The Chris Cuomo Project - Dante’s Inferno Has A Place For Trump’s Defenders

Episode Date: September 22, 2026

Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://quo.com/CUOMO Chris Cuomo breaks down President Trump’s move to restrict CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House access, arguing that excluding news organizations because of unfavorable coverage crosses a clear First Amendment line. Cuomo explains the legal precedent governing press access, why he sees the controversy as a distraction from affordability and the economy, and why comparisons to previous administrations don’t hold up. He also turns to Dante’s Inferno to make the case that journalists who know the distinction but defend Trump anyway deserve a particularly harsh judgment. Join The Chris Cuomo Project on YouTube for ad-free episodes, early releases, exclusive access to Chris, and more: https://www.youtube.com/@chriscuomo/join Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If anybody, especially members of the media, okay, journalists, absolutely. But if you defend what President Trump just did in banning members of the media, there is a special place reserved for you. This is not just a no-brainer legal analysis. It is a no-brainer ethical and moral analysis. And it's so obvious that when I lay it out to you, you, you're going to see that people who are saying anything but what I'm saying right now, they have a right to be wrong and they have a right to their opinion. But it will never be forgotten

and they are going to wind up somewhere. They do not want to be. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo project. Look, I get that that sounds a little vexing, a little threatening, a little menacing, and it should. There has to be a line between right and wrong. There is a line. wrong. Okay? And what the president just did to members of the media, outlets of the media, is dead wrong all day long. And anybody who's saying, yeah, but Biden, yeah, but Obama, give them the middle finger. Do you understand? Give it to them in their face. Because one, they're wrong. Two, they probably know they're wrong, especially if they're members of the media, especially if they're journalists. Influencers, depends, okay? A lot of these people are mouth breathers.

They don't think, okay? They just kind of vomit out hot takes, and they understand algorithms better than they do politics or history or logic or philosophy or anything that should be germane to the conversation. But look, I'm going to take you through it, okay? To remind, what the president did was he got shown a bunch of clips that teed him off in the moment, and he decided, that's it, I'm not letting these people into the White House anymore. And he said, can I do that? And, you know, somebody either said nothing or decided to lie to him and say, yeah, you can do that.

Now, let's not forget, okay, all of this is a distraction. All of it is by design. You're being played. Trump banning the media is a play. It's a distraction, and he knows it. He knows he can't do it. He's doing it because every moment we talk about this, we're not talking about affordability,

but it's not going to work on me. Okay? I see it for what it is. It's so obviously illegal that I know he knows because I know he's got people around him who have to know the law and they're telling him. Is he dumb enough not to know this? I don't think so, but it could be wrong. It's so obvious. And you all know, once I give you the legal standard, you'll be like, yeah, he had to know that. But you know what else he knows? He's at 29%. And you know why he's at 29% because of his choices. And do you know what he knows about those choices? He knows he owns this economy. and he knows that affordability is everything. And he knows it's on him, and that's why he's at 29%. All right? And they can say, oh, it's about the same place. Most presidents work.

Nope. Nope. No, it isn't. This is a novel period of dislocation of leadership from those being led. He has lost the plot, as they say. Now, this distraction, affordability matters more, okay?

And we are underwater. inflation is not going the right way. This is not because of what they inherited from Biden. It was not worse under Biden because what they were given under Biden was a better level than what we're at right now. Okay? And we know that I'm right because his guy, Warsh, that he put in charge of our money supply and our interest rates.

What did he do? He's raising rates and he's going to raise them again. Okay? And he's raising them because of what? inflation, okay? So they have to be wrong because the entire board voted unanimously because of what I'm saying, which is inflation is still too high, okay? And the reason they're raising rates is because of that and that alone. So he's wrong. And anybody who doesn't want to believe it, they don't have to believe it, but they're wrong. Okay? And being wrong matters.

