This is a rush transcript from "MediaBuzz," June 26, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
HOWARD KURTZ, FOX NEWS HOST: We all knew it was coming. The leak of that draft Supreme Court opinion to Politico made clear to the media and political world that the high court had the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, and yet since the court's six-three ruling came down Friday tossing out a 50-year decision sparking protests across the country, the media seems stunned all over again, many pundits being unusually motional along with political leaders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Now, with Roe gone, let's be very clear, the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: The people have won a victory. The right to life has been vindicated. The voiceless will finally have a voice.
RACHEL MADDOW, HOST, MSNBC: Today starts an era of very, very, very big government where it's the government that decides if you're going to have a baby or not.
LAURA INGRAHAM, Fox News HOST: Some days you get to celebrate and give thanks that you were alive when our prayers were finally answered, and the United States of America finally did the right thing. Today is one of those days.
CLAIRE MCCASKILL, POLITICAL ANALYST, MSNBC: It's unbelievable. I go between despair and anger just like my daughters.
JENNIFER RODGERS, LEGAL ANALYST, CNN: It's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country. I'm so angry. You know, watching the women there. It's emotional.
TUCKER CARLSON, Fox News HOST: Voters get to decide how they want to live. That's an extreme ideology that upsets the balance of power somehow?
CHRIS HAYES, HOST, MSNBC: A right enshrined in the Constitution as intimate as any right one could imagine has been discarded and destroy by five unelected justices.
JESSE WATTERS, Fox News HOST: The Democrats are being dishonest about this decision. It's a desperate attempt to scare their voters into turning out in November.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: I'm Howard Kurtz, and this is MEDIA BUZZ.
Joining us now to analyze the coverage, Molly Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist, and in Los Angeles Leslie Marshall, the radio talk show host. Both are Fox News contributors.
Mollie, it's no secret that most journalists are pro-choice. Do you think major news organizations are being fair in the way they're framing this reversal of Roe given that it's returned to elected officials in each state?
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: You know, the whole reason I got interested in media criticism was because I saw early on how the media portrayed the abortion debate. They're so one-sided, the language they choose, the way that they, you know, what they choose to describe and what they choose not to describe.
And so, it is in no way surprising the way that they covered this return of abortion laws to the people. But they did a very bad job of accurately conveying what the decision says, what it signifies, and what American people think about it.
KURTZ: Leslie, no matter how strongly you and others feel that the decision is wrong, I mean, someone like AOC saying the ruling is illegitimate, is it fair for commentators to be attacking the Supreme Court? And you can respond to Mollie's point as well.
LESLIE MARSHALL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. Isn't that our first amendment right, isn't that our first amendment right to speak against a court that is not elected by we, the people. And with all due respect to Mollie who I like personally and professionally even though we may not agree on much, I think we can find something we can agree on, I don't agree that this is going back to the people.
This is going to states. We have 41 bans and we have 26 states, 10 of those states will not have any tensions for rape or incest. We can get to that discussion later. And then, of course, there is the rumblings of Republicans if they become in power in the House and the Senate and certainly, if they get the president, they in the next general election having a federal ban on abortion.
And, of course, we all read, I think, Justice Thomas' plans to go further. So, this isn't about --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: Leslie, let me just interrupt.
MARSHALL: This isn't about the American people
KURTZ: Mollie says -- Mollie says the coverage has been unfair for a long time and it's unfair today. Your take on that, please.
MARSHALL: I don't believe that the coverage has been unfair. I think that the coverage echoes the sentiment of the American people.
KURTZ: By the way, I've noticed that when a decision in any court goes the way you don't like, Supreme Court, you say it's the unelected judges. Well, the 1973 Roe decision was also made by unelected judges.
HEMINGWAY: And, in fact, that's the entire point of this decision.
KURTZ: Yes.
HEMINGWAY: What happened in 1973 was that the decision was taken away from the American people. We saw 50 years of so much trauma related to people falsely alleging that this was a constitutional right. Alito's decision goes into great detail about there's nothing in the Constitution about this, nothing in common law about this and how this is a decision that should be left to the people.
And that is precisely what this decision does, it allows people at their state legislatures or through ballot initiatives to set what abortion law will be.
KURTZ: Well, Mollie, I mean, the high court in '73 found it was constitutional right, and it was controversial at the time, and it remain - - and that brings me actually with this is sort of the culmination of a half century effort by the pro-life movement to stop what its members view as killing babies. But you're not going to see many glowing profiles of the leaders of the movement as happened, for example, seven years ago when the court legalized same-sex marriage.
HEMINGWAY: Right. And there were so many people who worked so hard. I mean, because this was a 50-year battle there were people who didn't even survive to see this day. It was the conservative judicial movement, Christians, and Catholics and other religious people, people who are just human rights advocates who opposed the violence of abortion.
This is a wonderfully successful story. But the way that you see it framed in most major corporate media is as something that is reflecting their own personal leftist bias.
