Morning news brief
The U.S. and Iran will resume peace talks Tuesday, SCOTUS expected to make a decision on birthright citizenship, Colorado voters head to the polls.

A veteran journalist and former New York Times public editor called out CBS News' gesture toward public accountability as a "blatant sham."The network's Donald Trump-aligned new owners tapped Kenneth R. Weinstein, a former chief executive of the right-leaning Hudson Institute, to review complaints about its coverage as ombudsman, but media expert Margaret Sullivan wrote on her "American Crisis" Substack that he had failed to be independent or transparent as promised."From the get-go, there was no reason to think this would be a real thing — a person whose first responsibility was to the CBS audience and whose first interest was fairness in the public interest," Sullivan wrote. "First off, Weinstein had no background in supervising news coverage. He was a denizen of the right-leaning think tank, the Hudson Institute, a vocal champion of Israel, a critic of the Biden administration and a big donor to Republican and pro-Trump political groups.""I’m not sure how this amounts to independence," she added.Weinstein had been "notably unresponsive" to viewer complaints about CBS News, which has seen "60 Minutes" stars like Anderson Cooper and Scott Pelley flee and ratings collapse, and Sullivan said the network's ombudsman had done remarkably little to respond to the tumult."Despite the lip service to 'transparency,' his role was never meant to face outwards, as is the norm with news ombudsmen; rather, if he saw a problem, he’d report it to his corporate bosses," Sullivan wrote.The Times recently reported on Weinstein's public silence, noting that he hadn't issued any statements about the CBS News controversies or issued any guidance to staffers, and employees say he's told them he is scheduled to work only one day a month."It’s absurd," Sullivan wrote."I know something about this because I was the fifth 'public editor' at the New York Times, a role dedicated to making sure the news organization was fair and was serving the public interest," she added. "The way the Times’s position was structured created actual, not fake, transparency."Sullivan compared her workload – several blog posts each week and a more formal column every other week, in addition to fielding hundred of emails and calls – to Weinstein's duties, and she suggested five topics the CBS News ombudsman could look into during his seemingly singular workday.For example, Sullivan urged him to investigate editor-in-chief Bari Weiss delaying Alfonsi's El Salvador prison report amid a pending merger; mass departures of top talent like Cooper, Pelley and "60 Minutes" executive producer Tanya Simon; CBS Evening News' ratings collapse under Dokoupil; CBS Mornings' steep audience drop post-Pelley; and whether Weiss's pro-Israel views compromise Gaza coverage independence."I could go on, but you get the picture," Sullivan said. "So does the public, if comments on the Times article are any indication. It’s (yet another) embarrassment to CBS News."
The U.S. and Iran will resume peace talks Tuesday, SCOTUS expected to make a decision on birthright citizenship, Colorado voters head to the polls.
Legal analyst and journalist Marcy Wheeler, who writes under the handle EmptyWheel, mocked Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week over a segment celebrating the end of Biden-era protections for Haitian immigrants, arguing Ingraham's framing revealed "two telling confessions."The segment aired during Fox's coverage from Trump's Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C. In it, Ingraham promoted comments from White House adviser Stephen Miller declaring the Biden administration's Haiti policy finished."STEPHEN MILLER MAKES IT CLEAR: BIDEN'S HAITI POLICY IS OVER," Ingraham wrote in a post sharing the clip, quoting the assessment that the policy "was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done."That characterization is what caught Wheeler's attention, and she reacted with mock astonishment, arguing Ingraham had inadvertently revealed more than she intended."WOWOW," Wheeler wrote, before laying out what she framed as two unintended admissions.The first, according to Wheeler, was a matter of basic timeline: that Ingraham "doesn't know who was President in 2010 or 2017" — years relevant to when Haitians received Temporary Protected Status following natural disasters, under administrations that included Trump's own first term.The second, Wheeler argued, was more pointed — that Ingraham apparently considers renewing protections for immigrants from disaster-stricken countries to be, in her framing, "one of the most heinous things this government has ever done.""Two telling confessions," Wheeler wrote.The jab lands on a recurring criticism of the right's messaging around Haitian TPS — that the timeline of who granted and extended those protections is more bipartisan and complicated than the clean partisan story suggests, and that casting humanitarian protections as among the government's worst acts says more about the speaker's priorities than about the policy itself.The exchange comes amid intense scrutiny of the administration's move to end TPS for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, a decision recently cleared by the Supreme Court and condemned by critics as racially motivated.