Again, you have a right to be wrong, but it doesn't make being wrong right. You have a right to be wrong, it doesn't make being wrong right, only in MAGA world, opposite world, surreality. Does that work? Not here, okay? And you do have to get more active in the defense of reality and truth. Make your witness. This is why I sell the swag. Now, the legal analysis is very simple. The Supreme Court has articulated this. It has been echoed repeatedly, but not that often. Why? Because nobody's stupid enough to do what he just did. That's why. Because this is such a grotesque violation of the standard. So the case is Cheryl, S-H-E-R-I-L-L, all right? Cheryl v. Kansas, I think. I don't know. Go back. But it's a long time, okay? Here's the rule. All or none.

All or none. That's the rule. Okay? In terms of access to public buildings, access to the White House, access to government, it's all or none. Can the White House say, can a president say, can any agency say, no press at this event today? Yes, yes, they can. Can the president say, I'm not taking any questions today from the media? Yes, he can. Can the president say, I'm not letting any of you in the White House? Yes, yes, he can. Oh no, but that's the people's house. Chris has that part wrong. No, I don't. Look at the law. There is no absolute right to access even to the White House, even to public buildings, even to them for the purpose of gathering information. There's no absolute right. right for the media. Okay? So you can have conditional access. But what all or none means is you

don't have to let any of us in. But if you let us in, you've got to let us in. Now, is there a little bit of a tweak on this? Yes. What? Capacity. Capacity. Meaning what? We only have room for 10. Certain security interests, certain clearance interests. We can only let in so many of you. and then we're going to choose on the basis of that criteria that we can only choose so money. That is Biden saying, I'm going from this many permits and I'm cutting it by 40%. As long as you're cutting what applies to all, then you can do it. You can limit access. However, what you cannot do, what you should not do, what most people would not ever do,

is making it a content restriction. That's what they call it in the law, which is, I'm not. I'm judging you because of how you judge me. And I am denying you access on that basis, which is exactly, precisely, and definitively, and demonstrably what Trump did here. He said the quiet part out loud. Usually you say, no, we're not letting them come in

because of his security concern or because of this, because you make up some bullshit lie. He didn't do that. Oh, yes. At least he's honest about it. No, no, makes it worse. Okay, but anyway, I'm not letting in CNN and MSN now in Politico because, and you didn't say this part, someone just showed me a bunch of clips that made me feel some kind of way.

But he said they're not fair to me. I don't like them and they're not coming in. Great. That's a content restriction. It's on the basis of their editorial judgment. And you just violated the First Amendment. Period. All day long, 10 times out of 10.

Now, how do we know? All right. Let's go through the legal points. One, no general right to enter the White House. I told you that. Okay? The First Amendment doesn't give a reporter an automatic right to enter the Oval Office, fly on Air Force One, or attend any or every presidential event. The government can impose security, space, logistical, and credentialing restrictions. True, okay. Can it be abused? Yes, but that's the general rule. The government generally cannot punish a journalist for a viewpoint. If access is granted to a class of journalists and the government then excludes one because it dislikes the outlets reporting, it raises a serious first amendment. viewpoint discrimination problem. The district court ruling in the AP case, the most recent case, echoes this idea. Once the government opened the event, it couldn't exclude AP because of his viewpoint.

That's what the district court found. They are appealing, but I think the Supreme Court should have taken it right away because the precedent here is clear, which is the Sherrill case. The important distinction is the D.C. Circuit put that the district court injunction will be on hold, that highly restricted presidential work spaces, such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, aren't necessarily traditional First Amendment forums. That ruling recognized substantial presidential discretion over who is admitted to those spaces. However, the question is heavily dependent on what access is being restricted, what rules govern the access, and the government's stated reason for the restriction.

Okay. The most recent case is AP means that it's all about the reason for the restriction. Again, the AP access restriction because they didn't say Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America or they said Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America, which is so stupid, by the way, but whatever. The district court ruled for the AP. The D.C. Circuit later stayed the ruling pending appeal. Why? They were being nice to Trump. But you can't do it on the basis of content. And this is very simple. Just go back to the Cheryl case. That's where this is going to wind up. And we shouldn't even need to adjudicate this. Because it's so obvious. It's so biased. And every journalist knows it.