KURTZ: Well, Leslie, for those who believe deeply in a woman's right to choose, the 1973 decision was the correct one. So, is the media argument here -- I know you've seen it, maybe you agree with it -- that the court is out of step with public opinion, but isn't the court at various times often out of step with public opinion? For example, brown v. Board of Ed was not widely popular, the school desegregation order.
MARSHALL: Yes. But in 1973 when you look at Roe v. Wade and when you look at who wrote the opinion, that was a Republican Richard Nixon at that time appointee. And what I have seen and, honestly, I feel I would say this if I were a Republican and not a Democrat, and I don't care if this is left or right, I think it's wrong.
There is a reason that Lady Justice has a scale, because justices are supposed to be balanced. It's also supposed to be blind, hence the blind bold across her eyes. And what I'm seeing, whether left or right, are courts that are making decisions that benefit political parties more. And that, to me, is wrong, and that me is unconstitutional.
And of course, the can of worms is what the concern is. It's, you know, when we speak about, we have people here in California and as you know it's now part of the California constitution, but federal law trumps state. And we have people not just here in California, but throughout the country that are very vocal about this is not the end for them. Because it wasn't.
Some people would say this is just about taking the power away from, you know, the Constitution should be in the Constitution given to the states. No, that is not the goal for a lot, I dare say, most of these people. The goal is to have abortion be illegal in the United States. That goes backwards.
HEMINGWAY: Well, it is absolutely true that human rights advocates do oppose the violence of abortion, that they do want to protect women and their children, that they don't want people to not have a right to life. That is a very important thing for all human rights advocates who care deeply about women and their children.
But the decision was something else also which is what the Constitution says. And this is why I wish people in the media would actually know enough to read the decision to understand what it says. It argues in depth about how there never was a constitutional right to abortion --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: I'm going to jump in --
HEMINGWAY: -- it's obviously never mentioned there, just knowing the basic facts and knowing what the -- -- what Alito says and what he doesn't say would be helpful for this conversation.
KURTZ: Under our system of government the Constitution says, ultimately, what the Supreme Court says it said and, obviously, there have been different decisions since Roe including the Casey in 1992.
Let me ask you this. Some liberal pundits are saying that this shows, and we've talked about this before, that Senate confirmation hearings are a meaningless ritual. That everyone vows to respect precedent, and then, as in this case, you have five justices with John Roberts concurring what he didn't want to go all the way on Roe, to throw out this 50-year precedent, critics would say based on ideology.
Senator Susan Collins said that Brett Kavanaugh -- I know you covered and wrote a book about his confirmation hearings -- misled her with what he said privately about whether where he would be, not where, how he would vote, but giving signal that he deeply respected the Roe precedent.
HEMINGWAY: Yes. Carrie Severino and I did cover this in our book on the Kavanaugh confirmation. And you hear many people say, if you will respect the precedent that means you can never get rid of Roe v. Wade. Well, everyone agreed that Roe v. Wade was very bad law including Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that it was a horribly decided opinion. Not that she didn't support abortion.
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: Yes. Not everybody agreed.
HEMINGWAY: Well, it's not as strong, it was obviously not a strong decision. It was already kind of overruled in Casey and here now, finally, in Roe -- or in Dobbs it's fully overruled. But their -- if you actually go back to the transcripts and if you actually see what people said, they never, ever weigh in on future cases. They will always say they respect precedent, and they do.
And again, Alito's decision gets into this. He lists five reasons why precedent can't be something that you hold to in the face of common law, the clear constitutional understanding and other reasons. And he explains it in in detail.
KURTZ: Leslie, in painting this ruling as extreme, and you touched on this briefly earlier, there's been a very sharp media focus on the lack of exception for rape or incest. And women or girls having to bring those babies to term.
If you're in a state where abortion is illegal for whatever reason you can't travel, you have to give birth. And I think it goes to why we're seeing such emotional reactions on both sides, of course, but particularly from the pro-choice side. Take that.
MARSHALL: Yes. I think you all know because I've shared it before, I'm a victim of rape. I was not impregnated. If I was, I don't know the decision I would make. I have two children. I have a son and a daughter, my daughter is 14, God forbid she were ever in that position that I was, I just -- I cry for these girls, I cry for not just my children, my grandchildren.
People say, it's one or two percent. You know, one percent is 7,000 women or girls that have been victims, and one in 10 rapes is not reported. And often incest is not reported.
When you look at the 10 states that don't have exceptions, Howard, they have the highest infant mortality rates in the United States. We have a very broken foster care system across the board in this country. We don't have enough funds in many states for proper education, for proper health care --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: I got to get a break --
MARSHALL: -- for feeding of these children, so that is a concern.
KURTZ: All right. A lot more to say about this, obviously, and strong feelings as I said on both sides and on this panel.
