WEDNESDAY: What does the state of Texas want?

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2025

What does California already have? Just for the record, our personal preference would be these:

Our personal druthers:
We would prefer that every state conduct its congressional redistricting every ten years, and only then, based on the new census data.

We would prefer that every state try to create congressional districts which are as geographically compact as possible, with reasonable respect being paid to city and county lines.

Those are the practices we would prefer. That said, those practices aren't required by law, which brings us to the current war which is breaking out between Texas and California.

Let's consider what Texas Republicans are hoping to get:

Texas is often described as a deep red state. That said, we'd score it as only 56% Republican and 44% Democratic, based on results from last year's presidential and congressional elections (including its Senate race).

In last year's elections, Republicans were roughly 56% of the two-party vote in Texas. That said, here's the way the Texas congressional delegation stacks up at this point:

Texas congressional delegation, at present:
Republicans: 25
Democrats: 13

With 56 or maybe 57% of the two-party vote, Texas Republicans hold 65.8% of the state's congressional seats. President Trump says they deserve to hold more of those seats. This is the breakdown they're seeking:

Texas congressional delegation, after proposed redistricting:
Republicans: 30
Democrats: 8

That would take Texas Republicans all the way up to 78.9% of the congressional seats, based on only 56% of the two party-vote!

Based on that stated intention, Governor Newsome is threatening to fight back. He says that two can play that game—but judging by the basic data, it can almost start to look like California already has!

For the record, this:

Based on last year's elections (presidential, Senate and House) we'd say that Democrats represent roughly 59% of California's two-party vote. In that sense, California is (very slightly) bluer than Texas is red.

California is bluer than Texas is red, but just by a small amount. That said, here's the current breakdown of California's House delegation:

California congressional delegation, at present:
Democrats: 43
Republicans: 9

At present, California Democrats hold 82.7% of the state's congressional seats, even before any sudden redistricting! In California, Democrats already hold a larger percentage of seats than Republicans hope to acquire by redistricting down in Texas.

As everyone knows, California's current districts were created by what is described as a nonpartisan commission. Indeed, there may well have been zero attempts at gerrymandering in the creation of the current districts. All we're saying is this:

As the latest civil war starts, it might be worth becoming familiar with the numbers in these two states as those numbers already exist.

According to Governor Newsome, Cali may decide to gerrymander now too. We're not saying that they should; we aren't saying they shouldn't. But here's the new partisan breakdown California's Democrats would reportedly be hoping to attain:

California congressional delegation, after possible redistricting:
Democrats: 48
Republicans: 4

("It could result in as many as five new blue seats and Democrats holding all but four of California’s 52 congressional districts, according to a slide presented to members of Congress and viewed by POLITICO." Click here.)

Are those the numbers the California Democrats might seek? If so, they would then control 92.3% of the state's delegation, with Texas Republicans dreaming of the chance to control a percentage which would be substantially smaller.

Again, we're not saying what's right and what's wrong. We're just presenting the numbers.

As a final point, this:

Imagine a state whose electorate is 60% Party A and 40% Party B. There's nothing in American tradition or law which says that forty percent of that state's congressional seats should be held by Party B. Something like that might seem to be fair, but there's no such law or practice. 

In fact, consider this:

If, by some magical process, the population of that state was evenly distributed all over the state, you could imagine that every district, no matter how scrupulously drawn, would end up with 60% Party A and 40% Party B.

Party A would win every seat! This is the planet we've chosen.

STRANGERS: When Suzanne Scott pried the lid off the can...

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2025

...this collection of strangers emerged: Among the cognoscenti, the anti-journalistic movement in question has come to be known by a striking name:

The Revolt of the D-Minus Students

Next week, we expect to explore that revolt in more detail. For today, we'll start with the obvious:

The Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld is one of the major priests of this destructive, extremely dumb movement.

As we briefly noted in last Friday's report, Gutfeld had always seemed to be just a little bit "off." But when the Fox News Channel decided to make him an integral part of this nation's "cable news" structure, a bit of oddness was transformed into genuine cultural madness.