You know what's frustrating? When you're running a business, you've got like five things happening at once. The phone range, you miss it. You have no idea if that was a deal, if that was a client, if that was an opportunity, and now it's gone. That's why today's episode is brought to you by Quo,

Q-U-O. business phone system that's built, so you never miss a call. I've been looking at what Quo does, and I like it. Why? Because it's simple. Calls, text, voicemails, all live in one place so your team can see the conversation of history and respond quickly. You can set it up in minutes, you keep your existing number, and you add teammates as you grow. There's no IT headache. There's no complicated setup. Quo even has an optional AI agent that can handle calls after hours, answer questions, book appointments when your team is offline. So when money is on the line, always say hello with Quo. And you can try Quo for free and get 20% off your first six months

at Quo.com slash Cuomo. That's QUO.com slash C-U-O-M-O. Across Canada in a Volvo. Destination. Vancouver. Turn left to leave. Travel west through. Approaching. toward you've arrived adventure and comfort with volvo whether you prefer gas plug-in hybrid or fully electric there's a Volvo for everyone learn more at volvo cars dot ca a journalist that ducks that question one the first test is do they say this is wrong if they don't say it's wrong screw them literally never listen to that person again they're full of shit they're too stupid for you to take seriously or they're even worse than being stupid. They're so jaded.

They're so biased that they can't even see something as plain as this. That has to matter to every journalist. And thank you, CNN, for stepping up and saying what you said for Fox during the Obama administration, which I'll explain. Thank you to Fox, as toxic as you are, as poisoned as you are by agendas. And remember, Fox's prime time is not run by news. It is not news. It is entertainment. Remember that. That's their choice. Google it and you'll see. Hannity, Ingram, whoever else is on there. You know, waters. These people are jokes. And they know that they are jokes, which is why they are not ruled by news. They are entertainers. And it's seen as entertainment.

and that's the defense they gave of Tucker Carlson in court where his own lawyer stood up and said, go ahead, check it. It's all right there in the record. My client is not to be taken seriously. He is not to be taken at his word. This is commentary. He's an entertainer.

They said that about him. Not me saying it about him. Not even the court saying it about him. Not the other side saying it about him. His own effing lawyer said it. Okay? Now, I know some of the mouth breathers and MAGA don't get it. That's not you, all right?

Have clear eyes, my brother and sister. Have clear eyes. But what happened during the Obama administration? So they're fighting with the nighttime guys and saying you're so biased, you're so terrible. There's an interview coming up with Feingold who was working for the administration then. You can't come. You're supposed to be in the pool for this. We're restricting it.

You can't do it. But only Fox. What happens? CNN stands up and says, no, we're not going to run the pool if you're not going to let them in. Why? Because it was obviously an illegal restriction on the basis of not liking their viewpoint. What does the Obama administration do? Backs down. Now, did they do other things, Eric Holder specifically, to mess with free speech? In my opinion, yes. Yes, too aggressive with sources, too aggressive with records, too aggressive. In my opinion, said it at the time, say it now. said it many times actually I've said to many lefties and members of the Obama administration you guys didn't like us so much either by the way you weren't so nice to us either

you weren't so fair to us either but anyway that's not the point the point is this what they did not do is exclude them from all things they exclude tried to exclude them from one and never went through with it because the media stood up and pushed back

so what if what happened today CNN stood up okay during the Obama administration All right. What happened today? Fox stood up. They're D.C. Bureau Chief. Why? Because that's news. You can like it. You can not like it. But that's Fox News. You don't see Lauren Engram or Hannity or any of the other poison pundits. Why? Because they're not news. They're entertainment. They're not journalists. They're not journalists. I don't care what you say. They're not journalists. Jesse Waters is a fucking joke. He's not a journalist. Okay. Now, you may find them entertaining. You may like their takes. That's a different question. Fox News, where I worked, stands up and says, no, we won't be there anymore. We won't do things anymore with this White House because of what they just did. Good for them.