And Brian Kilmeade joins our discussion. But when we come back, the coverage of the political fallout from the end of Roe and is this just the beginning.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: Now let's look at the coverage of the political battle the minute the high court struck down Roe v. Wade. So, Mollie Hemingway, with the abortion now in the process of becoming illegal in 26 states, do you see the media covering these political fights at the local level with an emphasis on preserving the right of women to travel to states where it is legal or to get by mail these abortion-inducing pills.
In fact, big front-page story in New York Times today. Abortion pills to take spotlight as states impose bans?
HEMINGWAY: I think, first off, the really bad thing that we saw in the media coverage was not just accurately conveying what the Dobbs decision does in returning it to the states, each state being able to set its own laws, each state having -- you know, many of them have made provisions in the case something like this happened and what those debate will be.
KURTZ: Trigger laws, yes.
HEMINGWAY: But just in general actually, I think that too much of the debate is focused on too little of the discussion. This is a really complicated issue. Women and their children and their partners and we focus so much and leave out the entire story of unborn children.
I mean, you never see corporate media asking questions like do you think it should be legal to kill a baby just because she has down syndrome, or do you think it should be legal to kill a baby just because she's going to be a girl instead of a boy?
These are very real issues that are not -- that people don't ask -- I don't hear enough people say do you think abortion should be legal through all nine months of pregnancy, right until the day of birth? I mean, you -- you -- that's a very important question to ask politically, and the way it's being framed is not being framed that's giving full weight to the complications here.
KURTZ: Right. Of course, Leslie, I'm sure you have a different view of that phrase to kill a baby, but you can come back to that, but let me ask you this question. I'm struck that Donald Trump who, of course, appointed three of the justices that formed the five-four core majority in overturning Roe took full credit, saying I did not cave to the radical left Democrats or their partners in the fake news media.
But Trump did not denounce abortion, just said it will work out well for everybody which made me think that he's not the only Republican who's nervous now about the impact on the election among Republicans who, whether they like Trump or not, are not happy about losing Roe?
MARSHALL: Well, chameleons technically take on the color of their backgrounds. Right? I believe it was one of his ex-wives, Marla Maples who said that he had asked her when she became pregnant to have an abortion if you believe her account in her book.
Yes. You know, look, I'm not surprised. And politicians do this on both sides of the aisle, Howard, they push for certain pieces of legislation or they push for certain constitutional rights. One of the bigger issues here, this is first constitutional right, whether you believe it's a constitutional right or not, that has been a taken away.
(CROSSTALK)
HEMINGWAY: It's not a constitutional right.
MARSHALL: And I will agree with something Mollie said about questions.
KURTZ: Yes.
MARSHALL: I will agree with something Mollie said --
KURTZ: Let's have that.
MARSHALL: -- I did not interrupt when you're talking, my friend, when she said that there were other questions. Here's a question I have. This seems to put everything on the female, right? Females shouldn't get pregnant. If the female gets pregnant, let's leave rape and incest out of it for a minute, she in more half of the states in this country has to bring that child to term.
So, if she has to bring that child to term and if she doesn't or can't give the child up for adoption or foster care, where is the responsibility, Howard, of the man, of the father? Are these states --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: The father should absolutely, absolutely -- the father should --
MARSHALL: I agree.
KURTZ: -- absolutely be part of this discussion and have a stake in it. I'm short on time. I want to get a brief answer from each of you. When Politico, Mollie, first obtained this draft opinion media liberals warned that the high court wouldn't stop there, they would try to throw out other rulings, and I thought that was speculative and went too far.
But in Clarence Thomas' decision, yes, it's one single justice, he says that the court should revisit decision on same-sex marriage and contraception. So, with the early media warnings on target?
HEMINGWAY: Well, the issue that Clarence Thomas is talking about there is how you come to a decision and not just that you've come to a decision. And so, if the means by which you come to a decision is flawed, you should revisit those issues.
KURTZ: Leslie, now we're facing a divided country when it comes to abortion. Mike Pence has immediately called for a total nationwide ban. Mitch McConnell when this first thing leak said it's possible if Republicans took over Congress would move for a nationwide ban. So, are the media casting this as the issue or a very important issue for the midterms?
MARSHALL: It is very important issue for the midterms. Sadly, my party, the Democrats don't show up in the numbers Republicans do in the midterm, and you know, I don't think they understood when we said in 2016 look how many Supreme Court seats might come up, you can't just stay home, but her e-mails.
The bottom line here is people have to get out and vote. I get so angry when I see these marches. That's wonderful. You're upset, we get it. But stop marching, start voting. And there's going to be more, Howard, I mean, there are going to be boycotts of these 26 states, and products made in these states, I mean the list goes on. But that threat and that fear is not Hollywood. It's very real.
KURTZ: All right.
MARSHALL: My bet is we're going to see if Republicans get into control a federal ban on abortion.
KURTZ: Leslie Marshall, Mollie Hemingway, thanks very much for joining us this Sunday.
