The Beat With Ari Melber 5/12/26 — 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today May 12, 2026

[0:00] We're following a truly new development in Donald Trump's often flailing but quite serious legal [0:06] attacks on the press. This one is not about Jimmy Kimmel or jokes or late night comics. [0:12] This is about the heat on Rupert Murdoch's conservative empire. DOJ vet Andrew Weissman [0:19] is standing by and will give us his view and analysis. He will assess a huge shot across [0:26] the bow tonight. The DOJ now trying to pressure war coverage at Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. [0:32] That's of course Fox News' sister outlet. They're using subpoenas and the government is claiming illegal [0:38] leaks to, according to many experts, abuse power to shape or stifle critical war coverage, [0:45] which of course the country is aware of because it is partly the press and information about the war, [0:53] its reality that's made it a very unpopular war, plus the economic fallout. And I have more on [0:59] that part of the story later tonight. It is a problem for Trump and the midterms. But this story [1:03] is one where journalists must actually also kind of weigh how we, in this case, our colleagues at the [1:11] journal, peers, competitors, whatever you call it, but how journalists report on something that Trump [1:16] has done more than any other administration since Nixon. How do we report on the government trying to [1:21] make us, our reporting, or our colleagues and competitors reporting part of the story? [1:29] Well, the journal has decided to report on unusual subpoenas that its own journalist reporters [1:35] received from the Trump DOJ, as you see here. The masthead is the Wall Street Journal. This story [1:41] is about the Wall Street Journal. This is reporting about how they are reporting and being potentially [1:48] intimidated or punished through this government that they're reporting on. Now, to be clear, [1:56] this has been a losing revenge streak in legal moves by Trump. And you probably, if you follow the [2:00] news, have heard about them. We've seen these efforts against people. James Comey was a big story. [2:05] He did an interview on MSNOW in the cold just yesterday. But we're also seeing it against [2:08] institutions and journalism itself. That article I just put on the screen notes that the paper [2:13] received grand jury subpoenas for records covering, records of its reporters covering this war. [2:20] Now, this is a huge deal. This is about war, which is one of the obviously most important [2:29] and grave powers a president wields. And remember, this war, which has proven so unpopular, [2:35] is being waged unilaterally. The president did not work with Congress. The president did not address [2:41] the nation up front or leave any time for any kind of meaningful dissent or protest. He launched a [2:47] proactive attack on Iran. The strait that was once open for our energy needs is now closed. The [2:52] ceasefire exists. We don't know what comes next. But I mentioned that brief war history to say that [2:59] with Congress cut out of the loop and the American public cut out of the loop, one of the only other [3:02] measures left is journalism reporting how the war is going and the facts about the war. And the facts have [3:10] been, to put it fairly, mixed, negative. Plenty of them look bad for the Donald Trump administration, [3:17] for the war planning and obviously for the gas prices in the economy we're all living through. [3:21] And against that type of accurate or, shall we say, evidence-based information, [3:28] this government, your government, is responding by trying to intimidate, legally, stifle, and potentially [3:35] jail the people doing that report. You know, I always try to talk to you. I mean, I'm talking through a camera, [3:41] right? But I always try to talk to you directly about what we know and don't know and what's [3:44] happening. This is what's happening. And we know it's a problem. We also know that our [3:48] constitution, the 250 years that we're celebrating, argues exactly against any leader, I don't care what [3:56] party, who would try to rule our government and crush the First Amendment. It's the first for a reason. [4:03] And crush this type of free speech. So that's why this matters. Andrew, as I mentioned, joins me shortly. [4:09] I want to tell you about the methods because it's really something. Trump delivering his message [4:15] on a sticky note with the word treason in Sharpie placed atop a stack of printed articles that he [4:21] handed to the acting attorney general. That's how some of this got started, according to a very [4:27] detailed account from CNN's reporting. Now, that official is, of course, Todd Blanche. And he's under [4:35] this public pressure by Trump to take measures that I want to be clear, might ultimately, if he takes them, [4:40] see Mr. Blanche investigated, sanctioned, or disbarred. He knows, with his law degree and his [4:48] experience, that if he actually is going out and pursuing baseless false claims against journalists [4:55] or others that are only designed to intimidate, to do selective prosecution, or to shape war propaganda, [5:04] yeah, you can lose your law license over that. And if you look at these polls, it's not clear that [5:09] Trump's