Good for them. That's how obvious it is that even Fox News sees it. Okay? Even Fox News sees it. All right? Government retaliation for protected speech and viewpoint discreet. discrimination. Is there a constitutional entitlement to a seat? No, but if it is denied that way, then you are violating the right. Okay? And that is why

UC CNN and MS Now are suing. They're going to win and all media platforms, including Sirius XM, where I am in the morning, including where I am at night, at News Nation, which is owned by Next Star, which owns more public, more local television stations than any other entity in the country, you should stand with these people in this lawsuit. Because if we do not speak up for them, who will speak up for us? This is all or none. And it should be a common cause. It should be a common cause. Okay. A president cannot do this. He cannot be allowed to do this. This cannot be tolerated. Now, these people who are tolerating it, who are motivating it, who say, oh, how come Cuomo didn't say this when Obama did it or Biden did it?

They did not do this. Yes, they did. Obama did it. Obama was close. Obama was close. He tried it with a specific interview. He did. And then move back.

Why? Saw the error of his ways. Saw the media stand up. Okay? saw the media stand up and they were like, look, we're not going to be able to get away with this. It's a bad look. Let's stop. Smart. Biden, what did he do?

Biden restricted the number of people who can be in there. So it was a general prescription. You can like it, you can not like it. But constitutionally, it's very different than what Trump is doing. But here's my point. What I just said, every journalist knows what I just said. Every journalist knows what I just said. And every responsible member of the media should know what I'm.

just said. So let's assume they know or should know. And for them to yeah, but this, you're going to hell. You're going to hell. And I'll tell you why. Because you are violating the God of journalism, which is freedom of speech. And without freedom of speech, remember what the First Amendment is for. First Amendment is not for what a restaurant says that it wants you to say or not say. Okay? It's not what you can do in your own house, okay? It's not what you can do in your own place of work, okay? It's not what it is. It's what the government can do.

The government may not make any law to allow or disallow selective speech. Okay, you've got a freedom of worship. You've got a freedom of speech. You've got a freedom of being able to seek redress from the government. Now they'll say subject to time, place, and manner, you know, compelling constitutional concerns about how the protest is when it is, where it, is all that. I don't really like that either, but I get it. I understand the jurisprudential basis for it. And of course, of free press. And it was all bundled together because it's all part of the same

understanding. Okay. Now, that's the law. Okay. Now we have just straight old right and wrong and why I say you're going to hell. I'm saying you're going to hell, not to merely morally judge, but it is a play on Dante's Inferno. Okay? Dante, laid exactly this out. You ever hear Dante's Inferno? Nine circles of hell? So Dante's hell gets progressively worse as sins become more deliberate

or involve greater betrayal. The ninth circle of hell, which is therefore the deepest into hell, the hottest theoretically, or that's not the way kinetic energy or heat works, right? It should be the first circle would be the hottest because,

anyway. But here's how it works. Okay, the ninth is the worst. Why? I guess you're buried the deepest would be his metaphor, that it's the hardest to get up out of it, I guess. I don't know. But in terms of heat, I'd rather be in the first circle. It's going to be the least hot. But you're going to be there for eternity.

It's going to be hot anyway. The Inferno are the nine circles of hell. And here's what they were. But let's deal with nine first, because I think this is the one that they fit into. You could argue the eighth, but I'm saying the ninth. Treachery, traitors are frozen in the lake. of cockatus at the center is Satan, chewing on Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. So I guess if they're frozen, I guess it can't be that hot.