A pair of legal experts were astounded on Monday while discussing a trap the Trump Department of Justice may have laid for itself in a recent case. One of the arguments Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made when the DOJ created the $1.776 billion settlement between the Trump administration and the IRS was that Trump had been irreparably harmed by a government contractor or employee, which is why they sought such a large payout. However, that argument could get the Trump DOJ into trouble in other cases where privacy matters are concerned, according to Lisa Graves, co-host of the "Court Accountability Action" podcast and Christopher Swartz, the senior ethics counsel for the Democracy Defenders Fund. The two legal experts reacted to the trap in a new episode on Monday. "This is a clear case of failure of those baseline duties of any lawyer, whether they're a first-year lawyer or a lawyer who's been out practicing for 20 or 30 years," Graves said about the settlement agreement. "The misconduct, the failure to defend the interests of the United States, the IRS, and the other agencies, is jaw-dropping."The $ 1.776 billion settlement was initially established to pay claims from people who were wrongfully prosecuted by the federal government. However, the idea was quashed after it received strong bipartisan pushback. Even so, the Trump administration has refused every attempt to make it put in writing that the fund will never be established. Swartz, whose organization filed an ethics complaint against Blanche over the IRS settlement, argued that Blanche's argument "prejudices the government's position" in other cases that involve privacy matters. The ethics complaint was filed at a time when Blanche was seeking confirmation for the full Attorney General role. Some Republicans have already said they won't support Blanche's nomination, which sets the stage for a contentious confirmation battle.
A political analyst called out a striking contradiction that President Donald Trump's chief spokesperson made during an interview on Fox News. David Pakman, host of "The David Pakman Show" on YouTube, said in a recent video that Karoline Leavitt "immediately imploded" during her appearance on Fox News's "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He noted that Leavitt had a hard time explaining how the ceasefire brokered between the U.S. and Iran is going, and offered a contradiction that left him taken aback. "So, as far as we're concerned, we're holding up our end of the ceasefire, but violence will be met with violence," Leavitt told host Brian Kilmeade. "As you mentioned ... there were attacks on commercial vessels that the United States of America, directed by the president, responded to ..." Pakman described Leavitt's comments as "quite a contradiction." "That is a very conditional ceasefire," he said. Now, I'm not suggesting that what we need to be doing is looking away and going, 'We will never defend ourselves.' Of course, that's not what I'm saying. But when you've already failed to end this thing 40 times and every time it looks like negotiations are starting, Donald Trump goes, 'But we'll also destroy the country if we need to.'Why are we pouring gasoline on the fire?"
Senator Chris Murphy was ripped over his memory bias as he deflected on a question about the latest leftward tilt of the Democratic Party. The Connecticut Democrat […]
The 2023 verdict found Trump liable for sexually abusing writer and then defaming her – key US politics stories from Monday 29 June at a glanceThe US supreme court on Monday declined Donald Trump’s request to review a New York jury’s 2023 verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing writer E Jean Carroll, and then defaming her.The justices did not provide an explanation or reasoning, and no public dissents were noted. The decision leaves intact the $5m civil judgment against Trump that was returned by the jury after the two-week trial in 2023. Continue reading...
The Supreme Court just took "one more big step toward autocracy," Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern argued Monday, and he warned Congress was left in the rubble.Stern wrote that the court's two same-day rulings on presidential firing power are "almost comically irreconcilable." In Trump v. Slaughter, the 6-3 conservative majority overturned Humphrey's Executor, a unanimous 91-year-old precedent, and held the president can fire the heads of independent agencies at will, clearing President Donald Trump's removal of Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.Yet in Trump v. Cook, the same chief justice led a 5-4 ruling shielding the Federal Reserve and blocking Trump from ousting board member Lisa Cook. Roberts, Stern wrote, "barely bothered" to explain the contradiction."On what basis could Roberts and Kavanaugh possibly allow Trump to purge Democratic appointees from the rest of the administrative state while zealously protecting members of the Fed?" asked an indignant Stern.The Slaughter ruling, he said, strips independence from agencies overseeing nuclear energy, consumer safety, unions and much of the economy, handing Trump sweeping control. He called the impact "gobsmacking."The biggest winner, he argued, is the court itself, which now gets to rewrite the rules of American governance and bend them toward outcomes it prefers.Stern pointed to fallout already unfolding, including Trump pushing out a postmaster general who balked at his demands and installing one who, Stern wrote, agreed to withhold mail ballots in blue states — part of an effort a federal judge has blocked.In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority had distorted the structure of government to fit a theory of "unitary, total executive control.""It is tempting to say that the biggest loser is Congress, which just saw its express authority to structure the executive branch nuked from orbit. And certainly, the legislative branch just suffered a massive blow," he said.But the real casualties, he argued, are Americans who would rather live in a democracy than the autocracy he claimed the court is building.His closing question: how many more hits before it all comes "crashing down"?The rulings landed the same day the court rejected an RNC bid to toss late-arriving mail ballots.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch refenced Federal Communications (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr targeting ABC late night host Jimmy Kimmel as part of an opinion issued on President Trump’s powers over independent agencies the court handed down this week. In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the court ruled Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member…