friends are going to be in office forever. Trump shared a literal enemies list as well that [5:14] demands that Blanche indict John Brennan, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. So it's someone else's [5:21] post, as you see, and it's Donald J. Trump, the sitting president, who shared it, reposting that. [5:29] The idea of the Trump DOJ indicting Barack Obama may sound far-fetched, even after everything. [5:37] But the evidence we have shows that in his demands, Trump is serious. It was once far-fetched to [5:44] think he would abuse legal powers against so many sitting lawmakers, an FBI director, a CIA director, [5:50] the current Republican leading the Fed. That's already happened. I keep showing you this chart [5:54] because it's a fact, and it is a problem if our country lets this become normal or memory hold, [6:01] like so much other civic amnesia that we have. This is our current situation. So you can't just look [6:07] at the new next effort by Trump to turn up the heat on a supplicant like Blanche and say, well, [6:12] he won't go to Clinton or Obama. They very well may try. Remember, this list of faces were already [6:20] pursued, most of them, under an attorney general that Donald Trump just canned for not doing enough, [6:27] in his view. That's why we have Blanche instead of Bondi. Now, the guardrails have still prevented [6:34] any of these efforts from succeeding. Depending on how you count, he's 0 for 20 or 0 for 25, [6:41] 0 and 25. But none of these cases have led to any conviction. Many of them, as you saw, [6:46] have been tossed. But Trump views Blanche as his enforcer. [6:52] We have a man who's doing a great job, I'll tell you. I knew it because he kept me out of jail for [6:58] years. Acting attorney general, Todd Blanche. I said the other day that some of that stuff should [7:05] be looked into. They said, weaponization. He's a terrible human being. Weaponization, right, [7:11] Cash? They blame me for weaponization. He is not the communicator he once was. Indeed, [7:19] Donald Trump, who used to be pretty good at PR, knows that you don't just repeat the attacks on [7:24] yourself. They blame me for weaponization, he says, reminding everyone that he is weaponizing the [7:30] government using a term that even the right has said is bad because he is weaponizing the government. [7:35] You can call it weaponization. You can call it lawfare. The actual term in the law when you prove [7:41] that the government has gone after a person for illicit reasons rather than just investigate the [7:46] facts where they lead, it's called selective prosecution. It gets your case tossed. It can [7:50] get the prosecutors, of course, sanctioned, as I mentioned, which is something that Mr. Blanche [7:53] should think about. It's not my job to give him legal advice, but we'll run this clip later if we have [7:59] to if Mr. Blanche ultimately not only discredits himself but loses his law license or worse, [8:06] because if he goes forward with some of these things, like going after Obama and Clinton because [8:12] the president asked for it, yeah, that would look like selective prosecution without at least clear [8:17] evidence to the contrary. Now, Trump is taking these legal weapons well beyond the Obamas or the [8:23] Democrats that he's called out or the critics. He is now, as I mentioned, the lead story that we're [8:29] going to bring Andrew in on, going after the conservative institution of Murdoch's Wall Street [8:33] Journal. Now, previously, you may recall, he sued them over their Epstein coverage and lost in the [8:40] civil courts. And I want to be clear, anyone in this country can afford themselves the civil courts, [8:46] including government incumbents. So that is something he can do. He lost, so he had no case, [8:52] but he can do that. But after failing, what we're seeing now, and why I mentioned it to bring us up [8:58] to speed to tonight is Trump's doubling down with this criminal probe, which is much more serious, [9:03] using a criminal investigation and those kind of subpoenas for journalists, which carry the implied [9:09] threat of potential jail time if you don't cooperate, and using the part of our system that is strong. [9:17] When you say to the courts, well, this could be national security or this affects war, there might be [9:21] illegal government leaks. That can matter. And by the way, the DOJ is allowed, of course, [9:27] to pursue illegal government leaks. That usually means going after the person in government who [9:31] broke the law. The journalists didn't if they only reported something that came from the government, [9:35] but they can do that. The question here is whether this is abusive power leaning on that type of power [9:41] to silence and censor the war coverage. Now, Rupert Murdoch is a big figure. He has a complex history with [9:47] Trump, but he still runs Fox News, which nowadays, Trump and MAGA see as a very friendly place. [9:53] But just like Putin started with the biggest opposition critics, but moved on to other [10:00] people that used to be in his inner circle, Trump will go after you even if you own Fox News. Nobody [10:04] is really safe if you start publishing or airing things he disagrees with. Remember, Rupert Murdoch is [10:10] such a kind of big political figure. They had that