The first circle of hell is limbo, virtuous non-Christians and the unbaptized. No physical torture, but eternal separation from God. The second is lust, which is one of the deadly sins, of course. And most of these are based on deadly sins. remember pride, wrath, envy, greed, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Those are your seven. Those ruled by sexual desire, they're endlessly swept around by violent winds, right? Because lust is so fickle. Gluttony, the excessively indulgent, they lie in filthy, freezing, slush under relentless rain. Greed is the fourth circle. Horders, squanderers, they push enormous weights against one another, endlessly Sisyphian in that.

pushes the rock up and then just as he gets up there comes back down. Fifth is wrath. The wrathful fight each other on the surface of the river sticks. The sullen lies submerged beneath it. Isn't that interesting? So the sullen are those who've just been consumed by their own anger and have no more kind of will to be virtuous. It's interesting.

Sixth circle of hell is heresy. Those who rejected religious doctrines are trapped in fiery tomb. seventh is violence divided into violence against others oneself and god or nature and the punish punishments vary accordingly the worst punishment is if you committed crimes against god or nature the eighth is for the frauds okay the ten bulges bulge in italian is a ditch each punishing a different kind of fraud including hypocrisy theft corruption and deceit now i would argue the people who are telling you that well trump you know it wasn't wrong when Obama did it. It wasn't wrong when Biden do. Why is it wrong now? Why are you okay with it now?

I see them as definitely in the eighth circle of hill. Definitely. All day. But they also could be in the ninth one, which is the worst one, which is treachery. Traders are frozen in the lake of cockatus at the center is Satan chewing on Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. All right? So the idea is that it gets worse as you go down the levels. I think they're in the eighth or the ninth circle. I do. I think they're in the eighth or the ninth circle because they know damn well okay that what he's doing is wrong and that's the end of the analysis and there is something juvenile but really really present in our politics which is this false equivalency and yeah budding the what aboutism did you know that this is so pernicious it's so wicked it's so effective that the russians made it part of their

counterintelligence strategy. You know, it's not just about Compromot, which is, you know, where you have shit on somebody that you can use. That what aboutism is a really good thing to seed in a society because it creates this constant cycle of justification that blurs the line of right and wrong. And that's what these mofos are doing right now on this. What Trump did is wrong, end of analysis. Everyone should say it.

There is no other take. There is no other take. Well, I don't know. A president has been giving. great discretion and who's in the White House. Not on this basis. Not on this basis. It was wrong when Obama tried it. It was wrong when Trump did it. I can't give you any other example. I'm not familiar one. In fact, I'll ask, I'll ask, I'll ask. What other president has ever tried what President Trump is trying with CNN, et cetera? Question mark. Let's see. Let's see. I should have done it

with grok. Everybody likes to use grok. Why? Because that's MAGA's chat GPT, right? That's the one that's on Twitter, right? So that's what they defer to. Trump tried to do this also in 2017, 2021. You remember that? When he targeted Jim Acosta of CNN and later imposed new credentialing rules that affected a lot of reporters, but they had to make it more general. Why? Because of what I'm saying right now. You can't just trigger it on somebody because you don't like them. You can't do it, okay? A federal court ordered Acosta's access restored on due process grounds, which, you know, really wasn't even the best ground. It should have been on a First Amendment ground, and I never liked that ruling. Anyway, Trump in 2025, they tried it with AP, okay? And that's in

litigation right now. And now he's doing it. What about other ones? There are no examples, Okay? Administrations have restricted particular reporters or controlled press access, especially for security, space, or credentialing reasons, but I haven't found a well-documented precedent for a president systematically saying in substance, the entire news organization is excluded because we consider the reporting hostile. You see what I'm saying? And here is the legal standard, 1977. Cheryl v. Knight, not Kansas. I had the K-write. The White House has authority to deny press credentials, but that the authority is constrained by standards and procedural protections, which means you can't, you can do all, you can say none of you can come in, it's a

