FRIDAY: Ten arrests, but no reports?

FRIDAY, JULY 11, 2025

Segregation by viewpoint: In all honesty, we'd already begun to wonder about it.

The shooting occurred on the Fourth of July. It became a larger news event when ten arrests were announced on Monday, July 7. They were ten arrests for attempted murder in an unusual shooting incident outside an immigration detention center in Alvarado, Texas.

We'd seen this matter cited with some regularity on Fox. That didn't seem like especially crazy news judgment to us. 

That said, we didn't think we'd seen the incident mentioned pretty much anywhere else. We had to hunt around a while to find this report at the New York Times. The Times report has never appeared in print editions.

Headline included, the AP report started as shown. There is no paywall to vex you:

10 held in Texas immigration detention center shooting that was ‘planned ambush,’ US attorney says

Ten people have been arrested on attempted murder charges after attackers in black military-style clothing opened fire outside a Texas immigration detention center in a “planned ambush” that left one police officer wounded, a prosecutor said.

The officer was shot in the neck on Friday, the night of the Fourth of July, after reporting to the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, about 40 miles southwest of Dallas. He was treated at a hospital and released, the Johnson County Sheriff’s office said.

The shooting took place as President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up deportations, which will be turbocharged by a massive spending bill that became law last week.

Initially, the attackers set off fireworks, and damaged cars and a guard structure by spray-painting “traitor” and ”ICE pig” on them. The attack “seemed to be designed” to draw U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel outside the facility, “and it worked,” Nancy Larson, acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, said at a Monday night news conference in Fort Worth.

Two unarmed corrections officers spoke to the group in the detention center’s parking lot as someone standing in nearby woods appeared to signal with a flashlight, according to a criminal complaint. Then the Alvarado police officer arrived and someone in the woods opened fire, Larson said.

“Another assailant, who was across the street, nowhere near the corrections officers, shot 20 to 30 rounds at these unarmed corrections officers,” she said. “There was an AR-style rifle found at the scene” that was jammed, she said. A flag saying “Resist fascism, fight oligarchy,” and flyers with words such as “Fight ICE terror with class war” also were recovered near the center.

The report continues from there. 

This seems like a striking event. As charged, this wasn't the act of some lone wolf, as was the case with the recent Minnesota murders. As charged, this seems to have been the act of an organized, ten-member group.

The incident was getting a lot of play on Fox. By our reckoning, it seemed to be getting weirdly limited play everywhere else. 

And then, holy cow! Isaac Schorr offered an opinion piece at Mediaite which started off like this:

CNN and MSNBC Completely Ignore Left-Wing Domestic Terror Attack on ICE Agents

On the Fourth of July, 11 left-wing activists mounted a domestic terror attack on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention facility in Alvarado, Texas.

“The defendants, dressed in black military-style clothing, began shooting fireworks at the facility, as part of an organized attack,” alleged the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas in a press release on Tuesday. “After approximately 10 minutes of convening, one or two individuals broke off from the main group and began to spray graffiti on vehicles and a guard structure in the parking lot at the facility. An Alvarado police officer responded to the scene after correctional officers called 911 to report suspicious activity. When the Alvarado police officer arrived, one alleged defendant positioned in nearby woods shot the officer in the neck area. Another alleged assailant across the street fired 20 to 30 rounds at unarmed correctional officers who had stepped outside the facility.”

If you hadn’t heard about it yet, you might just be a CNN or MSNBC viewer; neither network has devoted a single minute of airtime to covering the attack, though CNN managed to devote a sentence to it in an online story about another attack on immigration authorities.

The piece continues from there. We don't know why Schorr cites eleven alleged assailants. He links to this formal press release which only refers to ten. 

Setting that to the side, we're struck by Schorr's claim about the lack of reporting of this event on CNN and MSNBC. 

Neither network has devoted a single minute of airtime to covering the attack? We can't vouch for the perfect accuracy of that claim, but it tracks our own sense of puzzlement about the way this incident was and wasn't being reported within our nation's two major tribes.

These seems like a very strange event. It has led to ten arrests on the charge of attempted murder.

Red America gave it big play. It seems to us that Blue America didn't.

A few weeks back, Red America adopted a somewhat similar stance as its "cable news" messengers seemed to downplay the Minnesota murders. Increasingly, our news orgs are segregated by viewpoint, and they sometimes seem to report or disappear the types of facts which will keep their viewers reinforced in their preferred view of the world.

“FIGHT ICE TERROR WITH CLASS WAR?” Given the tenor of the times, this seems like a real news event.

AMERICAN DISCOURSE: A group of lions is called a pride!

