may think that he won that debate, but...he actually lost the war...because after that debate, Joe Biden left and..he ended up with Kamala Harris, so he should be careful.” .@ScottJenningsKY was all of us.

Just a master class schooling by Justice Neil Gorsuch when whacked from the left by CBS's Major Garrett.

Gorusch: "I read the other day that...I agreed with Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson something like 45 percent of the time. That’s the court I know."

Garrett: "But there are people who watch this right now and say I thought I understood what Roe v. Wade meant in our country. I thought I understand what affirmative action in college admission meant, and this court told me I didn’t understand what that meant and I wrongly relied on things that I thought were settled. What would you say to those?"

Gorsuch: I would say those are deeply complex legal questions on which reasonable minds can, of course, and do disagree. And that when it comes to Roe v. Wade, for example, what did the court decide? Decided that we the people should answer that question, not nine people sitting in Washington, D.C." CBS's Major Garrett: "How about affirmative action?"

Justice Neil Gorsuch: "Much the same thing. What did we decide? We decided that all people are created equal, that it’s not acceptable in this country to discriminate on the basis of race."

🧵I transcribed the full back-and-forth with KJP and CBS’s @EdOKeefe. It was WILD. You're welcome, America....

O’Keefe: “But, Karine, you’re not answering the — the very basic, direct question!”

Miller: “[Inaudible]”

O’Keefe: “Has the Parkinson’s [inaudible] —”

KJP: “Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Hold on. Wait.”

O’Keefe: “— come to the White House —”

KJP: “— wait, wait, wait a second —”

O’Keefe: “— to —“

KJP: “— wait.”

O’Keefe: “— eight times, or at least once, in regards to the President —”

KJP: ““I just —”

O’Keefe: “— specifically.”

KJP: “— hold on a second.”

O’Keefe: “That much you should be able to answer by this point —”

KJP: “But — no, no, no, no, no, no, —”

O’Keefe: “— after four days of reporting about it.”

KJP: “— no, wait a minute. Calm. Ed, please. A little respect here, please. So, every year, around the President's physical examination, he sees a neurologist. That's three times, right? So, I am telling you that he has seen an neurologist three times while he has been in this presidency. That's what I'm saying.”

O’Keefe: “Here at the White House or Walter Reed?”

KJP: “I'm telling you that he has seen them three times. That is what I'm sharing with you, right? So, every time he has a physical, he has had to see a neurologist.” KJP: “So, that is answering that question.”

CBS’s @EdOKeefe: “No, it’s not.”

KJP: “No, it is. It is.”

O’Keefe: “Can —”

KJP: “You’re asking me —”

O’Keefe: “— Dr. Kevin Cannard come to the White House —”

KJP: “— I cannot —

O’Keefe: “— to answer questions about the President’s condition?”

KJP: “— but I just — I also said to you — Ed, I also said to you for security reasons we cannot share names. We cannot share names.”

O’Keefe: “You cannot provide names —”

KJP: “We have to —”

O’Keefe: “— of others he would have met with —”

KJP: “— we have to — we cannot —”

O’Keefe: “— but you share names of —”

KJP: “— no, no, no, no —”

O’Keefe: “— if someone came in —”

KJP: “— no, we —”

O’Keefe: “— with regards to the President.”

KJP: “— we cannot — we cannot share names of specialists broadly, from a dermatologist to a neurologist. We cannot share names. There are security reasons we have to —”

O’Keefe: “They’re already on the White House visitor logs.”

KJP: “— we have to protect —”

O’Donnell: “It’s public.”

O’Keefe: “It’s public.”

KJP: “— I understand that.”

O’Keefe: “I looked it up before I came out here.”

KJP: “I hear you. I —”

O’Keefe: “It is right there for anyone to see.”

KJP: “Ed, I hear you. I cannot from here confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy. I think they would appreciate that too. We have to give them —”

O’Keefe: “Who would? The patient or the doctor?”

KJP: “— we have to keep their privacy.”

O’Donnell: “It’s public. It is public.”