security problem, but you can't do some on the basis of preference of how they report on you, okay? And there are precedents for presidents restricting press access. The much more unusual feature is on the basis of excluding the outlet on the basis of bias, okay? And, um, let's see let me see tell me about because Nixon try this right Nixon and Reagan because I talk to you about Biden and Obama so let's see and let's see what they say the Nixon and Reagan examples are useful but they were different and important ways from what Trump is doing okay Nixon kept internal lists rating journalists according to whether they were favorable neutral or unfavorable the administration identified journalists that considered hostile and the enemies list. Remember the famous or infamous enemies list? That's what it was. Nixon also reduced formal televised press conferences. See, but the enemies list was about political retaliation and use of

government machinery against perceived opponents. It wasn't a blanket rule excluding the whole organization. It was just like a reminder of like, don't do an interview with that guy. Look, I don't like it, but it doesn't offend me legally. Okay? And that matters. Reagan's White House had a different approach, tight control over presidential access news management. In 1984, the White House banned reporters from covering remarks Reagan made to corporate executives. See, but that's different. That's all of you. Okay? That's all of you. In 1985, of the White House Correspondents Association formally complained that Reagan's administration was using the Secret Service to restrict journalists access. Its survey said that pool access had substantially deteriorated and that they were being undermined in terms of

coverage. The second term, contemporary reporting described reporters considered too critical of the administration to being excluded from briefings. So they had to stop that, and the Reagan White House did. And they had to be very careful. And also, there wasn't the same kind of litigation that we're seeing right now. And let's just make sure about that. How did the Reagan restrictions resolve themselves? Did they pull back on them or was it litigated? The answer is, they were resolved through pressure and changes in practice. There was no landmark lawsuit.

And it was creep over time until they came out and yelled about it and then they came back. But again, the dispositive standard here is Cheryl V. Knight. All right? It can't be made through arbitrary procedures, which is what? That we're just doing this because we don't like you.

You can't do it. it. It is illegal. All right? And remember, we know why Trump is doing it. He's doing it because he's underwater and he doesn't want to talk about affordability. And this is a pretty damn good distraction. It also shows you that this man and this administration doesn't give a shit what they break. They don't. Nothing comes before his own self-interest. Nothing. Nothing. Not your household, not your kids, not your economic interests, not your legal interests, not society's interest, incomes before him. Not even his own kids, by the way. You see how he threw Don Jr. under the bus about the Russian guy? May, I wasn't there. Is that what you'd say if it was your kid? And by the way,

unusually savvy move for Trump, but that's not why he was there. They said at the time, he wasn't going because the Iran war was too pressing. Remember that? And then it got real quiet about it when they just stopped talking about it. I wonder if he didn't go because they flagged this Russian thing. I'd be surprised. Why? Because this White House, these people don't give a shit about what people think is wrong, because they know that MAGA will never go bad on them. It's the truest thing Donald Trump has ever said in public service, which is, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and they'd still vote for me. I believe that. I believe that. I think if he shot someone, they'd say, well, why'd they shoot him? Who do you

shoot. I really do. I think that they'd start qualifying it right away. But this is not something that you can let people play with on the basis of advantage. Anybody who says, yeah, but Obama, is this wrong or not? Yeah, but you didn't say anything when he did it. Is it wrong or not? Right? There is no. I mean, just think about it with your kids. Well, other kids cheat. You don't want to hear that from your kid. You don't want to hear what other kids did bad on the test. You're right? You never accept that. That never works with your spouse or at work.

Hey, you know, that guy stinks at the job even worse than I do. What about her? That never works. You do it case by case. This is wrong. This is wrong all day long. So when you see pundits, anyone on social media right now saying, well, Biden did it. Well, Obama did it.

No, they didn't. No, they didn't. And even if they did, is it wrong or not? Is it wrong or not? But bravo to Fox news for standing up. And I'll tell you what, those cantalopes at night should stand up and say this was wrong what he did. Will they? I don't know.

We'll see. I doubt it. Why? They're afraid of them. They want to stay in. That's what they want. Like me, like me. Give me access.

Let me make money. That's what it is. Right? It's the one value they share with Trump. This family. is on the brink of civil war. Mopland, the hit original series is now streaming on Paramount Plus. We are the Harrogans.

