and only won three. he understood that he's not going to beat that british army. he just had to keep the army existing. he just had to keep them alive. so, he was always running away. and also, yes. gave up the crown when he could've gone the other way. and also, he was so precious and. he was the one who said political parties are going to be the death of us. once we get into that kind of factional thinking. and look at all these years later, that's really how it turned out. >> you can catch more during bill during realtime with bill maher every friday night i-10 pm on hbo. and his post show segment, overtime, which airs right here on cnn fridays at 11:30 pm eastern. i'll see you back here tomorrow on the lead. cnn tonight with alisyn camerota is next. >> good evening, everyone.

i'm alisyn camerota. welcome to cnn tonight. we just heard the kind of conversations that a lot of us are having at our own dinner tables. bill maher talk to jake tapper about politics and race and cancel culture and wokeness. >> how do you define wokeness? because i hear people use the term all the time. and it means something different to everybody. >> well, again, i think it's this collection of ideas that are not building on liberalism, but very often undoing it. i mean, five years ago, abraham lincoln was not a controversial figure among liberals. we liked him. [laughter] now they take his name of schools and turned down his statues. really, lincoln is not good enough for you? >> are we all having conversations also where we accidentally step in it? and what conversations do we now feel uncomfortable having because we're afraid to get it wrong? so, our panel is going to tackle all that in just a moment. also, the supreme court hearing challenges to president biden's student debt relief plan.

some of the conservative justices see him skeptical. so, out of their own experiences affect how they see all of this? is their solution to the crush and burning of student debt? and why is college so expensive anyway? plus, listen to this. listen to this, president biden and jill biden went out to dinner the other night. and they both ordered the same thing. why? what dish was so good that they both had to get it? we have a lot to talk about tonight. okay, here in the studio with me, we have josh barrow, host of the very serious podcast. and one of our favorite republicans, margaret hoover, one of our very favorite republicans. and one of our very favorite texans, ellzey anderson. and my strange work husband, john berman. [laughter] >> very favorite? >> i like that list. and i think i'm going to go with one of the very favorite ones. >> all right, great to have you all here. okay, should i just start with

this totally loaded question of who thinks wokeness is gone too far? >>, well i mean i think it goes back to jake tapper's question what does wokeness even mean? >> what does it mean? >> i think people throw it around, and i mean all sorts of things. i think freddy the board, when he writes about, this has the best term to use for it. which is that people are talk about social justice politics, which is a politics that's more focused on peoples group identities and marginalized groups and how societal biases and history reflect the way people get to exist and live based on their membership in different groups. >> you mean the best form? even the best form? >> that's form, and its worst form. you can do that kind of analysis well, or you can do poorly. i think that's usually what people are talking openly use the term wokeness. i guess the other thing is, you, know the idea that wokeness can refer to when people are very focused on stigmas make people feel, rather than on whether the statements are true or not. and again, that can be something that is a bad instinct that causes you to avoid saying things are true. but it also be a good instinct

that causes you to be sensitive to people. >> i totally understand there's nuance. i guess what i'm talking about is when roald dahl's books, when people start removing the word fat or white from roald dahl's books, though he wrote the 1960, one though it's time for him to change them because that made some people uncomfortable, that is something that, you know, obviously as you know, some republicans can run what. >> well, it's not just republicans. i think republicans are leveraging actually a legitimate, not grievance, but right that ordinary americans have, which is that there is in some of this analysis, which is come to encompass the word woke when it's used pejoratively, is this sense of intolerance. and the sense of frankly illiberalism. that somehow there is not a -- there is no birth for people to work through these issues in a way that is honest and authentic and maybe mass stepson it, as you said. but there's also learning. and instead shuts down the debate because of the way other

people feel, and does not create a space for frankly a civil conversation in the public square. >> ellzey, how do you see? it >> you, know it's interesting that the conversation would start off with bill maher. because his show politically incorrect is out in the early 90s. that is when -- was very popular. and the word woke is being used quite often in music. for some reason, bill maher missed that. probably because he did not care about that. the reason why woke is such a conversation piece now is because people have politicized it. where it originated from, black folks, simply meant to be in light and, to be aware of your surroundings. other groups have politicized the word. but those who truly understand this original definition, we still are woke. we're not going to be less woke because desantis signed something or because bill maher makes a joke because someone redefines r-word. that's your definition. that's fine and dandy. but the true definition of the, we still hold true.