FRIDAY, JULY 11, 2025

Fox News stars form a "kulturklatch:" A group of lions is called a pride. Within academia, a gathering of Fox News messengers is commonly called a "problem," or sometimes a "Kulturklatch."

Last Wednesday, Suzanne Scott had sent in the clowns on the most-watched TV show in American "cable news." Under Dana Perino's leadership, this was the day's five-member klatch (or sometimes "klatsch"):

The Five: Wednesday, July 2, 2025
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered
Lawrence Jones: co-host, Fox & Friends
Johnny Joey Jones: Fox News contributor
Dana Perino: regular co-host, The Five
Greg Gutfeld: regular co-host, The Five

No Democrat was on hand that day, not even a nominal Democrat. With Lawrence Jones in the nominal liberal chair, the five (5) klatchers agreed on the future state of play regarding the Medicaid program:

Under terms of the GOP megabill, no one was going to lose Medicaid coverage, except for some able-bodied slackers and a whole bunch of "illegals." Greg Gutfeld had been the first to state this decree, and the other klatchers all seemed to agree That even included Dalton, Georgia's Johnny Joey Jones, who seemed to think that the gang was discussing the fraud-ridden Medicare program.

As the week has gone along, we've transcribed most of the mockery which was emitted by the Mudville Five this day. Today, we're left with two obvious questions:

How many people are going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill? Also, do any "illegals" receive Medicaid coverage? Is some such thing even allowed under federal law? 

Due to "the complexification of everything," questions like those are frequently quite hard to answer. With that in mind, let's move along as quickly as we can, starting with the first basic question:

How many people will or may lose Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill?

How many people will lose coverage? There's no perfect way to know! 

We're dealing here with estimates and projections—with assessment which can never be perfectly accurate. But as a simple baseline, all the way back on June 24, the nonpartisan but allegedly Deep State-afflicted CBO had officially offered this:

Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in Title IV of H.R. 1

CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions in title IV of H.R. 1 would increase the number of people without health insurance by 7.8 million in 2034 relative to baseline projections under current law.

According to the CBO, 7.8 million people would be out of luck and lacking coverage as of 2034, "relative to baseline projections under current law."

Already, complexification was lurking in that formulation! At any rate, the Fox News Channel's Perino was working from that original number when she now stumblebummed this, operating in concert with the all-knowing Master Gutfeld:

GUTFELD (7/2/25): [The Democrats] are the human version of hysterical tweets...They say, "Oh my God, you're cutting Medicaid! You're throwing, you're throwing the poor and needy"—

No, no, no! These are young, able-bodied people, and illegals. You know, this isn't a free buffet for people who could afford to pay for it. So enough with that.

[...]

PERINO (7/2/25): Every time a Democrat goes on TV, they add two to three million more to how many people are going to lose their health care. It's 7.8 million people that would be required to do these work requirements, and it's illegal immigrants. It's 7.8.

Yesterday, it was up to 20 million, even though that's not true. It's like a game of telephone down there.

In distinction to co-hosts like Watters and Gutfeld (and Judge Jeanine), Perino has long been cast as the MAGA-affirming co-host who isn't out of her mind. 

On this day, she was going with the original number from the CBO, though she chose to soften the blow. She said that 7.8 million people would be required "to do these work requirements."

he didn't say that anyone would necessarily lose his coverage. Stating the obvious, that isn't what the CBO had said when it produced that number.

Perino was gilding the lily, something she's presumably paid to do. She also mocked the way the Democrats kept moving their basic numbers around, forgetting to mention the basic background about where those changing numbers had come from:

Senate vote: 20 million people could lose Medicaid benefits

[...]

Nationwide, between 12 million and 20 million people could lose Medicaid coverage under deep cuts to the health insurance program proposed by Senate Republicans, according to two estimates.

The first, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, calculates that the Senate version of the reconciliation bill would leave 11.8 million people uninsured by 2034. The second, by the Senate Joint Economic Committee Minority, estimates that about 20 million people could lose the coverage under the amended Senate bill.

[...]

The Senate included an amendment that would not only slash Medicaid writ large—as House Republicans wanted—but would also reduce the federal share of Medicaid spending for people enrolled through state-level expansions of the Affordable Care Act. The expansions made more people eligible for subsidized insurance.

This report from USA Today struck us as somewhat imprecise. That said, Perino had failed to mention the fact that the CBO had raised its number to 11.8 million due to changes in the GOP bill as it reached the Senate.

According to USA Today, the Senate bill was not the same as the original House bill.  As the proposed bill had changed, so had the CBO estimate, such as such estimates are.