Don't know the net? And Google us. From the underworld of Guy Ritchie. Do you want to step up the ladder? I want combat dead. Starring Tom Hardy, Pierce Brosnan, and Helen Mirren. Do I have to do everything myself? You want to want?

I'll give you a lot. New season is now streaming on Paramount Plus. Why do you think he doesn't want to get involved in regular? even though the guys are saying we should be worried because he needs them to be on the come because they are holding up the S&P 500, which is really like the S&P 15, because almost all of the momentum is the huge market caps of these AI companies, which I believe are a huge bubble. And I now believe now, as facts change, feelings can change, and they should. So I was like, I don't get it. I think this is terrible. I think it's a huge national security issue.

They're telling you it's going to happen. I mean, what else do you need to see? I still think there's plenty of proof of that, but I also now think something else, which is I think part of why they're doing it is because they want to close out competition. And they don't want it to be open source. So they want to make open source a boogeyman that's going to kill us

so that they can lock in their competitive advantage over the other ones. Now, why Trump isn't responding to them when they've been putting money in his pocket and he's invested in the companies, I'm not quite sure. I don't get that piece yet. But I do get the stock market part in why he. he doesn't want to mess with what's holding up the stock market, so he doesn't want any bad news about these businesses.

But I now feel less urgent about our, you know, imminent demise at the hands of the Matrix, you know, whatever, the machines. Because I do believe that part of the interest here in spreading this propaganda, or there's this concern, is that the AI guys want to lock out competition because they're afraid of the open source guys catching them and exceeding them. and they've spent so much money already that they're afraid that they're not going to recoup and that their market caps are BS

even with all that public money on them. So I now believe that. But with this, restricting CNN and MSN now in Politico because you don't like their coverage is wrong all day long. And I was fired by CNN, right? I should have a grudge, right?

I don't. I don't blame the platform. I don't blame the place. There are a lot of people there I care about. I think they do an excellent job. I'm pissed at the people who decided to fire me for selfish reasons and then lie about it. I have a problem with that. But I'm not going to blame the whole place.

And there's plenty of stuff I see on CNN I don't like, but so what? It was plenty of stuff I didn't like on CNN when I was at CNN. Right? I feel the same way about News Nation, right? I mean, you can have different feelings about different people and different shows on the platform, different coverage, right? That's okay. It's all okay. You don't have to like how CNN does the job.

You don't have to like how Politico does the job. That's fine. Don't read it. Don't watch it. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the president saying he doesn't like them. Why? Because he has a right to free speech.

How he says it should matter to us. But legally it doesn't. But him doing this is wrong all day long. And these people who are saying anything like, yeah, but, going to hell. You're going to hell. Because you are doing something that is so wrong, knowingly. You know it's wrong and you're doing it anyway. And it's dangerous and the law is clear on this.

And the what aboutism is bullshit. The false equivalency is bullshit. You're lying. You're lying about it and you're lying about it for bad reason. You're a bad journalist. You're being a bad person. Wow, that's really harsh. That's really personal.

This is personal to me. If you start messing with who can say what and when, and look, I get that this is frustrating. I'm the guy who's telling you we got to do something about the algorithms. We can't let these guys regulate themselves because they're killing us. They're killing us. They're feeding us our worst selves in our politics. And they're doing it because it's the most provocative.

And all the people placing their ads are fine with it because all they want are the clicks. And I know that that sounds like censorship. I know that that sounds like government regulation or free speech. And I hate that. I just don't know any better idea when it comes to the algorithms. because these guys have been exempted from any legal scrutiny by Section 230 of the Internet Act. And I think that that's got to change at a minimum. Because I think it's killing us.

So, I mean, I get that this is tricky because that sounds to me like a violation of the First Amendment. It sounds like censorship. It sounds like control of what information you can see. I get it. I don't like that. But I don't know what else to do there. But this is a slippery slope. If you start letting him decide who covers him, none of us are going to be there.