In Monday's report, we showed you what this "unrecognizable" said and did on his prime time "cable news" program on Thursday, July 24. Our question:

Has anyone ever appeared on an American news broadcast and made a dumber presentation? Also, has anyone ever been more coarse, and more profane, than this strange person was as he dumbed this large nation down?

Has anyone ever been dumber than that? Has anyone been more openly misogynistic, if that term has any meaning? (We all get to decide whether it does,)

We're forced to suppose that the answer is no—that no one has ever been dumber. Spewing ad hominem insults as he went, the fellow attempted to support Tulsi Gabbard's latest fugue—her claim that President Obama engaged in treason—by directing ridicule at the many journalists who have done these things:

Targets of Gutfeld's derision
1) Journalists who claimed that the Russians "hacked the 2016 election."
2) Journalists who discussed Konstantin Kilimnik's role in that election.

Spewing insults as he went, Suzanne's child told millions of viewers that the RUSSIA COLLUSION HOAX was built upon those laughable pillars. Along the way, as he spouted and fumed, he forgot to mention this:

Everyone on the face of the earth agrees that the Russians actually did "hack the 2016 election." Everyone understands that basic fact—everyone except the millions of people who get propagandized by this "prankster" on a daily and nightly basis.

Everyone had long agreed—the Russians actually did "hack the 2016 election." Also, the following passage from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee's report might start to explain why someone like Rachel Maddow had been discussing the aforementioned Kilimnik on her own cable news show:

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, UNITED STATES SENATE
VOLUME 5: COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES 

[...]

[Trump campaign chairman Paul] Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond. 

[...]

The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat. 

There was much more about Kilimnik in that report. We're just offering the basic lay of the land.

Every Republican senator agreed with the findings of that lengthy, high-profile report. That includes the finding that Kilimnik "was a Russian intelligence agent" whose association with Paul Manfort, Candidate Trump's campaign chairman, had created "a grave counterintelligence threat."

Every committee member from each of the two major parties signed on to those basic assessments. Years later, the aforementioned Gutfeld ridiculed Maddow for having discussed "this guy," directing his trademark personal insults at Maddow as he went.

"It's hard to believe that this was taken seriously," this manifest idiot said. Concerning the journalists who cited the fact that the Russians hacked that election—a fact that everyone on the plane agrees on—Gutfeld voiced one of his angry assessments:

The press corps "swallowed it like a dick!" As we showed you on Monday, that's what this strange person said.

On Thursday evening, July 24, starting at 10 p.m.—7 p.m. out on the coast—that's the way this very strange person staged the latest episode in his long-running "cable news" series, The Revolt of the D-Minus Students.

Fellow citizens, please! On this enchanted Thursday evening, Gutfeld was functioning as a disinformation machine. It's hard to believe that anyone has ever made a dumber or coarser presentation in the history of American broadcast news. But that's what Gutfeld said and did that night, as the better people in Blue America all agreed to avert their gaze.

In fairness to Master Gutfeld, this is the "cable news" product that Suzanne Scott wants. Also, there's strength in numbers: 

As this harmless prankster spewed his insults and spread his astounding disinformation, he was surrounded by this gang of stooges whose names we'll say again:

We've managed to say their names before. They were eager to cheer their flyweight potentate on:

Gutfeld!: Thursday, July 24, 2025
Joe Germanotta: restaurant owner
Kennedy: former VJ
Guy Benson: Fox News contributor
Michael Loftus: comedian

It may not have been the perfect group to assess the topic under review, but they were eager to cheer their flyweight potentate on.

There they sat—the panel! They waited politely as their host rattled on, politely awaiting their chance to support his crackpot presentation. 

When Suzanne Scott pried the lid off the garbage can that night, those enablers slithered out. If anything, their performances were even more appalling than Gutfeld's performance had been. 

They made the debacle that much worse. Just to refresh you, Gutfeld's braindead monologue had angrily ended like this:

GUTFELD (7/24/25):  The New York Times and Washington Post won Pulitzers for spreading the hoax. It's like Lia Thomas being named female athlete of the year just because she could fill her urine sample cup from four feet away.