The larger number—20 million, or something approaching 20 million—came from an entity called the Senate Joint Economic Committee Minority. If you want to see what that entity's report had actually said—if you want to see a pair of numbers from that group, and if you want to see where that pair of numbers had allegedly come from—you can just click here for that "updated analysis."

You can just click there and start to read! Once again, we think of a challenging part of the American discourse—the endless and ever-changing "complexification of everything."

The American discourse is routinely marked, but also marred, by the complexification of everything! In the hands of TV stars like Perino, the "cable news" shows on the Fox News Channel are driven in turn by the reduction of everything—by the reshaping of facts to fit within the parameters of what the co-hosts are told to say by the packet of sheets they receive from their producers.

It was within that framework that Perino—the co-host who isn't supposed to be crazy—ran with the official framework offered by the deeply peculiar Gutfeld. From there, it was off to the races, until Emily Compagno seemed to further the Gutfeld/Perino point concerning those confounded "illegals."

Like a Biblical profit crying out in the desert, the klatcher started with this:

COMPAGNO (7/2/25): Why can't Democrats celebrate a win? Why can't they join together to celebrate and propel a vehicle that really would lift all boats?

The bill was good for everyone, this confounded klatcher now said. Why wouldn't Democrats hail its greatness? The bill would lift all boats!

Why would Democrats oppose such a bill? As she continued, the klatcher said that the Democrats were just "stunting for their re-election purposes." 

As the day' four other co-hosts lounged about, no one asked why Republican solons like Tillis and Hawley had complained about the projected loss of Medicaid coverage right from the start of the game.

No one mentioned Senator Ernst. She hadn't said that no one was going to lose Medicaid coverage. Instead, she'd offered a thoughtful point:

What's the big deal? she'd thoughtfully said. We're all going to die in the end!

No one mentioned Tillis or Hawley or Ernst. In pseudo-discussions on this imitation "cable news" channel, inconvenient manifestations like those tend to be sent far away.

The Democrats had just been stunting, this last klatcher said. Tillis and Hawley and Collins and them simply didn't exist. 

But now, the klatcher turned to the question of Gutfeld's "illegals," though she used a less partisan term:

COMPAGNO: Hearing Democrats on their TikTok and saying these sort of slogans, you know—Sandy Ocasio saying it's a betrayal of working families...or worthless Governor Gavin talking about the Americans that will lose health care—why don't you back up to the two million illegal immigrants on health care in your state, which everyone pays for, which is why they're fleeing?

With that, the pseudo-discussion had returned to the matter of Gutfeld's "illegals." Perino had of course said the same thing—illegal immigrants were going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill.

Illegal immigrants were going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill? Now, Compagno almost seemed to be saying that up to the two million illegal immigrants were receiving Medicaid coverage thanks to "worthless Governor Gavin" out in her own home state.

For today, we're going to leave it right here. We hate to continue a theme into the weekend, but we'll do so again this week.

As we leave off for now, we'll offer a few tiny points:

What happens on the Fox News Channel doesn't stay on the Fox News Channel. It goes out all over the nation, directed at people in Red America who don't know that they are possibly being misled by a klatch of corporate hirelings.

In this case, the hirelings had seemed to say that no one would lose Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill—no one except some able-bodied slackers and apparently some unknown millions of "illegals."

Thanks to the First Amendment, Gutfeld and Perino don't constitute a separate type of "illegals." Under terms of the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what these hirelings do, even on the most-watched "cable news" channel within the rapidly failing American imitation of discourse.

The klatchers are allowed to do what they do. Also, entities like the New York Times are allowed to avert their gaze as this conduct continues.

This conduct doesn't take place in secret. It takes place right there on TV.

That said, David Brooks won't name their names or cite their claims. Neither will Nicholas Kristof.

Rachel Maddow doesn't do that; neither does Nicole Wallace. Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't do that even in these, his angriest days. A type of professional courtesy seems to obtain, though it runs only one way.

In Blue America as in Red, the kulturklatchers are given license to assemble their various constructs. The megabill will lift all boats, one puzzled klatcher now said.

Tomorrow: Medicaid coverage for "illegals?" We conduct a search.

THURSDAY: Only one question remains in this realm!

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2025

Who is President Trump: Last evening, Lawrence O'Donnell continued his weeks-long sacking of Rome. As we watched his program last night, we weren't quite sure that his attack on Peter Doocy necessarily made perfect sense.

Let's start at the beginning! Yesterday, Doocy asked President Trump a question. As you can see at Mediaite, the Q-and-A went like this:

DOOCY (7/10/25): James Comey and John Brennan now under criminal investigation related to the Trump Russia probe. Do you want to see these two guys behind bars?