O’Keefe: “It’s public information.”

KJP: “I — I — I hear you.”

O’Donnell: “It’s listed that he went to the residence.”

🧵🍿 MSNBC's Joe Scarborough initial reaction to last night's #CNNDebate:

“Well, I think I should start by saying, without any apologies, that I love Joe Biden and Jill, and I will gladly debate anybody anytime anyplace, anywhere, over the issue of whether Joe Biden has been the most effective president in passing bipartisan legislation, in expanding NATO, in responding to the rising threat coming from China, by flexing America's strength around China, by having the strongest economy in the world, bar none, the strongest economy, actually, relative to the rest of the world in 50, 60, 70 years, the strongest dollar in half a century, the strongest military relative to the rest of the world. I would argue, and many others would argue, since 1945. I think his presidency has been an unqualified success. If, however, you believe, as do I, and as do so many people who watch this program, and who fear just how dark of a place a second Donald Trump term will take America, then I think it is critical that we ask the same questions about this man I love, respect, and whose — whose public service in saving this country from Donald Trump over the last three and a half years I honor and always will. I think we have to ask the same questions of him that we have asked of Donald Trump since 2016. And that is, if he were CEO and he turned in a performance like that, would any corporation in America, any Fortune 500 corporation in America keep him on as CEO?” MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on Biden's performance in last night's #CNNDebate:

“Um, if this were Donald Trump — time and time again, we talked about the Goldwater, where’s Barry Goldwater to walk over and tell Richard Nixon it was over, to tell Donald Trump it was over. Now, the question is, do Democrats need to do the same thing of Joe Biden? I mean, these — these are hard questions, but the fact is, friends, failure is just not an option. In 2024, failure is not an option. So, who I love, who I respect, who I revere for their work and their duty to service over their lifetime really is not relevant. It's not relevant for any of us. It is not relevant for Democratic leaders. It's not relevant for anyone. The question is, can — we know Joe Biden can govern.

I'll debate that issue with anyone, and I will win. I will destroy anybody that wants to debate Joe Biden's record over the past three and a half years. He can run the White House. He can run the country effectively. Despite the barrage of lies that constantly come at him, like Donald Trump's lies last night. But can he run for president in 2024? Donald Trump lied over and over and over and over again. And Joe Biden couldn't respond to any of those lies. In fact, as The New York Times said, he spent much of the night with his mouth agape and his eyes darting back and forth. He couldn't fact check anything Donald Trump said. Not only that, he missed one lay-up after another after another. He couldn't respond effectively to Donald Trump trying to overthrow American democracy on January 6. He couldn't respond effectively to Donald Trump's continued stream of lies about his own record, and he couldn't even respond effectively on the issue of abortion where, for some reason, he darted wildly to the issue of immigration. And on immigration, as I said yesterday morning, any Democrat that can't turn to their Republican opponent and blast them for killing the strongest, toughest border bill in the history of America, drafted by a right-wing senator from Oklahoma, may not be up to the job. And so that's the question.”

NBC’s @PeterAlexander: “You opened today’s briefing by talking about the latest student loan cancelations for, I think, we said — what did we say — in total, 4.75 million Americans.”

KJP: “Yeah, yeah.”

Alexander: “Now, I think it's 160,000, this latest round. Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker today described this as a massive wealth transfer for Americans who did not attend college to those who did — and he described it as a shameful play to buy more votes, six months before an election?”

KJP: “I will say to the congressional member Mike Johnson — obviously, the speaker — is that what is shameful is that Republicans continue to get in the way of helping us deliver a little bit of breathing room for Americans who deserve that opportunity — who deserve you — heard me talk about — uh — uh — about Tiffany, the young woman who — who — um — one of the things that people should know and if — if you don't is that when folks are — are receiving these — these — um — debt relief — uh — uh — announcements from President, they have an opportunity to tell their story. They have an opportunity to — to say why this matters to them and we're talking about millions of Americans who now have an opportunity to start a life, have an opportunity to move forward in a way that where they can reach that American Dream or reach whatever it is that they wanted to do not just for themselves for — for — for them for their families, so we believe — and the President is not going to walk away from doing that. He believes it's an important commitment that he made to — to Americans. It is a broken system. It is a broken system.” NBC’s @PeterAlexander: “I guess, the question, though —”

KJP: “Yep.”