So today the media is like a junkie that made your life hell for ten years, and now suddenly they claim it is all behind them...So should you forget the hell that they put you through? No, we can't let this go. They need to make serious amends because we're still living with the aftermath...There needs to be consequences... 

There needs to be scalps.

There must be scalps, this stranger said.  At that point, the stooges took over.

After yesterday's medical layoff, we wanted to refresh you today. We think we've accomplished that task. Tomorrow, we'll show you what this collection of stooges said and did when they finally got the chance to earn their checks from the Fox News Channel. 

What happened this night on this "cable new" show was an assault on the possibility of maintaining something like an American nation. As that possibility was undermined, the finer people in Blue America all agreed on one key point:

They mustn't speak up or complain.

Everybody I met seemed to be a rank stranger? That's what the famous old song sadly says

The Library of Congress has honored that song. Tomorrow, four strangers will speak.

Tomorrow: "I found they were all rank strangers to me..."

TUESDAY: Welker went from "rigged" to "wrong!"

TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2025

Normalization forever: We said we were going to do it, and so, by gosh, we will. 

Our observation involves the questions Kristen Welker asked—and the type of question she abandoned—on Sunday's Meet the Press.

Welker was stuck with the task of interviewing Kevin Hassett, Director of the White House National Economic Council under President Trump. She was asking him about the president's latest remarkable bit of behavior—the accusation he had directed at Erika McEntarfer, the highly regarded former Director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

On Friday, the BLS had issued a jobs report the president didn't like. Within hours, he had launched a Truth Social post, saying the numbers were "RIGGED:"

Truth Details

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad—Just like when they had three great days around the 2024 Presidential Election, and then, those numbers were “taken away” on November 15, 2024, right after the Election, when the Jobs Numbers were massively revised DOWNWARD, making a correction of over 818,000 Jobs—A TOTAL SCAM. Jerome “Too Late” Powell is no better! But, the good news is, our Country is doing GREAT!

It functions now like a law of physics. Any time a fact turns up which isn't the fact the president wants, the fact is denounced as a bit of fake news—a bit of fake news which has been RIGGED in order to make him look bad.

Not just RIGGED, but a TOTAL SCAM!

Later that day, as he spoke with the press, he announced that he had fired McEntarfer, accusing her of being the one who had done the RIGGING. In that Truth Social post, and then when he spoke with the press, he included wildly inaccurate claims about the earlier (imagined) rigging of BLS data in the run-up to the November 2024 presidential election.

Those factual claims were flagrantly wrong—but so what? The president just kept repeating the claims as he assailed McEntarfer's reputation and character.

Is something wrong with President Trump? If so, it's a human tragedy—but it would also be a dangerous situation.

We've asked that question many times, noting that the mainstream press corps has sworn a blood oath to avoid that question. 

Our big news orgs have never been willing to center that fairly obvious question as a basic framework for reporting and news analysis. Nor will they speak with medical specialists who may have experience with this oarticular kind of disordered behavior. 

In this case, this extremely peculiar man had directed an extremely serious charge at a life-long public servant. Needless to say, he had offered no evidence in support of his claim—and the claims he made about last November were just clownishly wrong. 

Judged by traditional norm, there's no excuse for behavior like that. As she fought off Hassett's filibusters, Welker started her interview by asking a pair of appropriate questions:

WELKER (8/3/25): Let's start with President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, who he accused of manipulating job numbers. 

Mr. Hassett, what evidence does the administration have that she manipulated the jobs numbers?

HASSETT: [Filibuster]

WELKER: But just to be very clear, do you have— Does the administration have any evidence that it was “rigged,” as the president said? And will you be presenting that to the American public?

Those were Welker's first two questions as Hassett played "Beat the Clock." As part of an opening parry, that second question had landed quite close to the mark.

That said, Hassett continued to filibuster, and Welker seemed to lose her focus, or possibly just her nerve. In our view, she slowly gave ground as Hassett kept avoiding the subject at hand.

Ever so slowly she turned. At the end of about a half dozen questions, here's where she ended up:

WELKER: But bottom line, were the numbers wrong? Do you have any hard evidence that you can present to the American public that these numbers, these revisions that were reported--and there were plenty of revisions under former President Biden including right before the election. 