TRUMP: Well, I know nothing about it other than what I read today, but I will tell you, I think they’re very dishonest people. I think they’re crooked as hell and maybe they have to pay a price for that. I believe they are truly bad people and dishonest people. So whatever happens, happens.

That was the exchange in question. After playing tape of the Q-and-A, O'Donnell lowered the boom:

O’DONNELL (7/10/25): What a babbling buffoon! And I mean the reporter this time, the Fox so-called reporter. 

"Do you want to see these two guys behind bars?" That reporter used to be by far the stupidest reporter in the White House press corps, but he has now been outdone by the dregs of Trump worshipping media that have been allowed to join the White House press corps.

So, if you work at Fox and your father got you the job because he’s the morning host there, and you enjoy all of the white male privilege that comes from your father being a morning host at Fox for many years, you then become the Fox White House correspondent who thinks, “Do you want to see these two guys behind bars?” is a good question for a president.

That incompetent buffoon probably has no idea that no president would ever, or has ever, answered a question like that prior to Donald Trump. If a real criminal investigation were actually involved here, and if a president did say he wants to see these two guys behind bars, they could never end up behind bars because they would be able to appeal any prosecution on the grounds of prejudicial presidential pre-trial publicity with the president of the United States trying to publicly convict them before trial.

Which is exactly why Richard Nixon immediately issued a corrective written statement after he once let slip into a microphone just for a second that he thought Charles Manson was guilty in the middle of Charles Manson’s criminal trial in which Charles Manson was eventually found guilty of multiple murders. Charles Manson tried to get a mistrial in the case by bringing a newspaper headline into the courtroom the next day saying, “Manson guilty, Nixon declares.”

If you are a thinly educated in the law or presidential history Fox guy, and your father gets you a job as a White House correspondents, you know none of that. And you brandish your stupidity every day with a kind of egotistical obliviousness that comes from the deep well of ignorance that you bring to your job every day at Fox and at the Trump White House.

O'Donnell has been like this for weeks. We're not sure that last night's attack on (Peter) Doocy necessarily made perfect sense.

O'Donnell's aim was certainly true when it comes to the history and to the historical norms. It's true! Presidents have (almost) always avoided making statements about matters like this, for the reasons O'Donnell cited.

That said: 

As Doocy certainly understands, President Trump is like no other president in modern American history. We'll guess that Doocy probably does know that no other president would have answered a question like that. But since President Trump almost surely would, we're not sure that Doocy shouldn't have asked.

Trump came close to answering Doocy's question. Let's face it—he basically did! That's a break with long tradition, but there's no part of being president which isn't, for better or perhaps for much worse, currently being reengineered by the sitting president.

We're not sure why Doocy shouldn't have asked. A more traditional and measured president would have refused to answer, as others have typically done.

At any rate, this incident helps illustrate a basic fact of contemporary American political life. There's only one question within that realm:

Who is Donald Trump? 

Who the heck is Donald Trump? Also, Why does President Trump do the unusual things he does?

Blue America's leading reporters and analysts have largely focused on a couple of answers to that question, starting with this:

Donald J. Trump is a liar! 

Also, He's in it every step of the way for no one but Donald J. Trump!

In this conventional portrait, President Trump is the person described by Bob Dylan way back in the earliest days:

That man who with his fingers cheats
Who lies with every breath

In this portrait, President Trump is a rational actor, but one who is relentlessly acting in his own narrow self-interest. It seems to us that the actual portrait might lead off in another direction—off in the direction of a certain type of delusional belief. 

The president's niece, Mary Trump, sketched the general outline of this portrait in her 2020 best-seller, Too Much and Never Enough. It's too late to do anything about it now, but we'll sketch that portrait in more detail in the days to come.

In our ultimate view, the people to speak to would be medical specialists. In Blue America, our journalists have almost universally agreed that they must never do any such thing—that they must never do that.

More on Doocy the elder: At any rate, O'Donnell went off on Peter Doocy last night. For the record, Doocy's father—Steve Doocy—is no longer one of the three co-hosts of the weekday Fox & Friends program.

Complaints had surfaced, post-election, that Doocy Sr. was perhaps a bit soft. After twenty-six years on the Fox & Friends couch, he's been replaced by the more reliably irate Lawrence Jones.

After twenty-six years on the sofa, he's been relegated to life on the road, where he now does human interest reports. Post-election, Fox has continued to toughen its fare, not that anyone in Blue America would ever notice or comment or care.