and i, we i mean those who are black and subscribe to a certain belief, which is very important to be enlightened so you understand why people are in the situation that we're in. >> i'm curious what conversations bill maher wants to be having that he's not having. he doesn't seem like he's being held back all that much by, our colleague bill maher, by the way, by the wokeness that is out there. i read an article today we had a discussion with greg got felt about incest born on his podcast. i mean, he seems to be free to talk about whatever he wants to talk to. look, that's not for me to judge. he seems to have that opportunity. and you putting a date on when you talk about the 90s, it was interesting. i was thinking about phillip roth wrote a book called a human stain, which is the late 90s book. and the whole premise of the book is a professor basically loses his job, is run out of town, because he says something that's deemed offensive, right. this is 1998. so, by my math, that's what, 25 years ago.

so, 25 years ago they're talking about this. the only difference between then and now maybe we're all 25 years old. so, maybe this is something that's just occurring to some people as they age. >> it happened before that. >> always. >> there is a great song called wake up everybody. wake up everybody, no more sleeping. ♪ ♪ ♪ i listen to that every day growing up as a kid, seven, eight years old. this is the early 80s. i mean, the wide awake's were started by republicans to support president lincoln. the idea of a concept to be cognizant and being in line and is being bastardized by people who don't want to be held accountable for their behaviors of their grandparents or their great-grandparents or the greatest generation. because, oh, hello, who enforce jim crow laws? which generation enforce those jim crow laws? that when it means to be awake, is to put two and two together and say oh, that's four. >> i think whether there's things bill maher can't say is the wrong question. it is show israel time, but his

old show was politically correct, ran for decades, and he says things other people aren't supposed to say. and that's gonna be part of success on television. the reason the show has been so long-standing associates will is he's offering something that other people don't offer, but there is a market for. and i think it's a reflection that there are things in a broader society, and within the media and various news organizations, people can go out and say the things that the law says. and you know, i'm not saying that everyone should run their mouth about everything all the time. there's good reasons that if you're a new york time reporter, there are opinions are supposed to keep yourself. but i think when people talk about cancel culture and they say, look, here's this person saying this thing and they're not canceled, they're getting more famous than ever, that's true. and i think partly people worry too much about how other people react. if you have something that you think is important and you feel like you should not say, that maybe the solution is just that you should not say it. but also most people are not of bill maher's professional position. a lot of people face consequences that he's not going to face. >> but in your regular life, to find yourself holding your tongue in a way that you did not used to because you are

afraid that a conversation is getting too dicey now? >> not -- well, actually, it's funny for me, because i do this for a living now. and i actually increasingly just feel like i don't feel like having these arguments in my off time. so, yes. >> so, then your putting yourself in an ecosystem or in an echo chamber, a silo in a way. >> i'm not in a silo. >> by choosing not to engage in the kind of cross pollinating discussion because it's too tiresome. >> well, yeah, sometimes it is tiresome. but i don't know, it somehow that is feel like i'm off the clock. >> why is it tiresome though? >> it's not tiresome. i think -- look, i think what you're getting at is is there something now that there wasn't 20 years ago? maybe not in the context of the etymology of the end of this sort of interesting historical context of the word woke. but in the context of what is permissible speech and what is not permissible speech, take the academy. i mean, it in the 1950s william f buckley junior rights in god and man at yale. which is totally getting at the original sort of -- question about free speech and what is permissible in the

academy. and then in the 90s, we went through the spirit of political correctness, as though there is a clamping down of free speech in college campuses, which echoed that same tradition. >> that has nothing to do with wokeness. >> yes and no. >> an in terms of conversation. >> not your definition, not the original definition. >> i'm not speaking in terms of what someone else does to the definition to justify their own political understanding. >> i understand. but the bastardized version that we're now now living. >> we're in the purest version. >> ellzey, when the piers where. jim were in the bastardized. and >> i'm not living in the bastardized version of the word. i'm telling you there is -- creative jack daniel's. i'm telling you it was black women who helps and a white man into space. i'm not sitting up here allowing the false stories that we've been taught as kids to dictate how i view myself, my people, or my life in this country. and i think there are a lot of people who still hold true to the original definition of woke. and not getting caught up in the way people have hijacked the definition to their own

political agenda. >> this is why i think the word is a bit of a distraction. because so much what people are talking about, this has nothing to do with the african american experience. it's been broadened out. but so many areas. >> but in an serious way, i think they know the blacks definition. and they know they set it off for. people and that's why the use. it >> but i think you're absolutely. right >> don't you think culturally, we have obviously as every generation has, to change our language. >> yes. >> and we are having to watch what we say more now than we did previously in our lives and other generations did. i find this 1:19 age daughters. i have conversations with my teenage daughters and talk to them about being a teenager. i -- they think that i was like a victim of the patriarchy. and i like only saw myself to the male gaze. and this is how they talk to me now. so i mean, i just find all these conversations to be a little bit more fraught than they were ten years ago. >> that is the case. and this is quantifiable. there are social scientists who have documented how speech is

