THE PLAYERS: She should be thrown out like a dog!

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2025

The remains of an earlier age: The Remains of the Day started out as an acclaimed 1989 novel. After that, it was turned into an acclaimed 1993 feature film. 

We'll do a quick drive-by tomorrow. For today, we'll say this:

At one time, not long ago, yesterday's report in Mediaite might have seemed like an Onion parody.

That said, a parody of what? The conduct described in the report would have been extremely hard to imagine. 

Even viewed as some sort of parody, the report would have been hard to process. Headline included, the report started off like this:

‘FIRE NATASHA!’ Trump Launches Scathing Attack on CNN Reporter, Demands She Be ‘Thrown Out Like a Dog’

President Donald Trump demanded that CNN fire Natasha Bertrand, the reporter responsible for a story about how a preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment suggested the American attack on three Iranian facilities did not destroy the country’s nuclear program, in a fiery Truth Social post demanding that she be “thrown out ‘like a dog'” on Wednesday.

There he'd gone again! The sitting president had told the world that CNN should fire one of its reporters. 

She should be "thrown out," the president had said. More precisely, he had said that Natasha Bertrand should be thrown out "like a dog:"

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out “like a dog.” She lied on the Laptop from Hell Story, and now she lied on the Nuclear Sites Story, attempting to destroy our Patriot Pilots by making them look bad when, in fact, they did a GREAT job and hit “pay dirt”—TOTAL OBLITERATION! She should not be allowed to work at Fake News CNN. It’s people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network. Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn’t have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!

Is something wrong with this freaking guy? Of one thing we can all be certain:

As we'll show you below, Blue America's major news orgs will never be willing to ask that question. CNN included, they'll never be willing to go there!

Below, we'll reinforce that point. For now, let's simply say this:

That report in Mediaite wasn't a parody by the Onion, and it was perfectly accurate. The president had actually said those things, in one of his three million recent Truth Social posts.

There was a time, not long ago, when that report in Mediaite would have been impossible to believe. There would have been no way to imagine that a sitting president would have behaved that way.

That was then, but this is now—and, for better or worse, this is now routine behavior from the sitting president. 

To his credit, he didn't say that Bertrand is "scum," or even that she's "a sick person." On at least this one occasion, he left those bombs undropped.

That said, is something wrong with President Trump? If the answer is yes, we regard that as a human tragedy, and we'll recommend that you should follow suit.

Is something wrong with President Trump? We thought it might be worth taking a look at the CNN report which had the president incensed—at the report which carried Bertrand's name, along with the names of two other reporters.

This was the report from CNN—the report which launched our failing nation's latest pseudo-discussion. The report strikes us as fair and nuanced. As you can see, this is the way it started:

Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say

By Natasha Bertrand, Katie Bo Lillis and Zachary Cohen, CNN

The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.

The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.

The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available. But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also said on Sunday that Iran’s nuclear ambitions “have been obliterated.”

Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.” Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes.

“So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” this person added.

The White House acknowledged the existence of the assessment but said they disagreed with it.

That's the way it started.

As you can see, Bertrand was listed as one of three (3) reporters. The president decided that she was the one who should be thrown out like a dog, though he didn't say that she's scum.

As for the report itself, we can't see what's supposed to be wrong with the work by The CNN 3.  We say that for these reasons:

As early as paragraph 3, the reporters explicitly noted that the assessment in question "could change as more intelligence becomes available." They quickly noted that the White House (said it) disagreed with the assessment offered in the DIA's report.

For the record, CNN hadn't seen the report itself. They said they were relying on the kindness of (seven) strangers as they described its contents. 

CNN could have noted that fact more explicitly. We'd call that a minor offense.

On the whole, the repot strikes us as journalistically competent but also as fundamentally fair. Along came a major official who may be a bit less balanced in his rage-filled reactions.

In his post, the president repeated the absurd claim that CNN's report constituted an attack on the American pilots who carried out last weekend's strike. At one point not long ago, it would have been hard to imagine a sitting president repeatedly making a remark so transparently dumb

Dumb as it was, the president said it again! He then moved on to his main idea—one of the three reporters should be fired "like a dog."

Is something wrong with President Trump? If so, we regard that as a human tragedy—but of one thing you can be certain:

For better or worse, Blue America's upper-end press will never be willing to center that fairly obvious question. This very morning, the New York Times has once again established that point.

We refer to the profile by Tyler Pager which appears in today's print editions. Headline included, the profile starts like this:

Online and IRL, Trump Offers a Window Into His Psyche

Over the course of three hours on Tuesday, President Trump scolded Israel and Iran with expletive-laced comments on the South Lawn of the White House. He told reporters he had just chastised the prime minister of Israel, and he shared a screenshot of a private text from the NATO secretary general on social media.

Most presidents deal with international crises in private—at most, they might release a carefully crafted statement.

That has never been Mr. Trump’s style. With this president, the entire world gets a view into his thoughts, gripes and whims in ways that are often reminiscent of a chronically online millennial. His posts come at all hours of the day and night—many self-congratulatory, some trivial, some angry—and his in-real-life appearances can sometimes echo his online persona.

All are windows into his psyche, a trove of insight into the intentions, moods and vulnerabilities of the commander in chief.

Pager started with a daring claim. The president's endless social media posts offer a window "into his psyche."

But as his report proceeds, Pager operates as sanitizer in chief, perhaps at the direction of his editors. He restricted himself to social media posts, moving beyond the furious behavior which often emerges in the president's public actions.

The president recent angry F-bomb was mentioned only in a sanitized way. The endless name-calling of the past few days went unmentioned altogether.

Is something wrong with the president—something signaled by his apparent rage and his apparently erratic behavior? Could something perhaps be wrong "with his psyche," as Pager seems to ask?

This morning, the New York Times pretends to ask even as it refuses to do so. The president's conduct is routinely normalized, but in this morning's pseudo-profile it's largely disappeared. 

There was a time when that report in Mediaite would have been hard to imagine. As Americans, we're left with the remains of an earlier day when the president keeps going off—and when Blue America's major orgs insist on averting their gaze.

Last Saturday's attack? It's all over but the shouting! The discourse has been upended again. The major players remain. 

Tomorrow: What the spokeswoman said