Alexander: “— is what then is the White House's message to those Americans who did not attend college for a variety of reasons, perhaps — including perhaps that they didn't want to take on all the debt that went with it right now that they feel like, in some form, they are responsible for allowing those who did not to pay their fair share?”

KJP: “Look, here's the thing. This is a President who has been very clear about re — making sure that he's building an economy that leaves no one behind, right? Making sure that —”

Alexander: “Are those people being left behind?”

KJP: “— well, no, but — but —”

Alexander: “The ones who didn’t get support because —”

KJP: “— well, no —”

Alexander: “— they didn’t go to college?”

KJP: “— I hear your question, but this is — if you look at what the President has done more holistically over the past 3.5 years, he has tried to build an economy for everyone. This is one part of his economic policy. When you think about creating — creating 15 million jobs, many of those jobs if you think about the different — uh — uh — uh — different — uh — legislation that he's obviously passed into law, whether it's the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, Chips and Science Act, it's creating jobs that are good, union-paying jobs that — where you don't need a college education — right — where you can make six figures and actually have that opportunity to start your family. He is creating an economy from the bottom up, middle out, making sure that the millionaires, billionaires and corporations are paying their fair share — fair share — right — not like Republicans in Congress who want to give them a tax giveaway. So, he's trying to make sure — this is one part of his economic policy, but as he's thinking forward, as he's looking at all Americans, all communities, he wants to make sure that there is an economy that doesn't leave — again — doesn't leave anybody behind and as — historically, that trickle down economics does not work, and he does not want to see that, so we have given opportunities and we want to continue to give opportunities for folks who feel like they need a little bit more help.”

🧵

NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas: “Also in your you write about North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. You've been questioned several times on this in the last couple of days because you've issued a retraction. You said that it shouldn't have been in the book — this passage — that it was a mistake. Why shouldn't it have been in the book? Is it untrue?”

Kristi Noem: “No, what I said is that when this was pointed out that we — we made an adjustment to what the content was in the book. I've met many world leaders around the world. I've been to the DMZ. I've been traveling for years and years talking to world leaders. Just that name should not be in the book and I'm not going to discuss those personal meetings.” NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas: “Your spokesman told Politico that the world leaders names were conflated in the book. What does that even mean?”

Kristi Noem: “What it means is that I met with many world leaders. Many of them —

Vargas: “Did you —

Noem: “— some —”

Vargas: “— meet with Kim Jong-un?”

Noem: “— some of them were in the book and some of them are not in the book and that — when I this was brought to my attention, I immediately took actions and asked to have his name removed.”

JACQUI TIME: : “A couple days ago in Deaborn, there were protesters chanting, ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel.’ Does the President condemn that?”

KJP: “Yes.”

.@JacquiHeinrich: “Is the President at all concerned that Dearborn is becoming – is facing a risk of becoming a hotbed of any sort of homegrown threats?”

KJP: “I don't have any intelligence to share with you on that. Obviously, that's something that we're always very vigilant about, but don't have any national intelligence to share with you.”

Heinrich: “And then –”

KJP: “But, obviously, we will condemn any – any of violent rhetoric –”

Heinrich: “– would we be seeing a statement?”

KJP: “– which – which we have been very, I mean, you're hearing from me, right? You're asking me a question. I'm answering it and we've been very vigilant about – or very consistent about denouncing that type of that type of rhetoric.” .@JacquiHeinrich: “Should we see a – should we expect a statement from the President on that? It was a pretty significant display.”

KJP: “I mean, you're hearing from me. I think that's important. The other part, too, that I do want to be very clear about – you know, peaceful protest is something that the President has also been very, very clear that is important for – to give folks space to peacefully protest, but any type of violent rhetoric, we are going to denounce.”