particularly in the academy, which may be my long winded way of saying of, in academia in particular and on college campuses, exactly, you know, jonathan ike has done great work documenting how the impact of frankly a dampening of free speech on college campuses. of course, you're free to say anything. but will you keep your job? will you be able to stay in the class? will you not be bullied? there has been an experience that is worse, probably heighten by social media, probably heightened by the polarization that we have in our online experience that has been increased, and frankly heightened during covid. these are real things. and that's why there is residents politically on both the left and right for it? >> and i think you definitely see it in the press now as. well there's this brouhaha of the new york times over certain covered from the science desk from youth gender medicine. and all of the arguments against the way the new york times deals with it deals only glancingly with reporting, which i think is very careful and balanced. it is much more about how the reporting makes people feel, how the reporting might affect people based on what groups there in, which political

actors might be emboldened by the reporting, which are not actually questions about the quality of the reporting itself. we saw the same thing with the lab leak. we have this new report out with low confidence about the idea that covid came from a lab leak. there are other government reports would low confidence that emerge naturally. we'll probably never know where it came. from we went through this period especially when trump was president, were basically when people try to talk about that, they were shouted down like i was a conspiracy theory. they were told that talking about it was going to foment violence against asian americans. and again, these were not arguments that went to the direct question of where did covid come from. i think this has been a change, mostly a negative change, that we've seen in the media, where we've gotten away from pursuit of factual questions. the letter from glaad, the lgbtq lobby group to the new york times literally criticize them for just doing just asking questions reporting. what reporters do is ask questions. and sometimes the questions are uncomfortable, and sometimes the questions have control political implications. but i do think that's been a shift that's related to this increasing focus on the way people feel based on their group membership. >> i think the word woke, it's

interesting that you characterize it that way. and i agree with you. but it feels to me that those who use the bastardized version of woke are the ones who are sensitive and being snowflakes. because they don't the true information getting out there, because they don't want kids going home and rethinking the family tree. i think they are being sensitive to that. which is the reason why when you look at the state we live in now, texas, trying to re-light how slavery is described. saying that people were, i think it was involuntarily displaced instead of kidnap. [laughter] and forced into enslavement. light, there are different ways that you are looking around now that republicans mostly, but not only, are using their positions and state as well as government as well as federal politics to try to make sure that they don't feel bad about the history of their forefathers. and they try to blame black people by saying your being too woke. when the reality is you hid this from us. you hid all the towns that were burned down from us. you hid, as i mentioned earlier,

the history of nasa and how this collection of black geniuses came up with the right formula. i look at star wars, not a single black person in space. i didn't know for years that black woman created that formula. that is because you don't want us to feel a certain way about ourselves. but more importantly, you did not want to feel that way about yourselves. >> friends, thank you very much. for all that, we have to get this. we've got some breaking political news. cnn projects the chicago mayor laurie lightfoot will not be back for a second term in office. paul vallas, who is head of the schools in chicago philadelphia new orleans and cook county commissioner brandon johnson will advance to a runoff election for chicago mayor on april 4th. nine candidates are on the ballot for chicago mayor. but since none of them won more than 50% vote, i hope i'm saying this right, vallance and johnson will face off. lightfoot found itself would few allies in her bid for a second term, and a host of powerful interest allied against her. the police and teachers unit

backed other candidates. all right, stick around everybody. because when we come back, we want to talk about the big debate over student loan forgiveness. some people feel burdened, of course, when the crushing loans for decades. and the supreme court is taking this up there. the first time you connected your website and your store

was also the first time you realized... we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? [together] the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. godaddy. tools and support for every small business first. with gold bond... you can age on your own terms. retinol overnight means... the smoothing benefits of retinol. are now for your whole body. plus, fast-working crepe corrector diminishes wrinkled skin in just two days. gold bond. champion your skin. if your business kept on employees through the pandemic, getrefunds.com can see if it may qualify for a payroll tax refund of up to $26,000 per employee, even if it received ppp, and all it takes is eight minutes to get started. then we'll work with you to fill out your forms and submit the application; that easy.