Moving on now, thank you, OK. It wasn't journalists quoting unnamed sources, it was Republican state officials who testified at a January 6th hearing about a pressure campaign by President Trump and Rudy Giuliani starting with Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers who disputed a statement by the former president that Bowers had told him the state's election was rigged.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSTY BOWERS, ARIZONA HOUSE SPEAKER: Anyone, anytime has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Sorry, we started, there's a Fox News alert. Let's go to President Biden speaking at the G7 in Germany.
BIDEN: Managing global energy needs, taking on the climate crisis, dealing with the spread of diseases. And the choices we make now, in my view, are going to set a direction of our world for several generations to come.
These challenges are hard for all of us, even nations with resources of the G7. But developing countries often lack the essential infrastructure to help navigate global shocks like a pandemic. So, they feel the impact more acutely, and they have a harder time recovering.
And our deeply connected world that's not just a humanitarian concern, it's an economic and a security concern for all of us. That's why one year ago when this group of leaders met in Cornwall, we made a commitment.
The Democratic nations of the G7 would step up, step up and provide financing for quality, high standard, sustainable infrastructure in developing and middle-income countries. What we're doing is fundamentally different. It is grounded on our shared values of all those representing the countries and organizations behind me. It's built using the global best practices; transparency, partnership, protections for labor and the environment.
We're offering better options for countries and for people around the world to invest in critical infrastructure that improves the lives, their lives, all of our lives and delivers real gains. For all of our people. Not just the G7, all of our people.
Today we officially launch the partnership for global infrastructure and investment. We collectively have dozens of projects already underway around the globe, and I'm proud to announce the United States will mobilize $200 billion in public and private capital over the next five years for that partnership.
We're here today because we're making this commitment together as the G7 in coordination with one another to maximize the impact of our work. Collectively, we aim to mobilize nearly $600 billion from the G7 by 2027. These strategic investments are areas of critical to sustainable development and to our shared global stability, health and health security, digital connectivity, gender equally and equity, climate and energy security.
Let me give you some examples of the kinds of projects that are underway in each of these areas. First, health. Two years ago, COVID-19 didn't need any reminders about how critical investment in health care systems were and health security is. Both to fight pandemic and to prepare for the next one because it will not be the last pandemic we under -- we have to deal with.
That's why the United States together with the G7 partners and the World Bank are investing in a new industrial scale vaccine manufacturing facility in Senegal that, when complete, will have the potential to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses annually for COVID-19 and other diseases.
It's an investment that a will enhance global vaccine supplies as well as true access and equity for developing countries.
Second, in the digital area our economy's future increasingly depends on people's ability to connect to secure information and communications technologies. We need to strengthen the use of trusted technologies so that our online information cannot be used by autocrats to consolidate their power or repress their people.
That's why the digital invest program is mobilizing $335 million in private capital to supply secure network equipment in Africa, Asia and Latin America. And the U.S. government also supported the successful bid by an American company, SubCom, for a $600 million contract to build a global subsea telecommunications cable.
This cable will stretch from Southeast Asia through the Middle East and the Horn of Africa to Europe. This will be essential to meeting the growing demand for reliable, security high-tech connectivity in three key regions of the world.
Third, gender. When women and girls have the ability and the opportunity to participate more fully in their societies and economy, we see positive impacts not only in communities, but around the board -- across the board. We have to increase those opportunities though for women and girls to thrive, including practical steps to make childcare more accessible and affordable as we continue the vital work to protect and advance women's fundamental rights.
The United States is committing $50 million over five years to the World Bank global childcare incentive fund. This public/private partnership support by several G7 partners will help countries build infrastructure that makes it easier for women to participate equally, equally in the labor force.
Fourth and very important, climate and energy. We're seeing just how critical this is every day. The entire world is feeling the impact of Russia's brutal war in Ukraine and if on our energy markets. We need worldwide effort to invest in transformative clean energy projects to ensure the critical infrastructure is resilient to changing climate.
Critical materials that are necessary for our clean energy transition including the production of batteries need to be developed with high standards for labor and environment. Fast and reliable transportation infrastructure including railroads and ports is essential to moving inputs for refining and processing and expanding access to clean energy technologies.
For example, the U.S. government just facilitated a new partnership between to new American firms and the government of Angola to invest $2 billion in building a new solar project in Angola. It's a partnership that that will help an Angola meet its climate goals in energy needs while creating new markets for American technologies and good jobs in Angola and, I suspect, throughout Africa.
And in Romania, the American company NuScale Power will build a first of its kind small modular reactor plant. This will help bring online zero emission nuclear energy to Europe faster, more cheaply and more efficiently.
The U.S. government is helping to advance the development of this ground- breaking American technology which will strengthen Europe's energy security and create thousands of jobs in Romania and the United States. These deals are just some of what's in store, and we're ready, we're ready to get to work together, all of us, to lead efforts, to lead U.S. efforts in my case.
I appointed -- I appointed Elmo Amos Hochstein, my special presidential coordinator to deal with the rest of our colleagues. I'll lead the U.S. whole of government approach to drive the coalition and the collaboration with the G7 and our partners around the world including private sector and multilateral development banks.