whole show and character based off him in HBO's [10:15] succession. Now, this is fiction echoing perhaps some view of reality, but they cast Murdoch as someone who [10:22] was tough and willing to fight anyone. Here's the safety briefing. If you move [10:30] against me, I'll put a hole in the back of your head. Tough guy. That is a fictional character [10:40] based on the real Murdoch, but plenty of folks said that that toughness and that style reflects [10:45] the now aging patriarch of that conservative empire. What will Murdoch do next? What is the [10:53] DOJ up to? I want to bring in Andrew Weissman, of course, DOJ Vett and the author of the upcoming [10:57] Liar's Kingdom, How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America. That's out this month. You can get [11:02] Liar's Kingdom on preorder now wherever books are sold. Andrew, I mentioned that while any selective [11:09] prosecution is wrong, Murdoch runs American media properties that are overwhelmingly favorable to [11:17] Trump in editorial, on air, and yet here they are caught up in these same tactics. What do you see? [11:22] So, here's the tension. If this was an investigation into the leaking of classified information, [11:33] if it was the investigation into the leaking of information that, although not classified, [11:41] could endanger our soldiers and the ongoing war effort, leave aside that the president says we're [11:49] not at war, that is something that can be a legitimate investigation. The problem here is that [11:59] the track record of this administration is that they have a war on facts. And with Todd Blanch, [12:07] as they did with Pam Bondi, they basically have a choke chain on the acting attorney general, [12:15] and you see him doing the president's bidding. And so, the real concern here is that this is, [12:22] as you said, a way to simply continue the pressure on sort of whitewashing the stories that come out, [12:31] whether we're talking about suing civilly, as you mentioned, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, [12:37] Kash Patel's lawsuit against the Atlantic, or the attack, as you mentioned, on Jimmy Kimmel or [12:43] Stephen Colbert, or getting the FCC to threaten the media to whitewash the story here, that is a way of [12:54] silencing the opposition and creating only a rosy picture. And there's nothing more important than [13:01] having the truth about something as serious as a war that has not been declared by Congress, [13:10] meaning that this war is not something that is constitutional, which this is something that [13:17] Congress would have had to declare. And I'll jump in to say, what do you think about Murdoch here as [13:23] an adversary who didn't fold in a civil case? And the journal is being clear, I said, it's their choice [13:31] to publish this so people know what the administration's doing, which seems to be an early clue they don't [13:37] necessarily fold here either. So, you know, the Wall Street Journal, whatever you think of its [13:43] editorial page, it has serious journalists. And this goes to this issue of whether this is a serious [13:53] news organization that would have published something that they believed was going to threaten [14:01] or risk the lives of our soldiers. As you know, reputable news organizations don't do that. [14:09] They think long and hard, and they usually actually consult with the government before they would run a [14:15] story where they thought that was an issue. But whether Wall Street Journal, like the New York Times, [14:20] like our own station, like the Atlantic, will run stories that they believe are truthful, that are [14:29] sourced. And it is so important. This is getting news to the American public. And it's the last thing that [14:36] the government should be doing. This is what it means to be in government to be responsible, is like, [14:42] you may not like being criticized. If you don't like being criticized, if you don't like [14:47] people running stories about what you're doing, don't take the job. [14:51] Yeah, get out of the kitchen. Well, and you and I have discussed now years running how to handle this. [14:57] What does it tell you that thus far Murdoch has proven tougher on this issue, whatever the many other [15:05] concerns with him, than law firm leaders, some of whom claimed they were for facts and civil rights and [15:12] then weren't, business CEOs who've talked about running media empires, and Disney talked about the [15:17] First Amendment, and then responded to a lot of fresh pressure. What does it tell you? [15:21] You know, Jack Smith said something when I interviewed him. He said something at the [15:29] end that he said, you know, at this time, one thing that you learn is you really learn [15:35] sort of not only who your friends are, but what their metal, like what they're made of. [15:41] And this is a way of seeing, you can see a Jeff Bezos that, in my view, you know, has all [15:48] the money in the world and is caving in a way that is just so disheartening in terms of what's [15:54] happened to The Washington Post, one of the great news organizations of this nation. [16:00] And whatever you think of The Wall Street Journal politically, whether you agree with them or not, [16:07] they're standing up for the First Amendment in a very, very important