Do you have any hard evidence that these numbers were wrong?

Were the numbers wrong? That's a relevant question too—almost surely, the answer is yes—but along the way, she had somehow abandoned the path on which she had started.

Why on earth would a sitting president make an accusation like that? It would have been possible to ask Hassett something like this as the endless back-and-forth neared its end:

Director Hassett, the president made a remarkable claim about a well-regarded public official. As far as you know, does the president have any evidence whatsoever with which he can support his claim?

Welker is an appealing person. Frequently, it seems to us that she doesn't much like to stand her ground.

However you choose to explain it, this president's inappropriate behavior just keeps getting normalized. In our view, Welker started with an approximation of the right question, then slowly began to slide.

BREAKING: Just another melancholy Monday!

TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2025

Arriving one day late: As we head off for our every-fourth-week medical Tuesday, we leave you with the melancholy pervading Thomas Friedman's new column for the New York Times.

We agree with the overall tone of the piece. The column starts as shown:

The America We Knew Is Rapidly Slipping Away

Of all the terrible things Donald Trump has said and done as president, the most dangerous one just happened on Friday. Trump, in effect, ordered our trusted and independent government office of economic statistics to become as big a liar as he is.

He fired Erika McEntarfer, the Senate-confirmed head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for bringing him economic news he did not like, and in the hours immediately following, the second most dangerous thing happened: The senior Trump officials most responsible for running our economy—people who in their private businesses never would have contemplated firing a subordinate who brought them financial data they did not like—all went along for the ride.

Rather than saying to Trump: Mr. President, if you don’t reconsider this decision—if you fire the top labor bureau statistician because she brought you bad economic new—how will anyone in the future trust that office when it issues good news”—they immediately covered for him.

And so on from there.

The America we knew—such as it was—is rapidly slipping away? We agree with the overall sentiment. We wouldn't necessarily agree that the firing of the BLS head was the most dangerous action yet.

The American system, such as it was, may already have been dispatched. At present we're exploring the insanity peddled ech night on the Fox News Channel, but a great deal of the story of our apparent American failure involves the unwise behaviors of various elements of our own Blue American tribe.

We may be posting again late this afternoon. Tomorrow, we'll return to the June 24 Gutfeld! debacle, to show you what the host's designated stooges had to say about the crazy monologue he had dumped on Red America that night.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. Have we failed to come up with the secret?

Apocalypse and/or Metamorphosis

[...]

I sometimes think I see that societies originate in the discovery of some secret, some mystery; and expand with the progressive publication of their secret; and end in exhaustion when there is no longer any secret, when the mystery has been divulged, that is to say profaned...

And so there comes a time—I believe we are in such a time—when civilization has to be renewed by the discovery of some new mysteries, by the undemocratic but sovereign power of the imagination, by the undemocratic power which makes poets the unacknowledged legislators of all mankind, the power which makes all things new.

The power which makes all things new is magic. What our time needs is mystery: what our time needs is magic. Who would not say that only a miracle can save us?

Who would not say that only a miracle can save us!

Once again, that was Professor Norman O. Brown, in this Phi beta Kappa address from May 1960, at a time when he was very hot.

We don't know what he meant by the various things he said that day. But all the way back in 1960, he seemed to say that our civilization, such as it was, was on the verge of "ending in exhaustion."

He said we needed to find a new secret. It seems to us that the allotted time may have run on that quest.

We may post again this afternoon. Tomorrow, we'll take a look at the kinds of people they put on the air at the Fox News Channel as every tribune in Blue America makes a point of looking away.

Professor Brown was still hopeful that day. Friedman, not so much.

MONDAY: Heartbroken brocaster taking it hard!

MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2025

"Democratization" in action: At present, the madness in the political culture starts at the top of the pile. Down below, we'll offer a hint about the way Kristen Welker knuckled under to the president on yesterday's Meet the Press.

For starters, though, let's go with this. According to Mediaite's Alex Griffing, manosphere brocaster Andrew Schultz is upset with President Trump:

Ex-Trump Supporter Andrew Schulz Fumes at the President Over Another Broken Promise...