I want to be clear. This isn't aid or charity. It's an investment that will deliver returns for everyone including the American people and the people of all our nations. It'll boost all of our economies. And it's a chance for us to share our positive vision for the future with communities around the world see themselves and see for themselves the concrete benefits of partnering with democracies.
Because when democracies demonstrate what we can do, all that we have to offer, I have no doubt that we'll win the competition every time. Thank you. Now I invite President von der Leyen to the podium.
KURTZ: President Biden giving a short speech at the G7 in Germany. It was a bit of a laundry list of a speech. I wrote down talking about global infrastructure, talking about strategic investments, he also touched on climate change, opportunities for women, childcare. Kind of like a stump speech where you've got to hit all the points.
And as well talking about health, digital connectivity, sort of a broad brush look at the international goals that the President of the United States would like the G7 to move toward. Actually, the real news was made a few hours ago there in Germany when the nations of the G7 decided to ban imports of gold from Russia as a further sanctions for the brutal invasion of Ukraine.
Going back to our regularly scheduled programming, it wasn't journalists quoting unnamed sources, it was Republican state officials who testified at a January 6th hearing about a pressure campaign by President Trump and Rudy Giuliani starting with Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers who disputed a statement by the former president that Bowers had told him the state's election was rigged.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOWERS: Anywhere, anyone, anytime has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Bowers kept demanding at that time to see proof of the alleged fraud and recalled a striking comment from Giuliani.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOWERS: My recollection, he said we've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Another Republican, Georgia's secretary of state Brad Raffensperger responded to that somewhat famous phone call when Trump told him I just want to find 11,780 votes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: We didn't have any votes to find. We have continued to look. We investigated. I can share the numbers with you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: And Georgia's Shaye Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman, both election workers, said their lives were ruined by false allegations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WANDREA SHAYE MOSS, FORMER GEORGIA ELECTION WORKER: I just don't do nothing anymore, I don't want to go anywhere, I second guess everything that I do.
RUBY FREEMAN, FORMER GEORGIA ELECTION WORKER: There is nowhere that I feel safe, nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the President of the United States to target you?
JOY REID, HOST, MSNBC: The human beings who became target for Trump's relentless effort to overturn the election.
JOHN KING, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: The mainstreaming of threats and violence will be a giant legacy of Donald Trump's big lie.
JOSH HOLMES, RUTHLESS PODCAST HOST: There wasn't a bit of information that we got today we haven't had for well over a year.
NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: This just seems to make Donald Trump look awful, just awful.
JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Just questioning from the other side of the aisle would have added greater credibility, and I don't think it would have undermined this powerful testimony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joining us now from New York, Brian Kilmeade, the host of One Nation with Brian Kilmeade, and of course, co-host of Fox & Friends. And in San Diego, Laura Fink, a commentator and Democratic strategist.
Brian, the hearings are partisan, they are changing few minds, absolutely. But the media say the testimony was powerful because with it comes from Republican state lawmakers like Rusty Bowers who campaigned with Trump, who wanted Trump to win. Your thoughts.
BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS CO-HOST: Well, I go back to what Jonathan Turley said. Everybody, all those Republicans were telling you the inside story we kind of knew about. We knew who the lawyers were that were telling us and telling Trump that the election was thrown, that it was not -- that it was not authentic, that he did not -- that he actually won, that they'd been cheated in Georgia.
We heard about Arizona, we heard about problems in Wisconsin, but we saw no proof of it. So, this is almost a dramatic recount of it edited together because you only have one side of the story. They've even seen one documentary with a point of view that's what this is.
I'm not saying it's not factual, but I think, clearly, Kevin McCarthy made a bad tactical error by not putting -- if they didn't want Jim Jordan involved and Congressman Banks, I get it. But there are plenty other talented congressmen and women that would have asked tom pointed questions to say, well, no, that was not the case, and this was the case, and let me explain to you why the president thought this and what brought him to this conclusion and it would have cave at least get President Trump's point of view on it.
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: For the most part, you have anti-Trumpers, people who didn't agree on now live testimony and edited testimony out there. If you do an hour interview, Howie, and you only pick out six minutes, obviously, those six minutes help tell your story. What about the rest? That would have been what the other side would have done.
KURTZ: You know who agrees with you, Brian, is former President Trump who has said publicly a couple times now that Kevin McCarthy made a foolish mistake in pulling all his members. People remember Nancy Pelosi rejected some of his nominees, but I guess given the heavy media coverage, the thinking now among some Republicans is it would have been better to have a defender or two or three on that panel.
Laura, on this question of we're only getting one side of the story, I'm struck that most conservative pundits at organizations including Fox haven't been addressing the specific allegation of this testimony we're getting, Trump pressuring Justice Department officials, pressuring state officials, state legislators in key statements.