None of us are going to be there. Now, perversely, I know this is good for CNN and MS now, whatever they're called. Why? Because within the general world of non-Maga, it makes you a hero for nothing. Right? It makes you a hero for nothing. That's why I jokingly say, how come I can't get blacklisted? How come I can't get arrested like Don Lemon for doing my job?

Why can't you make me millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of followers and heroize me and make me look like a great deal because you're targeting me and coming after me? because that's what is being done to CNN. I guess political, but really to CNN most of all. And I say good, not because of anything CNN did, but what was done to them and what we have to stand against as a people, especially journalists, especially people in the media, you know better, you know better than to play politics with this,

you know better than to play MAGA over the majority on this. You know better and you're doing it anyway, you're going to hell. and I think it's arguably the eighth or ninth circle, but it's going to suck where you're going, and you deserve to go there. Well, who am I? I wouldn't do this. I've done lots of bad things. I'm flawed.

I've sinned. I'm sure I'm going to be on a few circles myself. I'm no one standard, and I'm not holding myself out as one. I'm not a leader. I'm not virtuous. I'm none of those things. I'm not a role model.

I'm none of those things. I'm just someone who's struggling and trying to figure out a way to help. That's what I'm doing. and I'm telling you right now, if you lie about what you know the rule is, what you know is right, just to create more division and to muddy up the water for Trump, you're going to hell on this one. This is bad. Now, is it the worst?

No, ice is the worst. Ice is the worst. Worse than us bombing a school full of kids? No, that's terrible. I can't think of anything worse than that. but you've got to pick your spots and I'm saying as defending a practice defending how ICE is doing its job is terrible it's immoral it's terrible for other first responders who do the job the right way it's terrible for our image as a country it's terrible for our values oh but they're here

illegally you don't even know that you don't even know that look at their own statistics which you got to believe there's a good chance they're faked right their own statistics tell you that maybe one in three, maybe more, don't have orders of removal. What does that mean? That means they're in detention, and you don't even know why. They don't have final orders of removal. Somewhere if you depend on which block of people, in which place, and which time, it's somewhere between one and three and one and two.

Don't have final orders of removal? I thought you kept saying to me, but they're here illegally. We don't even know that. We don't even know that, and they're being held in detention centers that suck where terrible things are happening, where they won't even let us in. It's indefensible. Indefensible. This is even more obvious what we're talking about here. You cannot keep out free speech on the basis of whether you like that speech.

You can't do it. I know it's hard. It's hard to be virtuous. It's hard to be part of the experiment. It's hard to make a more perfect union. But that's what we signed up for here. And that's what this president is supposed to be the steward of. And thankfully, he put his big-ass foot right in his big-ass mouth on this one

and made it very clear that what he's doing and why he's doing it is against the law. And anybody who says otherwise is going to hell. They're part of the problem. And you should see it for what it is. And yeah, I'm saying to tongue-in-cheek. And no, I don't want to judge anybody's morality ultimately. And I don't want to see bad things happen to people. But you've got to take a stand on what's right and wrong.

And this is wrong all day long. You agree? What do you agree? I'm Chris Cuomo. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. Thank you for listening to the law. Learning a little bit about Dante's Inferno and his circles and what they're about. And how you got to take a stand, you've got to make your witness.

You've got to be a free thinker. You've got to be a critical thinker. You've got to be a free agent. You've got to show that you're different. You're not going to swallow this BS just to play one side against the other. Okay? It's not about left and right. It's about being reasonable.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make the case. Let me know what you think. Okay? I'll see you in the morning, SXM, Channel 124, 7 to 9. I see you at night. News Nation, 8P. Eastern. Every weekday night on News Nation, you can find it wherever you find your cable local listings.

You can use their app and get to us also. And I'll see you on the Chris Cuomo Project right here, and I'll see you on Cuomo Crime Time. Have you subscribed yet? Please do. My brothers and sisters, the challenges are real. Let's get after.