As for O'Donnell, he is extremely angry—but however understandable such anger may be, it may not always help. On Tuesday night, his weird criticism of CNN's Kaitlin Collins struck us as his biggest misfire yet.

O'Donnell has a lot of to offer. His anger may not always help.

AMERICAN DISCOURSE: It could be as many as twenty million?

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2025

"Not true," Perino said: When it comes to the American discourse, denizens of the two Americas are living in two different worlds. 

In part, that's due to the so-called "democratization of media"—to the invention and spread of talk radio, of cable news and Internet publishing in its various forms, moving from individual web sites on to the current podcasts.

The growth of these "new media" has created a world marked by an unfortunate bromide:

Every flyweight a king!

Every D-list comedian; every conventionally attractive person who doesn't know what he or she is stalking about; every corporate hireling working for very large pay from a partisan corporate employer:

Each of these players can now be master of his or her own domain! Some will offer intelligent discourse—but now and then, others will not.

Along with this democratization, we rapidly moved toward the practice known as "segregation by viewpoint." This returns us to what viewers in Red America heard last Wednesday afternoon on the "cable news" program, The Five.

Sad! As we noted yesterday, one of the players on this Fox News Channel didn't seem to know which program the talkers were talking about. That said, he did seem sure that a large amount of fraud must be present within that government program, whatever it actually was.

For the record, the talkers were talking about changes to the Medicaid program—changes which would or might result from the GOP megabill. Once again, it's important to show you what people in Red America were now being told about this important legislation:

GUTFELD (7/2/25): [The Democrats] are the human version of hysterical tweets...They say, "Oh my God, you're cutting Medicaid! You're throwing, you're throwing the poor and needy"—

No, no, no! These are young, able-bodied people, and illegals. You know, this isn't a free buffet for people who could afford to pay for it. So enough with that.

[...]

PERINO: So on the health car front, Joey—every time a Democrat goes on TV, they add two to three million more to how many people are going to lose their health care. It's 7.8 million people that would be required to do these work requirements, and it's illegal immigrants. 

Those hysterical Democrats! According to this program's Nine Million Dollar Man, they were saying that people who were poor and needy might lose their Medicaid coverage because of the megabill!

That was absurd, this furious fellow said. Dana Perino joined him in nailing down the mandated messaging points:

No one would lose their Medicaid coverage except able-bodied slackers! Those slackers would lose their Medicaid coverage, but so would "illegals"—illegal immigrants.

That's what Red American viewers were told during last Wednesday's session. As we noted yesterday, Emily Compagno eventually jumped in, suggesting that there were two million such "illegals" receiving Medicaid coverage in California alone.

Are illegal / undocumented / unauthorized immigrants able to receive Medicaid coverage at all? After earlier frustrating Google searches, we still weren't entirely sure of the answer to that question.

That said, Red America was once again being reassured about the larger question. No one was going to lose Medicaid coverage except a bunch of slackers, plus a bunch of illegal immigrants.

That's what Red America was told. Over here in Blue America, we Blues keep hearing something quite different! For example, a front-page report in this morning's New York times is now saying this:

Why 1.5 Million New Yorkers Could Lose Health Insurance Under Trump Bill

President Trump’s domestic policy law, which extends federal tax cuts and slashes the social safety net, is expected to have a seismic effect on health insurance and health care in New York, with more than one million people in the state losing benefits, experts say.

In one key respect, the law’s impact will be felt more keenly in New York than in any other state—and it has nothing to do with Medicaid.

[...]

In a memo to hospital executives, Kenneth Raske, the president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, described the bill as “the most destructive health care cuts in American history.”

“There is no candy-coating the bill’s impact on New York,” Mr. Raske wrote.

Changes in Medicaid, such as new work requirements, will lead to more than one million people in New York losing health insurance during the next decade, according to estimates by the New York State Department of Health. 

As always, complexification is hard. But according to the estimate cited in this report, "more than one million people in New York [State]" will "lose [their] health insurance during the next decade" due to "changes in Medicaid" alone.

According to that estimate, a second wrinkle in the bill means that even more people in the state will be losing their health insurance. But in the Empire State alone, more than a million people will be losing their Medicaid coverage—or at least, so we Blues are now told.

(Are those more than a million people able-bodied slackers and a bunch of "illegals?" This news report in the New York Times doesn't address any such question.)

According to Gutfeld and Perino, no one will lose Medicaid coverage except for a bunch of slackers and an additional bunch of illegals. (For the record, Perino said that 7.8 million recipients would be exposed to work requirements. She didn't say that any such number would actually lose their coverage.)

This messaging was reassuring to their clients in Red America. But all along the road to passage, those of us in Blue America had been exposed to assessments which were vastly different. 