Flagrant podcast host Andrew Schulz fumed at President Donald Trump on Sunday over a recent report that the administration is making no plans to mandate IVF care, despite Trump promising to do so during the campaign.

Schulz, who interviewed Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign and was part of the so-called “manosphere” of alternative media that helped elect him, has become a fierce critic in recent weeks, especially over the Epstein Files and increased government spendingdespite publicly supporting and voting for the president.

On Sunday night, Schulz hit Trump for not fulfilling his promise to help make IVF more affordable for Americans in need of the fertility treatment. In an Instagram story, Schulz shared a Washington Post headline on the topic and wrote, “You don’t break your word. Your word breaks you.”

The broman is upset. He believed that Candidate Trump was someone he could trust. All of a sudden it's nothing but hurt—and who could have seen it coming:

In early July, Schulz raged on his popular podcast, “Everything he campaigned on, I believe he wanted to do, and now he’s doing the exact opposite thing of every single fucking thing.”

“There’ll be people, they’ll DM and say, you see what your boy’s doing? You voted for this. I’m like, I voted for none of this! He’s doing the exact opposite of everything I’ve voted for! I want him to stop the wars; he’s funding them. I want him to shrink spending, reduce the budget—he’s increasing it! It’s like everything that he said he’s going to do—except sending immigrants back,” Schulz added.

A few weeks later, Schulz went so far as to argue that Trump’s new anti-Obama conspiracy theory was proof that Trump is “guilty” when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein.

“The second he started talking about Obama, I was like, ‘Oh, he’s guilty,’” Schulz said, adding, “Like, why are you talking about Obama and treason?”

For unknown reasons, this giant of the manosphere is surprised to see Trump attacking Obama in a way which makes no sense. Does anyone know where this mofo may have been during the past fourteen years?

(Trump's rise as "King of the birthers" began in 2011, on the Fox News Channel. He kept it up for four straight years while Schulz was off the planet.)

Today, the star of the manosphere is shocked, shocked, to see the president attacking Obama in that ludicrous way. He's shocked to learn that President Trump nay not be the person he had somehow imagined.

Might we offer one small thought? Andrew Schulz may well be the world's most sincere and most good / decent person. That said, when we scan the leading authority's thumbnail sketch, we're not sure he was ever the perfect person to be dispensing high-level political advice:

Andrew Schulz

[...]

Schulz has hosted or appeared on numerous MTV2 shows, including Jobs That Don't Suck, Guy Code, Guy Court, Girl Code and The Hook Up. In 2015, he starred in the IFC series Benders...Schulz appeared in the feature film The Female Brain (2017)...

A four-part Netflix special, Schulz Saves America, premiered on December 17, 2020. The special was criticized for its Anti-Asian jokes blaming Asians for the COVID-19 pandemic.

[...]

Schulz also hosts Flagrant with his best friends and fellow stand-up comedians Akaash Singh and Mark Gagnon, and video editor AlexxMedia. Since starting the podcast, Singh created a Patreon where the hosts post an additional podcast a week.

In October 2024, Schulz hosted an episode with then presidential candidate Donald Trump. He later went on to defend his actions, stating that Democrats were "not cool" and his vote being based on "who gets the most pussy." Regarding the controversial quote, Schulz later said "I shouldn’t have said it like that" in an interview with The New York Times

That's the way he decides how to vote! Thanks to the so-called "democratization of media," these are the bros to whom many voters have recently turned for their political guidance. 

There has never been any such thing as perfect political journalism. There has never been any such thing as a perfect political discourse.

Long ago, before the onset of democratization. Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley weren't perfect political analysts. On the other hand, they were deeply experienced correspondents who had reasonably sound personal judgment. They were neither crazy nor crass.

Today, thanks to democratization, a new ethos prevails:

Every flyweight a king!

Youngsters flock to savants like Schultz, intrigued by his thoughts about p***y.

The worst of them all is the nutcase at Fox—the stranger Blue America's tribunes refuse to name or discuss. All in all, it isn't clear that a very large, sprawling nation can survive "democratization" of this particular type.