DOOCY TIME: “Did the CIA warn Israel or did President Biden warned Netanyahu today about an Iranian plan to attack inside Israel within 48 hours?”

WH’s John Kirby: “I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters, Peter. I think you can understand. Um, but, um, they didn't talk about a very public and very viable real threat by Iran to Israel's security, and I think I need to leave it at that. It's really as far as I can go.” Doocy: “On October 7, President Biden said, ‘My administration's support for Israel's security is rock solid and unwavering.’ That is not true anymore, correct?”

WH’s John Kirby: “That — no, it is true.”

Doocy: “It —”

Kirby: “Still true today.”

Doocy: “— how support unwavering, but you're also reconsidering policy choices?”

Kirby: “Both can be true.”

Doocy: “They cannot be true. They're — they're completely different things.”

Kirby: “No, no, no. I just —”

Doocy: “He is —”

Kirby: “— I'm sorry.”

Doocy: “— he is wavering.”

DOOCY TIME: “So, on this border video, what does President Biden think should happen to adult men who are assaulting and overpowering U.S. National Guardsmen?”

KJP: “Well, let me just first say we're grateful — and I said this moments ago — to Border Patrol agents for their — to — quickly — to quickly work and get the situation under control and apprehend the migrants. So, let — I want to be really clear that everyone who was apprehended was apprehended by Border Patrol. They were able to do their job, even though it's made it more — even though Republican governor — in particular Governor Abbott — has made it difficult for them. They need more resources. We need more personnel. I mean, we have to have the backs of our law enforcement on the ground — are — who are dealing with this every day, but Republicans are getting in the way. Republicans in Congress do not want to help and you have a governor — Governor Abbott — who's politicizing it. That is what's happening. Border Patrol agents did their job even though, you know, the governor is getting in the way of them doing their jobs.” DOOCY: “Okay. But I get that you guys — you talk so much about having a more humane immigration system. This video does not show helpless women and children begging for a safe place to come in. It shows adult men landing haymakers on U.S. troops in uniform. If that was happening anywhere else in the world, wouldn’t President Biden sent reinforcements?”

KJP: “So, two things. Everyone was apprehended by the Border Patrol agents. That is important to note. They were apprehended.”

🧵ABC, CBS, and NBC have -- like the rest of the liberal media -- been absolutely losing their minds over Trump's "bloobath" line form Saturday.

Of course, some even admit he's being taken out of context, but insist it doesn't matter.

Like a cat chasing a flashlight, Trump has them in a tailspin. First, my colleague @BonillaJL noticed the zanity on the Sunday political talk shows.

These shows are supposed to be substantive and serious, but they're low-brow and, as we saw last week with @NancyMace and Stephanopoulos, they're worse than hacks. newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jorge…

Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold is NOT having a good day after SCOTUS said she couldn't remove Trump from her state's ballot:

“My...reaction is disappointment. I do believe that states should be able, under our institution, to bar oathbreaking insurrectionists...[T]his decision leaves open the door for Congress to...pass authorizing legislation, but we know that Congress is a merely non-functioning body. So, ultimately, it will be up to the American voters to save our democracy in November.”

Sidenote: MSNBC's Katy Tur introduced her as someone who still believes “Donald Trump is still an oathbreaking insurrectionist” and, in a petty swipe at the Supreme Court, noted she's an “elected” official. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D), suffering a near total breakdown:

“[I]t’s as clear as day what Donald Trump did: He incited that violent mob to rush on to the Capitol to try to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power. And his attacks and his allies’ attacks on our democracy have not stopped. Their lies and disinformation have led to massive voter suppression efforts to threats against election workers and actually attacks on our election infrastructure. And they’re already laying the groundwork to undermine 2024. Regardless of this decision, American democracy still remains very much under attack and that threat and this upcoming election will be crucial for democracy survival in the United States.”

This woman is unhinged. It’s clear she only loves democracy if/when her side wins.