Instead, we get, you know, is the hearing fair which is perfectly good to talk about, but it's a process question, and do most people care? The answer may be no, but that's a political question. Your thoughts on that.
LAURA FINK, CEO & FOUNDER, REBELLE COMMUNICATIONS: Well, Howard, and I have to say I agree with Brian, it was a huge tactical error on the part of Kevin McCarthy. There were three other members that he had suggested that he pulled, and that's a problem.
But don't forget Republicans, and as you said, Howie, Republican pundits could absolutely provide evidence and throw up, you know, any sort of opposition, any counterclaims, any facts that they have to offer in the media itself, and you're not seeing that. You're seeing silence on their part because the facts appear to be so damning, the breadth and the depth of the conspiracy, state legislatures.
You're seeing the Justice Department. You're even seeing the Defense Department making calls to the Italian embassy to investigate conspiracies. I think that's what the January 6th hearings are doing that is so compelling. And with the voices of Republicans. We know they're hamstrung because so many Republicans are refusing to testify in front of the committee, but those that do, are talking about civic duty, they are talking about the moral imperative of standing up for the country. They're talking about doing that in the face of widespread threats to themselves and their family members.
And I think that is the story that really is resonant coming out of the January 6th committee. And the fact that no one is defending Trump outside of that committee, those committee's walls, we know that that would be an effective way, but I think it speaks to how much this is not --
KURTZ: OK.
FINK: -- a winning issue for are Republicans.
KURTZ: What about that, Brian? Are media conservatives leaving a void by not going on television shows or writing pieces saying, well, no, no, no, this is unfair because, you know, Trump didn't really do this or disputed some of the testimony.
KILMEADE: Right.
KURTZ: Or is it kind of a strategy of it's a year and a half ago, the country has moved on. If we talk about it, we give it oxygen so let's not talk about.
KILMEADE: I think your latter point is probably the most accurate. I've said this before, I believed from the time when the election results came in until January 6th is the worst moment of Donald Trump's political career, and had he just said I've got problems to this election, I'm going to have my legal team look at it, going to welcome the Bidens to the White House, he'd have about 70 percent approval rating right now, and a clamoring to have him back in office. It would be a coronation, not even an election.
So, I think how you lose in life defines who you are, and even if there are things that bother you, welcome to the world. A lot of times things don't work out in our so-called unfair. Your team couldn't prove it, move on. And the people that I think he trusted a lot kept telling him the other side of the story.
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: Don't give up, Mr. President.
KURTZ: right.
KILMEADE: There is something here. You owe it to your party to keep fighting, and he kept listening to that. And I just think that you look at the start of your show, Howie, you have all these other issues, the Supreme Court decisions, the gun legislation. If those issues are taking this away, why would you bring the American people back to these hearings?
KURTZ: Well, to pressure --
(CROSSTALK)
KILMEADE: From the Republican perspective.
KURTZ: -- if former president continues to pound away at this to this day. Laura, we showed a short clip of Shaye Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman saying their lives were ruined. The FBI told Ruby Freedman to move out of her house because they couldn't guarantee her safety.
The accusation was that there were a bunch of suitcases with ballots underneath the table, turned out they were just sealed boxes and that they were not improperly fed into the machines. Does that kind of thing breakthrough the static because it's such -- you know, these are ordinary people who were trying to do a job. Do you think that breaks through?
FINK: I think it does. I think anytime you see there are real consequences to instigating your supporters to attack people. And I think that we saw those consequences on display. They were both civil servants who were looking to, who were patriots who were looking to preserve and protect our democracy.
And I think when you attack those people, I think it's important to remember that that this isn't just a hearing room in Washington, D.C., these are real people across the country fighting for our small d, democracy. And we see the impacts. There really has to be accountability here --
KURTZ: Right.
FINK: -- so this doesn't happen again.
KURTZ: All right.
FINK: And so, of course, that has resonance.
KURTZ: Brian, I want to play a clip from Richard Donoghue, he testified at the hearing about pressure on the Justice Department, former acting deputy attorney general. First, he talks about what Trump said to them in an Oval Office meeting, and then he talks about whether he would resign if a letter was sent by the DOJ to the Georgia legislature. Roll it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave are the rest to me and the Republican congressmen. Mr. President, I resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy who I had just declared was completely incompetent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: To your point, Brian, as strong as that testimony was, the stuff about leave it to me and the Republican congressmen was reported last July, and the stuff about threatening to resign when Trump was considering replacing the acting attorney general, two weeks after the capitol riot. So, if you have been following this, you knew this stuff.
KILMEADE: There's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes which could have a counterargument. For example, we all work for people or worked with people that sometimes fly off the handle. You know you kind of wait it out, count to ten, go back a little bit later, now that you're calm, what do you think.
You hear that's the way the president often works. We're going to -- we're going to build that wall, I don't care how much it costs, I'll take it out of my pocket. Of course, that's not the story. A little bit later, he comes out and goes, how do we get this done.