At one point in last Wednesday's program, Perino mocked the way those hysterical Democrats had been bumping their numbers up. At this point, we take a moment to explore the nature of Perino's casting on this particular program: 

Perino has long been assigned a specialized role on The Five.  She's long been expected to convey the impression that, unlike Gutfeld and Watters and Judge Jeanine, at least one of the program's four pro-MAGA co-hosts wasn't completely insane.  

Last Wednesday, she was mocking the hysterical Democrats with a bit of gay abandon. Here's a fuller record of what she said as she threw to the clueless but supportive Johnny Joey Jones:

PERINO: Every time a Democrat goes on TV, they add two to three million more to how many people are going to lose their health care. It's 7.8 million people that would be required to do these work requirements, and it's illegal immigrants. It's 7.8.

Yesterday, it was up to 20 million, even though that's not true. It's like a game of telephone down there.

Jones quickly began describing the rampant Social Security fraud among the people in Dalton, Georgia—among the people he loves. As he continued, he seemed to think that the talkers were discussing changes to the Medicare program.

In that belief he was mistaken—but as the old saying goes, it was close enough for "cable news" work! As for Perino, she seemed to be reading from her talking-point sheets as she mocked the way the Democrats kept pushing the numbers up—and as she said the latest number simply isn't true.

By now, it wasn't clear what that latest number even referred to. But this slightly jumbled report in USA Today had at least explained where that new number had come from:

Senate vote: 20 million people could lose Medicaid benefits

[...]

Nationwide, between 12 million and 20 million people could lose Medicaid coverage under deep cuts to the health insurance program proposed by Senate Republicans, according to two estimates.

The first, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, calculates that the Senate version of the reconciliation bill would leave 11.8 million people uninsured by 2034. The second, by the Senate Joint Economic Committee Minority, estimates that about 20 million people could lose the coverage under the amended Senate bill.

[...]

The Senate included an amendment that would not only slash Medicaid writ large—as House Republicans wanted—but would also reduce the federal share of Medicaid spending for people enrolled through state-level expansions of the Affordable Care Act. The expansions made more people eligible for subsidized insurance.

It sounded like the number may have jumped to 20 million because of the changes in the Senate bill. Perino contented herself with telling Fox viewers that the laughable new number simply wasn't true.

So it went—so it has gone—as people in Red and Blue America increasingly live in two different worlds. About this and about almost everything else, Blue Americans hear one thing. Red Americans hear something quite different.

Meanwhile, how is an American citizen supposed to know what's actually (most likely) true? Alas! In large part due to the complexification of everything, it can be extremely hard to complete a satisfactory search for the truth.

Tomorrow, we'll return to what Compagno said at the end of last week's pseudo-discussion. After that, we'll take you through the search we ourselves conducted about California's "illegals."

Every stumblebum a king! Simply put, it's the way our clownlike American discourse is constructed now!

Tomorrow: What is truth?

WEDNESDAY: The president keeps pouring it on!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2025

Delusional, dangerous conduct: Yesterday, we returned late in the day from our all-day medical outing. We hadn't had the chance to review President Trump's entire press event when we offered this report.

Yesterday's cabinet meeting / press event was truly one for the ages. Eventually, we came upon an additional report in Mediaite about one of the many peculiar things President Trump had said.

Headline included, Ahmed Austin Jr.'s report starts as shown below. In our view, Austin is reporting some delusional, highly dangerous behavior on the part of President Trump:

‘I Like to Watch the Enemy’: Trump Drops Wild Attack On CNN Reporter During Cabinet Meeting

President Donald Trump on Tuesday used his cabinet meeting to launch into another attack on CNN for its reporting on the strikes in Iran.

Following the U.S. military’s strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities in June, CNN reported that early intelligence indicated that the damage was not total. Sources also told CNN that the strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months. The goal of the mission was to wipe out the program entirely.

Since then, there have been conflicting reports on the severity of the attacks. The Trump administration has insisted that Iran’s nuclear program was destroyed, but after a briefing with top Trump cabinet officials, multiple members of Congress walked away with the belief that the damage was indeed minimal.

As all of this went on, Trump continued going after CNN—threatening to sue both CNN and the New York Times. He primarily took aim at [NAME WITHHELD], one of the reporters behind the initial story.

Yesterday, the president continued to assail that CNN reporter. In the wake of the Minnesota murders, it's amazing to see a sitting president continue to behave in such a reckless and dangerous way.

(For Rev's full transcript of the cabinet meeting / press event, you can just click here. Thank God for the invaluable Rev!)