way. [16:12] Now, I'm over on time, but I'm going to extend another 40 seconds. [16:17] Your view on if they fight where this goes, because the courts, and you've litigated [16:23] tough cases, the courts do defer to anything they think is valid national security. [16:29] And we've seen pressure on reporters. But if this is a trick, a ploy to censor war coverage, [16:38] then do you think The Journal and its reporters have a strong winning argument here? [16:41] That is a great question. If the government cannot come up with a sort of bonafide reason for a leak [16:52] of classified information or information that could endanger the war effort, I think that The [17:01] Wall Street Journal has a very good argument that this is to harass and that there is a Supreme Court [17:08] case that you cannot do this, that that is the basis that Judge Bosberg used to quash the subpoena [17:14] of the Federal Reserve with respect to Jerome Powell, that these were grand jury subpoenas to harass. [17:20] But people should know that is a very hard thing to show. Normally, as you mentioned, there's enormous [17:26] deference to the government with grand jury subpoenas. And in many ways, this is sort of winning no matter [17:34] what for the government, because the threat is there. What the message is to every news organization [17:43] is think twice, because you can get a grand jury subpoena, too. And to me, there's both the Trump [17:50] story, but there's also the Todd Blanch story that you are seeing such brazen activity. And it's part of [17:58] that is not just about him, but it's about this idea that he is the acting attorney general. And so [18:04] there really is this sense that he's on such a short leash, that he's willing to do things, [18:09] that somebody who for years was a career prosecutor and knows very well the difference between sort of [18:17] selective and vindictive actions and really bonafide good faith actions. [18:22] Right. And you're referring to that standard I mentioned, the selective prosecution, [18:26] which even if you're the acting attorney general, if that's what you're proven to have done, [18:30] there are consequences later. Maybe he's just tried to live in denial of that. He's watched Pam [18:35] Bondi, like others, fail to give Trump everything he wants, just like Mike Pence gave him everything [18:40] except an insurrection and faced, of course, threats of violence. And so we've seen this pattern over [18:46] and over. Here we have Blanche, as you say, on the audition trying to do this as if, as if if you don't [18:52] deliver the next one that he wants, the Clinton and the Obama and all the stuff I documented that [18:57] that you're going to be Gucci. You're not. Andrew, thanks for joining us. [19:00] You're welcome. Appreciate it. Here's something I've never said on this program. [19:05] Thou shall have no idols before me. Yes, a little biblical reference, which is leading to Trump ridicule. [19:16] If I may say, it is a full-grown cow. That is a, that is a golden cow. [19:23] And Trump facing an economic gap. [19:37] Yeah, why think about the people you serve? But we're back with a major development on Epstein in 90 seconds. [19:43] After 2009, at the same exact time that I was asking the government why he got the deal and why they [19:54] violated my rights. The failures of those sworn to protect us have overwhelmed me. [19:59] He made it clear that he held the cards. They used my dreams against me. I hope this never happens [20:08] again to any, anybody. Keep it in the history books. Don't stop fighting. [20:13] The hearing also featuring discussions of following the money. [20:17] Some of these men enabled financial crimes. Follow the money. Financial records are not secondary. [20:28] They may be the key to exposing the full network. If we're serious about following the money, [20:35] I believe that these SARS reports must be disclosed by the U.S. Treasury Department now, [20:41] immediately today. Financial crimes can open the door and lead to real prosecutions. [20:46] We're joined by Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamurti, member of that House Oversight [20:53] Committee, was at today's hearing. What was today about? What do you think it accomplished? [20:58] Well, thank you so much for paying attention to this extremely troubling saga where thousands, [21:07] literally thousands of girls, now women, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's heinous child sex trafficking ring, [21:16] have yet to receive a single measure of justice. And so today for the first time in more of an [21:23] official setting, they've been able to tell their stories and be asked questions about their [21:29] particular experiences. And what they said was heartfelt, very moving, and it took a lot of bravery and [21:39] conviction on their part to come and reveal what they did. [21:42] Yeah, you mentioned using the process for that goal. [21:49] Typically when the system works, it's the DOJ that does all this, that takes witness testimony. [21:56] You and others have pointed out that that's failed. And so you have a co-equal branch doing [22:00] that in the breach. I want to play some discussion of the DOJ's failures, negligence, [22:07] that accusers spoke about. Take a look. [22:10] These files displayed my name, my phone number, my old