So, a lot of this stuff to put in Trump terms the way he ran his White House, to have someone come back and go, yes, the president says a lot of stuff. Sometimes he says, you know, this lunchroom is a mess, and if we don't clean this up, he's going to turn it into a closet. That doesn't mean it's a fact. It's a guy just speaking within the confines of the Oval Office. So, it would have helped to have pushback.
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: But once again, the president was unhinged during that period. I interviewed him at West Point, and he was kind enough to give me a few minutes. I've never seen him so angry. That was in between the election and January 6th. As soon as he were done, he just stormed off, and you know -- I've known him for 15 years --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: Yes, I know --
KILMEADE: -- or 20 years prior to him going to White House.
KURTZ: OK.
KILMEADE: I've never seen him so angry.
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: So, he's convinced he was robbed, there's no doubt about it.
KURTZ: Absolutely convinced.
KILMEADE: But I have not seen any evidence, and these are all incremental examples.
KURTZ: All right. After the break, the coverage of 15 Senate Republicans breaking ranks on gun safety and that Supreme Court ruling knocking down a New York gun law.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: As 15 Republican senators including Mitch McConnell broke ranks to help Congress pass something not seen in decades, a modest compromise on gun safety after the heartbreaking mass shootings in Texas and buffalo, the pundits ranged from equally divided to unenthusiastic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Leaders in both parties wasted not a single moment before using the horrifying mass murder in Uvalde, Texas, to justify gun confiscation. Has there ever been a greater, more brazen sellout of any group of voters than what Republican senators Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and the rest are doing right now?
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, HOST, MSNBC: It is minimal legislation by anyone's score, but it is the only legislation that has moved through there in the last 30 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Brian Kilmeade, the media are praising this deal that's now been signed into law by President Biden, especially Republican senators like John Cornyn of Texas who helped make this happen breaking with their party and the NRA in the wake of these terrible mass shootings.
Does the coverage fairly credit them for something that almost never happens, which is a bipartisan compromise in a hyperpolarized Congress?
KILMEADE: You know, there's few people that I like more and respect more than Tucker, I just disagree with him on this. I believe Republicans got 80 percent of what they wanted. They didn't want a ban on AR-15s, they don't have one. They didn't want to raise the age to 21 to buy a gun, it is not there.
There's no national red flag law. There is money given to states that choose to use it with the criteria that Republicans and Democrats would accept to have red flag laws. The first one went to this place called Indiana with a governor called Mike Pence, red flag law. Rick Scott, Republican governor, red flag law. I believe successfully implemented in Florida.
So what John Cornyn did was went to bat with Senator Murphy, and Senator Murphy almost got nothing what Joe Biden asked for. He wanted, you know, the end of assault weapons. That didn't happen.
KURTZ: Sure.
KILMEADE: What I think we all can say is something they did do that directly affects Buffalo and Uvalde.
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: They can look back at an 18-year-old's record to see if he's a whack job, if he's got a history of violence and being unstable, and both those guys would have been stopped from buying a gun.
KURTZ: Right.
KILMEADE: And if you buy a gun for somebody, the straw buyer, they'll be punished too.
KURTZ: Right.
KILMEADE: So, if I'm a Republican, I'm pretty happy with this.
KURTZ: I don't think whack job is in the legislative text, but I'll check on that. Laura, Donald Trump slammed the new law, saying it's the first step to take away your guns. Matt Gaetz, the congressman, called dissenting senators of his own party traitors, but aren't media liberals kind of, lukewarm because they wanted much more sweeping action?
FINK: Well, that's absolutely true, and welcome to Washington. I think you never would have seen this legislation without a Democratic majority. It was Democrats that were compromising on what they wanted, Democrats who provided the vast majority of the bill's votes and Democrats who negotiated within the terms that, as Brian suggested, Republicans could and would expect. I think that's why you see this carried.
If we'd have had a Republican majority, you wouldn't have seen anything like this hit the floor because they wouldn't have had the votes.
KURTZ: Right.
FINK: So, I do think, unfortunately this week, the media coverage, you know, it's going to get buried a little bit and hopefully as the election approaches --
KURTZ: Yes.
FINK: -- we'll hear more talk about the success because there were so many issues especially with the decision on Roe v. Wade coming on Friday.
KURTZ: Well, I'll tell you what. Without 10 Senate Republican votes, this wouldn't have happened even with all Dems. OK. Also, Brian, as you know the Supreme Court striking down a century-old New York gun law saying you don't need to prove a special need to carry a gun if you're licensed for it outside the home. There was an explosion of opposition from the New York governor to the New York mayor, president and vice president, and the press portrayed the ruling as kind of way out there.
KILMEADE: No question. Six-three decision. They said this is second amendment even for New Yorkers and six other states that says you can carry a gun unless there's a reason why you shouldn't. All these things that have been outlined in the past, psychological problems, history of violence, things of that nature. Why shouldn't it be with the rest of the country.