In the passage from the Mediaite report, we've omitted the reporter's name. Here's some of what the sitting president said during yesterday's event. In the interest of cogency, we're omitting one misleading statement:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (7/8/25): [The attack on Iran] was a perfect military performance...I mean, those machines flew for 37 straight hours. They didn't stop. They went skedaddle. 

You know the word skedaddle? That means skedaddle. They dropped the bombs and somebody said, "Skedaddle, let's get the hell out of here." And every bomb hit its mark and hit it incredibly....

We had a lot of fake reporting. mostly from CNN, where the scammer writer, a writer for CNN—who should be fired, by the way. She was involved with the 51 fake intelligence agents, if you remember that. She did that story, created a story out of it. She created a story out of the “laptop from hell,” saying it came from Russia, but it actually came from Hunter Biden’s bedroom or worse.

Just a scammer and she’s still at CNN, which is pretty amazing—but we’ll ask you a question about her. But they came up with this concept that maybe the attack wasn’t that good. And I saw it happen right after the attack. I saw this person on CNN. I actually watch. I like to watch the enemy. You learn from the enemy. And I watch because you have to know where they’re coming from. 

The president went on from there. We're going to stop with his incredible statement that the CNN reporter is, and we quote, "the enemy."

Minnesota was only a few weeks ago, Already, we're back to that.

For the record, there was nothing wrong with the CNN journalist's report about the DIA's initial assessment of the bombing strike on Iran. Also, there was nothing wrong with her report for Politicoway back in October 2020, about the 51 intelligence agents who had signed a letter stating their tentative view about the Hunter Biden laptop.

In each instance, the CNN journalist was simply reporting an actual set of actual facts which had actually happened in the real world. The president continues to rant about these reports in a delusional, dangerous manner.

Is President Trump "lying" when he insists on angrily repeating his various bollixed tales? We know of no way to be certain.

As an alternative, is it possible that he actually is "delusional" in some diagnosable way? We don't know how to evaluate that possibility, but when delusional people believe crazy things, in theory they aren't "lying." Tragically, such people are stating a delusional, crazy belief. 

Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell continued to assail the president as "the stupidest president in American history," largely with reference to the president's endless misstatements about the way tariffs work.

It's always possible that O'Donnell's assertion is accurate. On the other hand, O'Donnell also refers to the president's statements as "lies."

Alas! The L-bomb implies that the president knows his statements are false. The S-bomb may seem to imply that he's so dumb that he may think his statements are actually true. 

Is something wrong with President Trump? In our view, O'Donnell's anger tends to keep him from making well-reasoned assessments.

For ourselves, we can't help wondering what a (carefully selected) medical specialist might say about this president's endless supply of ridiculous, repetitive statements—statements which are tied to his endless sense of persecution and to his endless supply of self-pity.

That said, the president's savaging of the CNN reporter is a deeply dangerous act. Yesterday, he actually called her "the enemy"—astoundingly, even that!

Minnesota was only a few weeks ago. That quickly, we're now back to that.

This is deeply disordered behavior. In our view, O'Donnell's simmering anger has him over his skis, and no one else seems to want to discuss the president's astonishing conduct.

AMERICAN DISCOURSE: When the last of the co-hosts finally spoke...

WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2025

...she focused on Cali's "illegals:" Discourse, don't fail us now!

In the face of such pleas, the Fox News Channel had ordered up a special edition of its "cable news" program, The Five.

The Five is the most-watched show in "cable news." For better or worse, its viewership dwarfs that of any show on MSNBC or on CNN.

On it best days, The Five acquires its frisson from the way its panel is constructed, with four (4) MAGA adherents arrayed against one (1) nominal Democrat. On most days, the Democratic slot is filled by Harold Ford, a former congressman, or by Jessica Tarlov, a substantially feistier "American political strategist."

Especially since last November, Ford has sometimes seemed to be more pro-Trump than his four supposed MAGA-friendly antagonists. The frisson arrives when Tarlov starts injecting a relevant point into some pseudo-discussion, triggering an array of interruptions from her four pro-Trump co-hosts.

In these latter days of what was once the American discourse, four against one is where the Fox News Channel's original dream of "fair and balanced" seems to have drifted. But as we noted in Monday's report, last Wednesday was a special day, with no Democrat present:

The Five: Wednesday, July 2, 2025
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered
Lawrence Jones: co-host, Fox & Friends
Johnny Joey Jones: Fox News contributor
Dana Perino: regular co-host, The Five
Greg Gutfeld: regular co-host, The Five

That's the way The Mudville Five ran out on the field that day. 