Also this:

Yesterday morning, it seemed to us Kristen Welker took a dive concerning the president's recent BLS massacre. Tomorrow morning, before we leave campus for the bulk of the day, we'll show you what we mean.

There's no such thing as a perfect discourse. That said, a nation's discourse can get much dumber and it can get much worse.

Increasingly, that seems to be the culture we've chosen, with few people saying a word.

STRANGERS: This just in from the world's strangest man!

MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2025

"There needs to be scalps," he said: Unless you live in "a distant land from me" (Thoreau), the fellow's a tough act to swallow.

We've long advised against our own Blue America's impulse to drop our tribe's various bombs—racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe and the like.

In truth, our own tribe barely has a sexual politics at all. as we toss our bombs around, we show very few signs of knowing that about ourselves.)

We've long advised against the promiscuous use of those bombs. But the "cable news" star to whom we refer operates in a realm which—if words have any meaning at all—will inevitably seem to be baldly misogynistic. 

You can add his bizarre obsession with body waste and his love of sexual insult. Unless you live in "a distant land," these peculiar traits make him a difficult figure to love.

Throw in the D-list stooges who support him every night and the audiences who cheer and applaud his behavior! When you do, you've formed a picture of a former nation whose established culture, for better or worse, is rapidly coming apart.

We regard the fellow as "Unrecognizable"—as a type of person we've never encountered in real life. That said, millions of people enjoy the porridge he serves—and then, we come to the greatest offenders of all:

We come to the major stars of Blue America who refuse to even say his name, let alone report or discuss what he does on the air every day, first at 5 p.m. (The Five) and then on his own show at 10.

We regard the angry little man as a difficult fellow to like. That said, we've long advised you to "pity the child"—and our culture suggests that we should regard such strangers as friends. 

Lincoln put it like this:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

He said that in his first inaugural address. A war then took place among friends.

When we ended Saturday's report, the strange little guy had engaged in his typical ugly and stupid behavior at the start of his prime time "cable news" show on Thursday, July 24. 

His studio audience would cheer what he went on to say after that. In Blue America, our major tribunes would all agree that they must avert their gaze.

As we noted, the angry man would make his transition at 10:02 Eastern that night. Below, you see the last of the evening's "fun, smart" jokes—and you also the start of his nightly "issue monologue:"

GUTFELD (7/24/25): Finally, the man who wrote "YMCA" claims the songs is not a gay anthem, as so many people believe.

Right! And "Stairway to Heaven" isn't about anal!

AUDIENCE: [Unsettled murmurs]

GUTFELD (dismissively): Whatever.

[Jokes end / Monologue starts]

So once again, the media pretends that their corrupt, shameful behavior never happened. Which means it's time for:

ANNOUNCER: Yi-i-i-ikes! Well, nothing to see here!

GUTFELD: They did it with the Covid lab leak, the "fine people" hoax, the Haitian whipping hoax, and of course Joe Biden's brain, where they claimed it was fine when it was missing more screws than a Mexican roller coaster.

Now it's the Russian collusion hoax. 

You can watch the whole monologue simply by starting here.

As you can see, the angry fellow had ended his several minutes of "fun, smart" jokes with a wonderful quip about anal. With that, it was on to his monologue about what he called "the Russian collusion hoax." 

The monologue was built around the failure of "the media" to fall in line behind Tulsi Gabbard's ongoing claim that President Obama had engaged in treason near the end of his second term. Behind the furious, sex-obsessed man, his topic was announced on the screen:

RUSSIAN COLLUSION HOAX

In fact, the behavior by Obama which Gabbard was citing didn't involve any claim of collusion. This little man, though perpetually angry, isn't a stickler for detail.

In that passage, you've already seen the way this fellow started his "issue monologue." We'll now walk you through it step by step.

As we showed you on Saturday, the monologue continued in this pathetically childish way as his studio audience sheered:

GUTFELD: Now it's the Russian collusion hoax. 

So as we unravel the scheme to derail a Trump presidency, the media now wants all of us to move on, after gaslighting us like Jerry Nadler with a Bic lighter near his butt hole.