But then Kavanaugh has that two-pager within it, and it says, listen, name the places you don't want them carrying a gun, a statehouse, a courtroom, 1,000 feet of a school, nursery schools, whatever. Pick up those places and then put some structure to the lack of restrictions. And I think this is more in tune with what the second amendment says.
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: And I think like with the other gun law, Howie, it's like, look where it's working --
KURTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: -- look how it's working, and New York can we possibly have a cool head under pressure for the first time in history?
KURTZ: All right.
KILMEADE: Don't overreact. Just actually lead.
KURTZ: I just want to get Laura in. I mean, obviously, a lot of state battles here. Look, it's a six-three Clarence Thomas ruling on a court with a six-three conservative majority, but pundits are free to criticize. Briefly.
FINK: Well, the three -- let's just look at the sea change in the cases that they're hearing under this new, the three Trump appointees have shifted the court extremely far right, so much so that the rights of states to regulate guns has essentially been taken off the table with this ruling.
This is a landmark case for that reason. The opposition to states' rights on the issue of gun control is now cemented, and that has wide-ranging effects for --
KURTZ: Yes.
FINK: -- the impact of states to regulate them at all.
KURTZ: And it's in New York. Which always get more attention.
All right. Brian Kilmeade, Laura Fink, thanks very much for joining us on these topics.
FINK: Thanks, Howie.
KURTZ: Up next, how the legal battle over Roe is being covered.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KURTZ: Joining us now on the legal fallout of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling is Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor who writes for National Review.
Andy, I know you think Roe was a travesty, but explain to a layman how a constitutional right that the Supreme Court found in 1973 based on privacy, controversial at the time, can be tossed out as nonexistent in 2022 because a lot in the media are saying it's just politics?
ANDY MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, no, it's really, it's the law being more faithful to what the Constitution says. And, in fact, if you just wanted to micro look at Roe and nothing else, Howie, Roe didn't even last 20 years. I mean, the actual technical truth is that we've been under Casey for almost 30 years because Roe was so unstable and poorly reasoned when it came out that it had to be scrapped except for the bottom line holding of it by the Supreme Court less than 20 the years later.
So, it's always been an unstable holding. And at a time where originalism as a legal philosophy has gotten more traction than it had a half a century ago, this is, I mean, the obviously is the pinnacle of that, but it was coming for a long time.
KURTZ: Yes. And the product of a 50-year pro-life movement aimed at this very outcome. What about respect for precedent? There's been a lot of media skepticism, both nominees of both parties over the years genuflecting at their confirmation hearings about the importance of respecting precedent and the argument that this undermines faith in the Supreme Court which, by the way, new Gallup poll says only has a a 25 percent approval rating.
MCCARTHY: Well, I think everybody knows, you know, Dred Scott is not the law anymore and Plessy versus Ferguson isn't, precedent can be overruled. And I thought Justice Barrett in particular in her confirmation hearing was very good at explaining to people that stare decisis, which is this doctrine of respect for precedent, is not a hard and fast legal rule, it's a legal test to figure out which precedents that we should retain.
And if you apply that to Roe versus Wade, it's never been a good candidate for stare decisis because, as I said, it was unstable for the begin -- from the beginning. It was scrapped by the Supreme Court, at least the innards of it, less than 20 years later. And the test they replaced it with, Howie, in Casey was one that invited continuous additional challenges because it set up this undue burden test --
KURTZ: Yes.
MCCARTHY: -- which invited states to regulate. So, it was never really stable.
KURTZ: Yes. And I understand that a lot of nonlawyers follow this and they say, well, you know, six-three key majority. But let me turn to this Samuel Alito ruling itself. Because it talked about the 14th amendment which was the basis part for Roe and how it was approved in 1868. He says we need to look at how things were in 1868. Well, there were no airplanes or phones then. How did the justices arrive at that?
MCCARTHY: Well, you know, there's a lot of speech that we have now that they didn't have in 1787 either, right?
KURTZ: Right.
MCCARTHY: A lot of methods that we have now that weren't available when the Constitution was adopted. So, what you do in constitutional interpretation is you figure out what the enduring principles of the Constitution were at the time that the provisions you're talking about were adopted and apply those to modern circumstances.
And the question the court is asking going forward is, if you want to have unenumerated rights that's enforced, they have to be core to the foundation and the history of the United States, --
KURTZ: Got it.
MCCARTHY -- and they're not going to be recognized.
KURTZ: All right. Andy McCarthy, thanks so much for waiting for us on the show today.
That's it for this edition of MEDIA BUZZ. I'm Howard Kurtz. These battles are going to continue at the state level, the media have every responsibility to cover them and to cover them fairly whether it's abortion, guns, or whatever.
Check out my podcast, Media Buzz Meter. You can subscribe at Apple iTunes, Google podcast, or on your amazon device, a lot of different places. We got it all in. Most of it anyway. We're back here next Sunday, we'll see you then with the latest buzz.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Fox News First
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.