On loan from God and from Fox & Friends, reliable blowhard Lawrence Jones was stationed in the "liberal" chair on this unusual day. When the gang began pretending to discuss the pending GOP megabill, their discussion of Medicaid coverage started off like this:

GUTFELD (7/2/25): [The Democrats] are the human version of hysterical tweets...They say, "Oh my God, you're cutting Medicaid! You're throwing, you're throwing the poor and needy"—

No, no, no! These are young, able-bodied people, and illegals. You know, this isn't a free buffet for people who could afford to pay for it. So enough with that.

[...]

PERINO: So on the health car front, Joey—every time a Democrat goes on TV, they add two to three million more to how many people are going to lose their health care. It's 7.8 million people that would be required to do these work requirements, and it's illegal immigrants. 

Perino had started the pseudo-discussion with mocking remarks about the way the bill was being critiqued by Dems. It then came time for Gutfeld to swear that no one would lose their Medicaid coverage except for able-bodied fraudsters—and illegal immigrants.

In the type of embarrassment not unknown to this program, Johnny Joey Jones seemed to think that the group was discussing coverage under the Medicare program. That said, he too seemed to agree: 

No one was going to lose his coverage under whatever program was being discussed unless the person in question was unable to prove that he or she deserved it.

Tarlov wasn't there to djspute this claim, triggering a bout of interruption and overtalking. Eventually, it came time for Emily Compagno to speak.

Compagno is the speed-talking co-host of the mid-day Outnumbered program. On The Five, Fox may be auditioning Compagno for the newly abandoned Judge Jeanine Pirro chair. 

No one will ever fill Judge Jeanine's shoes, but Compagno now started to speak. After more happy talk from Perino, Compagno started like this:

PERINO: Once you havet this bill, and people have the confidence that their taxes aren't going to go up. maybe that fuels some economic growth.

COMPAGNO: And this goes to show that— Why can't Democrats celebrate a win? Why can't they join together to celebrate and propel a vehicle that really would lift all boats?

According to the puzzled Compagno, the megabill was a vehicle which would lift all boats! Except for what you  see below, she seemed to have no idea why Dems might oppose such a bill:

COMPAGNO (continuing directly): And I hope that for all of them stunting for their re-election purposes, and clearly just to their echo chamber constituents, that they would remember what would happen if this didn't pass.

Why were Democrats opposing the bill? According to Compagno, they were just "stunting" their constituents off in the echo chamber.

She seemed to know of no other possible reason. On the merits, Compagno said the megabill was going to be a win for everyone!

So it goes on this program's pseudo-discussions each day at 5 p.m. Eventually, Compagno turned to the question of health care coverage, presumably under Medicaid.

She discussed her native California. We were struck by what she said:

COMPAGNO: Hearing Democrats on their TikTok and saying these sort of slogans, you know—Sandy Ocasio saying it's a betrayal of working families...or worthless Governor Gavin talking about the Americans that will lose health care—why don't you back up to the two million illegal immigrants on health care in your state, which everyone pays for, which is why they're fleeing?

[...]

I wish that there was thought behind it. I wish that they were actually human for a second, because they go— They show that anything that Trump eclipses any type of analysis that would actually help their constituents.

For the record, "Sandy" is the name they drop on Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a means of diminishment. Then too, she spoke about "Governor Gavin."

In the larger sense, Compagno wished that Democrats were willing to be human. The bill would actually help their constituents, but they were refusing to get on board because the bill, which would lift all boats, had come from President Trump.

Compagno seemed to know of no possible serious reason for opposition to this bill. Upon what meat doth Red America feed? Whatever you think of the megabill, day after day after day after day, Red America feeds upon this type of messaging gruel!

That said, we were struck by what Compagno said about her native California. The panel had seemed to be discussing the bill's possible effect upon Medicaid coverage. Is it true, we wondered, that two million illegal immigrants are currently receiving Medicaid coverage in the Golden State?

Indeed, is it legal for any illegal / undocumented / unauthorized immigrant to receive Medicaid coverage? We'd tried to google that topic before, and we'd found it wasn't easy.

Fellow citizens, how about it? Can an "illegal immigrant" receive Medicaid coverage? Can several million such people be found in California alone?

As of last Wednesday, we still didn't know the answer to those questions. Tomorrow, as the discourse continues to die all around us, we'll show you what happened when we tried to find out.

"Illegals" will lose their Medicaid coverage, Gutfeld seemed to say. Everyone else seemed to agree—and Compagno delivered the final blow.

We've shown you what the savants said. Ladies and gentlemen, riddle us this:

Do you—indeed, does anyone else—know what's actually true?

Tomorrow: The complexification rules