And so, like the dead bird on Maxine Waters' head, we're supposed to ignore it!

Even as he pretended to discuss an actual topic, his ad hominem insults continued. On this astonishing "cable news" show," Rep. Nadler is routinely assailed for how humongous and smelly his body waste is—and no, we aren't making that up—and Rep. Waters is often said to have a dead animal of some kind on her head.

His studio audiences cheer and applaud. "Man [sic] is the rational animal," Aristotle is widely said to have said.

Joe and Mika won't discuss this behavior. Neither will Rachel or Lawrence.

David Brooks won't discuss this behavior. That said, this behavior takes place, each weekday night, before a very large viewership all across our rapidly failing nation.

At this point, the furious fellow had made his transition from jokes about anal to what posed as a real discussion of a major news topic:

Director Gabbard was out there making her claims, and "the media" wasn't treating her claims as gospel. That had this strange person quite angry. Today, we'll show you the night assault he staged on the nation as his monologue continued.

(For the record, it's Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott who pries the lid off the can each night and lets this garbage slither out. We think it's important to say the names of the people who are most deeply at fault in this mess.)

The transition to the monologue had occurred. Where did this manifest nutcase go after that? 

Let's break his five-minute monologue up into its several parts. We'll leave mist of the personal insults in. Where would this friend be without them?

Part One: "They swallowed it like a dick"

The stranger and friend was angry now. Part One of his exposition went like this:

GUTFELD: Now it's the Russian collusion hoax. 

So as we unravel the scheme to derail a Trump presidency, the media now wants all of us to move on, after gaslighting us like Jerry Nadler with a Bic lighter near his butt hole.

And so, like the dead bird on Maxine Waters' head, we're supposed to ignore it!

[Videotape of CNN's Jeff Zeleny starting to challenge Gabbard]

GUTFELD: Oh, hmmmmppphh!

I get why they want everyone to forget the past ten years. I would want it as well if  I were them.

Their lies created more trauma than those leaked photos from Kathy Griffin's sex tape. 

[UNFLATTERING PHOTO OF KATHY GRIFFIN]

The Democrats, directed by Obama, concocted the claim that Trump conspired with Russia to win in 2016. Then they fed a made-to-order report of Russian meddling to the press, who swallowed it like a dick. 

No! Really, you have to be a dick to swallow stuff like that.

And it wasn't just some small story. It was a relentless narrative that actually ruined lives. What they did to all of us with this hoax is unforgivable and it demands justice.

The press corps "swallowed it like a dick," the articulate fellow now said. For the record:

If we're talking about the claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, everyone else has also "swallowed that claim," including the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in its voluminous five-volume report on the 2016 election.

Everyone agrees that the Russians did "meddle in that election!" Everyone understands that fact except this unrecognizable fellow.

On the other hand, if we're talking about the claim that Candidate Trump, or the Trump campaign, colluded with the Russians, no such claim was made in the treasonous report on which Gabbard has focused. 

The angry man probably didn't know that. He did know that, whatever the hell he was talking about, the press corps had swallowed it like a dick—and their conduct now demands justice!

Part Two: "The media" said that Russia hacked the election!

Where did the stranger go from there? Proceeding from above, he now played tape of seven journalists making a crazy claim in the months and years after the 2016 election:

GUTFELD: What they did to all of us with this hoax is unforgivable and it demands justice. And now, they want us to forget that they ever said this:

[Videotape of seven journalists saying that Russia "hacked the election."]

GUTFELD: Like Macauley Culkin, that hasn't aged well.

[UNFLATTERING PHOT0 OF CULKIN]

But every single legacy new outlet ran with bogus headlines

[These three headlines appeared on the screen}

CNN: Russian hacking and the 2016 election

MSNBC: Why experts believe Russia hacked the 2016 election

Mother Jones: Russian election hacking was very serious.

Incredible! At least seven journalists had said that Russia "hacked the election!" Also, the angry man showed us three headlines which made the same claim!

In truth, it's almost impossible to get any stupider than this angry fellow. In fact, everyone agrees that the Russians did "hack" the 2016 election. 