address, where I worked at the time, [22:19] where I was studying, and other identifying information. [22:23] I woke up one day with my name mentioned over 500 times. [22:30] I can only imagine the long-term impact this mistake will have on my life. [22:37] How do you contrast something so glaring, obviously hypocritical, when Donald Trump and others ran on [22:47] transparency, then you guys had to pass this unusual law to force him to do what he wouldn't. [22:53] And then there was great delay and care to protect things regarding political insiders, [22:59] often men, and Donald Trump, and not these accusers, as the hearing showed today. [23:04] Well, I think the through line here is that there are corrupt interests that, [23:10] unfortunately, are corrupting the administration of justice in this particular case. You're absolutely [23:15] right. There was a very important document that was displayed at this particular hearing showing [23:24] that the DOJ itself back in 2019 identified numerous co-conspirators to Jeffrey Epstein. But [23:32] that very document came back to us, produced with redactions of at least six individuals, [23:38] and none of them have been disclosed. They might be among us continuing their predatory practices. [23:44] And among the others, the only two people who have been prosecuted in any regard, in any way, [23:50] is Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And Maxwell now is seeking a pardon. And she might actually [23:55] get one from Trump, which is completely unacceptable. So you see just a corrupt administration of justice [24:02] here. Yeah. Congressman, while I have you, the Epstein transparency law also requested information [24:07] about the circumstances of his death in the custody of the then-Trump Justice Department and the Bureau [24:13] of Prisons. And we've reported on this. There was a lot of irregularities. The DOJ was not transparent or [24:21] consistent on that set of history, both under Trump, but then under the Inspector General report, [24:28] which was released during the Biden administration. Now we've got more information, including this [24:33] purported or possible handwritten note from Epstein's jail cell, believed to be described to be by him [24:40] as a suicide note. That's new. Took all these years to come out. Do you view that note as likely [24:48] valid? And do you think it makes it more likely that the government assessment that he took his own life [24:53] was correct? I read the contents of the note. It doesn't shed a whole lot of light for me on [25:03] the particular situation at hand, except it's, you know, another indication that the government [25:10] failed the survivors, as they pointed out today at the hearing. They allowed him... [25:15] But you think there was... You don't think it was valid, or you think there might be foul play? [25:18] What is your theory of the case? I don't know. I'm still trying to understand [25:25] the circumstances of his death. Can I just say one other thing, which you pointed out before, [25:30] but which came out loud and clear at the hearing, which is that there's $1.5 billion worth of wire [25:38] transactions contained in what are called suspicious activity reports that have not been produced by the [25:44] Treasury Department and has been specifically blocked by Scott Besant at Donald Trump's behest. I feel that [25:51] that that is an obvious and an incredibly important source of information to illuminate [25:58] the scandal and bringing accountability for what was done. And now I'm out of time, [26:02] but do you have Republicans who would help subpoena that, or they haven't joined that effort? [26:07] Yes, we're in talks with Republicans as we speak, and stay tuned. This is going to be a big [26:13] topic for my own office and some others to pursue. Interesting. Well, yeah, no, you were, [26:18] as I mentioned, central in this, especially the hearing today, and we wanted to hear from you. [26:22] So thank you for making the time, Congressman. Let me tell folks who's coming up, because [26:26] there are new numbers on Trump's inflation and they're bad, and new polling that Republicans blame [26:31] him for the prices, a warning inside the FCC about the Trump censorship agenda, and the Pulitzer Prize [26:38] winning journalist Marty Baron on these censorship and free speech issues. He's a rare guest. We [26:43] sometimes get them. That includes tonight. Coming up. If you see CNN, you think they're winning [26:49] the war. If you read the New York Times, it's actually seditious, in my opinion. We get the radical [26:56] left to say we're not winning. We're not winning. They don't have any military left. It's actually, [27:01] it's actually, I believe it's treasonous. Donald Trump talking about accusations of treason. [27:09] DOJ opening the investigation that started our show tonight on The Wall Street Journal. [27:13] There's a wider campaign of intimidating anyone, including the media and other entities that [27:18] simply surface or publish opposing views. We're now joined by the veteran journalist Marty Baron, [27:24] who is executive editor for The Washington Post, including during part of the Bezos era, [27:28] and is a decorated journalist. Welcome back. Thank you. Good to be here. Your reaction to The [27:34] Wall Street Journal's approach, which