JACQUI TIME: “John, I just want to clarify two of your previous answers in this briefing. Are you suggesting, in response to the border question, that the President is withholding executive action on the border until he gets the money that is part of this supplemental?”

John Kirby: “No, I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that the way forward — the proper way forward is to get the supplemental passed.” .@JacquiHeinrich: “Okay. And then, in response to MJ’s question earlier, it sounded like the administration has ruled out strikes within Iran.”

Kirby: “Jacqui, I appreciate the question. I think you can understand — I hope you can understand I’m not gonna telegraph punches here. We are not looking for a war with Iran. We’re not looking to escalate the tensions anymore than they already have been escalating. In fact, everything we’ve done has been designed to try to deescalate those tensions. That said, this was a very serious attack. It had lethal consequences. We will respond and we’ll respond appropriately. And I’m not gonna telegraph what that’s going to look like.”

DOOCY TIME: “Why are you guys making it easier for people to enter the country illegally?”

John Kirby: “I don’t believe we are. Why do you think we are?”

Doocy: “Well, you guys sued to cut razor wire that was put in place by Texas officials.”

Kirby: “So that the Border Patrol, actually, do their jobs”. John Kirby: “[B]ut keep going.”

Doocy: “Well, you won in court. So, now what? The Border Patrol union president is saying the Supreme Court's decision is going to undoubtedly encourage more illegal immigration. Do you guys know better than the Border Patrol union?”

Kirby: “The Border Patrol needed access, and that's why we sued to get rid of that razor wire, so that they could do their jobs. And you know what would also help them do their jobs, Peter? More Border Patrol agents. There's an idea — and if you go back to the supplementary request that we put in, there's money in there for some 1,300 additional Border Patrol agents. We want to help them do their jobs. We want to give them more resources and the answer and we kept getting — keep — keep getting back from House Republicans is no, no, no.”

Absolutely BRUTAL exchange for the Pentagon during the WH briefing re: the Lloyd Austin saga....

CBS's @NancyCordes: "So, the President has known for...five days...Secretary Austin was in the hospital but he wasn't informed why?"

John Kirby: "He was not informed until last Friday that Sec. Austin was in the hospital. He was not informed until this morning that the root cause of that hospitalization was prostate cancer."

Cordes: "Is that because the WH knew and didn't inform the President or because Secretary Austin chose not to share that with the president?"

Kirby: "Nobody at the WH knew that Secretary Austin had prostate cancer until this morning and the President was informed immediately after we were informed."

Cordes: "Okay. Last week, we learned that Jake Sullivan, I believe, found out...Secretary Austin was hospitalized on Thursday morning...Are you saying the President found out a day later than the NSC did?

Kirby: "No, Jake....was informed that Secretary Austin was in the hospital and had been for some time. He found out late Thursday afternoon and he informed -- he and the chief of staff -- Mr. Zients -- informed the President later this evening, early that evening. Not long after they learned, they informed the President directly on Thursday evening." CBS’s @NancyCordes: “We learned also today that Secretary Austin when he went into the hospital for the first time on December 22, he knew he was going to be under general anesthesia, spending the night, and transferred authority to his deputy secretary. Was the WH informed then that the authority was going to be transferred?”

John Kirby: “No.”

MRS. DOOCY TIME: “Has President Biden seen photos and videos from the past week of the sea of people crossing into this country illegally? I understand he's probably been briefed on it, but has he's seen photos and videos of it actually happening?”

John Kirby: “I can't attest to what the — the content is of the material he gets every day, but he has been kept apprised and briefed, of course, by — by the domestic and national security teams on this. But what's in that content? I mean, I'm not part of those discussions.” FBN’s @Hillary__Vaughn: “Some illegal border crossers are being given court dates in 2031. What are they supposed to do here for seven years?”

Kirby: “Again, that’s better question put to the DHS. I'm not in a position to talk about specific cases like that. The President believes that we've got to do better at immigration and he's willing to talk and negotiate with members of Congress about immigration policy just as well as he is about border security. But I'm not in a position to talk about the specifics.”