The claim refers to the way Russian entities like its Internet Research Agency stole material from Democratic Party entities, then used those stolen materials to make Candidate Clinton look bad.

Everyone agrees about this! Here's a passage from the Republican-led Senate committee where this obvious fact is being discussed:

RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS 

At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations.

In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government’s role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0.” The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks. 

Every Republican senator, including acting chairman Rubio, agreed with that presentation. Everyone on the face of the earth understands these elementary facts—everyone except the Fox News Channel's resident nutcase, and the millions of people he propagandizes every night for $9 million per year.

Part Three: Konstatin Kilimnik

From there, the "cable news" star turned to an inane attack on Rachel Maddow. As he continued, Suzanne Scott's primal idiot told Fox viewers this:

GUTFELD: And who could forget our favorite Mark Cuban impersonator—

[PHOTOS OF RACHEL MADDOW AND MARK CUBAN]

who found a new crush in this guy, Konstantin Kilimnik.

[There followed ten brief video clips of Maddow saying "Konstantin Kilimnik." All ten carried a date of May 2018, imaginably having been drawn from one single show.]

GUTFELD: If I didn't know any better, I'd think she had the hots for that guy.

But it's hard to believe that this was taken seriously. No wonder they want everyone to forget it. They're like a drunk coworker who wakes up the next day hoping his pals forget that he went home with the office hunchback. 

But while Trump was framed, these hacks earned a living off it, wrote books, even won awards. It was the biggest scam since those pills I bought that promised to make me taller.

What a scam, this idiot said. Maddow almost seemed to have fallen in love with "this guy, Konstantin Kilimnik." 

It's hard to believe that this was taken seriously, he said.  So you'll know, here's a chunk from Volume 5 of that Senate committee report in which Paul Manafort, Candidate Trump's campaign chairman, is being discussed:

[Chairman] Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond. 

[...]

The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign. Taken as a whole, Manafort's highlevel access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat. 

Every Republican senator agreed! Years later, there was Gutfeld, Suzanne's clown, disinforming millions of viewersand insulting Maddow, who is becoming one of his standard targetsas his studio audience sheered.

The Russians disinformed the public in various ways the public during the 2016 election; Gutfeld performs the same service today. That said, is it humanly possible to get any dumber than what this corporate idiot had now said? 

He had told millions of people who don't know better that it was crazy when journalists said that the Russia "hacked the election." He had told those same people that it was crazy when Maddow spoke about "this guy, Konstantin Kilimnik."

His ugly insults rolled down like mighty waters as he peddled this nonsensical tripe. Now, it was time for him to summarize.

Here's the way he did that:

Part Four: "There needs to be scalps"

GUTFELD:  The New York Times and Washington Post won Pulitzers for spreading the hoax. It's like Lia Thomas being named female athlete of the year just because she could fill her urine sample cup from four feet away.

So today the media is like a junkie that made your life hell for ten years, and now suddenly they claim it is all behind them...So, should you forget the hell that they put you through? No, we can't let this go. They need to make serious amends because we're still living with the aftermath...There needs to be consequences... 

There needs to be scalps.

"There needs to be scalps," the termagant said. There needs to be scalps because of the fact that many journalists were seen in public making blindingly obvious statements of fact about the 2016 election.

(With apologies, we've omitted parts of his closing declamation. You can watch by clicking here.)

Greg Gutfeld is your neighbor and friend. We advise you to pity the child.

On the other hand, Suzanne Scott turns him loose every afternoon and then again every night. This corporate action is a cancer on the possibility of maintaining an American nation, or are we unable to see that?

We've shown you what he said in his "monologue" that night. He was surrounded by four stooges as he did

Gutfeld!: Thursday, July 24, 2025
Joe Germanotta: restaurant owner
Kennedy: former VJ
Guy Benson: Fox News contributor
Michael Loftus: comedian

Tomorrow, we'll show you what those stooges then said. If possible, it may have gotten even dumber and even worse as they took their turns.

Over here in Blue America, this is all ignored. Our stars' pay levels are still quite good.

To appearances, no one wants to wrestle with Fox:

Please keep moving along!

Tomorrow: What they actually said...