Murdoch has backed, resisting the civil lawsuits where others [27:41] settled. And now, from what we can tell, publishing kind of adding sunlight to this effort that [27:47] seems to be potentially to intimidate war coverage. Well, I'm glad The Wall Street Journal is resisting. [27:55] They've done terrific reporting. There's been other great reporting by other news organizations. The [28:00] New York Times, The Washington Post continues to do excellent reporting as well. [28:06] I mean, this is part of an attack from all angles on the press. [28:10] So, you have these grand jury subpoenas against The Wall Street Journal. [28:13] You had a raid on the home of a Washington Post reporter, where they confiscated all of her. [28:19] It was an unprecedented raid in the national security investigation, seizing all of her electronic [28:23] devices. You have the EEOC bringing a discrimination complaint against The New York Times, because a [28:30] white male reporter didn't get a promotion he wanted. You have, apparently, the an investor, [28:35] the FBI apparently investigating The Atlantic magazine for reporting on Kash Patel and his alleged heavy [28:41] drinking and his other behavior. So, really, all across the board, you're seeing this administration [28:47] use every weapon within its possession to attack the press, to harass the press and to endeavor to [28:55] intimidate the press. What tactics do you think have to evolve? The classic example of Pentagon [29:02] papers or the things we see books and movies about were a more genteel time. And when the court finally [29:09] vindicated the press, that was seen as effective. Here, it's been well documented that the hassle is the [29:19] one of the things we have to do. What else do you think outlets should do? [29:23] Well, I think you're absolutely right that the strategy is not necessarily to win, [29:28] but to harass and to force the media outlets to incur enormous costs in defending themselves [29:36] and just batter them with one lawsuit after the next. I mean, Trump, of course, filed his own private [29:41] defamation lawsuits against the press. And now, of course, they're using the regulatory agencies, [29:47] like the FCC, to threaten to, for example, with regard to ABC, to review all of their station licenses, [29:54] because they don't like the jokes that Jimmy Kimmel has made or they don't like what's said on [29:58] The View, things like that. Now, what should the press do? It should do what it's doing, I think, [30:04] and that is continue to report on this administration, regardless of this harassment. [30:09] And I think the major news organizations, including The Washington Post, where I was executive editor [30:14] before, continue to do that. I think a bit of exception to what Andrew Weissman said before, [30:20] suggesting that somehow The Post was not doing its job. It's true. I mean, I've been very critical of [30:26] the posture of Jeff Bezos toward Trump. But the news department continues to do exceptional work. [30:32] And that's why their reporter was their home, the home of the reporter was raided. And by the way, [30:38] they just won a Pulitzer Prize for public service, the top Pulitzer Prize for the coverage of the [30:45] administration and what Doge was doing under the aegis of Elon Musk. So I think, look, [30:52] what this administration fears more than anything are facts, actual facts reaching the public. [30:58] And what it's trying to do here is to keep those facts with regard to this war away from the public, [31:03] outside of the public domain. You mentioned the comedians, [31:07] and with Colbert's show coming to an end, you had this pretty rare moment of unity. Take a look. [31:11] The five of us being here right now, obviously, it's dangerous because we represent so much. [31:19] John Stewart is designated survivor. Someone has to survive for the president to be mad at. [31:32] Is there anything that we have not touched on before we move on to this? I'm curious. [31:37] The outrage that your show is being thrown off the air? [31:40] As the old saying goes, this is America. And the Colbert example is complicated. The Kimmel one [31:51] was very clear and simple. The president got the government to scare his parent company and very [31:57] close into canceling him over free speech. Your view? [32:00] Well, I think that's the broader point there, is that what the administration is doing is not [32:06] just an attack on the press. It's really an attack on the First Amendment and freedom of expression, [32:11] freedom of expression by comics who make jokes, free expression by academics who want to report [32:18] on their research, what's actually happened, by scientists who are doing the same, by business [32:23] executives who want to who should be able to advocate for the policies that they genuinely believe [32:28] in and who are now afraid to do so. Attacks on lawyers for merely representing their clients [32:33] in the vigorous way that they should. This is an attack on free expression in every form. [32:39] It's not just it's not just an attack on the press, although the press is [32:43] is one of the principal targets. Really appreciate you as always, Marty Baron. Thank you. [32:48] I'm going to finish a break and when we come back, why Republicans blame Trump for rising prices.