and if your business doesn't get paid, we don't get paid. getrefunds.com has helped businesses like yours claim over $2 billion but it's only available for a limited time. go to getrefunds.com, powered by innovation refunds. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

ever leave your clothes in the dryer and find a wrinkled mess? try downy wrinkle guard fabric softener! wrinkle guard penetrates deep into fibers, leaving clothes so soft, wrinkles don't want to stick around. make mornings smoother with downy wrinkle guard fabric softener. >> will millions of dollars of student loans be forgiven? that's what the supreme court is deciding, after hearing oral

arguments today into cases challenging president biden's student loan forgiveness plan. the outcome could drastically affect the lives of 40 million buller was. the plan, which could provide up to $20,000 in debt relief, has been on hold for months after a lower court locked it. okay, let's bring in our panel. margaret, do you like the idea of student loan forgiveness? >> look, there's a lot of ways to fix the student loan, the student debt problem. there is massive student debt in this country. there's too much of it. college cost to much. there's a lot of reason why. that i think is a separate question then whether an executive action by a president should wipe out all student loan, all student loans that's on the books. and the constitutional question the court is dealing with about whether there's a separation of powers question, that if you want to do, this congress should pass a law rather than a president passing executive action in order to wipe all student clean.

but do i like present binds approach to this? no, of course not. do i recognize that student debt is a problem, a serious and difficult policy problem that ought to be tackled by our representatives at the federal level? >> yes. >> and you think they would ever do that? >> look, i am not pollyannaish, but i'm not a cynic either. did i think mary equality would pass at the federal level, be qualified into law and be passed into law with republicans and democrats both in the senate? i did not think that. but i worked for it. and it happened. so, it takes all of us putting our nose to the grindstone and trying to get the really frustrating process of legislating policy through. that's what you do. >> josh, do you like the idea? >> no, well, first of all, it's not legal. there is a reason that the biden administration spent the year trying to get congress to send them a law that would cancel student debt. because this cockamamie idea, this 2003 law that allows a response to medical emergencies allows you to cancel hundreds

of billions of dollars of student debt on the basis of the covid emergency, three plus years after the start of the pandemic. the idea that this is a response to the covid emergency is just nonsense as a policy idea. we've already seen the court reject efforts to do something similar when the cdc issued an eviction moratorium. there are important areas of policy here, but the branch cannot just keep freelancers to spend several hundred billion dollars. and i think part the reason why people think so really about this issue is they don't feel like it is real money. because it's not the government actually sending out checks. they're basically crossing lines off a piece of paper. >> they would give you a tax deduction. >> well, the payments that you'd have to make back to the government you no longer have to make. so basically, the government forgoes several hundred billion dollars of revenue over many years. and that's an expense. it's an equivalent if we sent checks out to people. >> got you. >> and if the present just woke up one morning and was like i want to send out several hundred billion dollars and checks, without a particular authorization from congress, people be like, that's illegal, you cannot do. that now, with the supreme

court case there is some complicated legal issues about standing, about whether anyone is actually legally allowed to sue in the supreme court over this. i don't really have a view on that. so, it's possible that the court will end up deciding that it's not their place to rule on whether this is legal or not. but no, this is lawless of the administration. >> gentlemen, anyone have strong feelings about this? >> i will tell you, if you ask like a 24 your version of me about this, you know, i'd be like, yeah, it's awesome. because that was, i was what, two years, 12 years into paying off my student loan. >> now that you've -- how do, you feel? >> the interesting question i feel is will people in their twenties or early 30s or mid 30s, as the case may be, feel like something is being taken away from them now? that's an interesting political question to me. now that president biden has put it out there as a political move, whether it was justified or not, and he clearly had debts, because he took a long time to do this, whether or not in doing it now people feel like they've had something taken away, a little bit. >> even the people who pay their debt?

>> no, i mean students, i mean young people, i mean people in their twenties who have student debt now that thought they might have it forgiven. they now blame republicans, or the conservative court, for taking that away from them politically, is that something that will help president biden? >> i'm not -- >> i'm not one hunted percent sure cathartic a quite as tangible as josh was suggesting, as some other things. i'm very curious, just actually, look, i think it's problematic. and i thought joe biden thought it was problematic from beginning. the 2003 laws written in a pretty squishy way. it's written a squishy way, that if you want to be a textualist, and they always seem to in certain cases, but not another. you can look at the text that lawn say, okay, maybe it allows for perhaps if they wanted, this court, in this case i don't think we want to. >> i thought your phone to the complaint we hear from some people, which is i had to pay my student debt, let's make them have to pay their. why do they get a free ride? i pay my student at. i hear that complaint sometimes. >> i hear that complaint to.

first, i do appreciate what the president tried to do to help people. you know, we all were here for the great recession. we saw how the federal government strong up, because this business industry is too big to fail. this was too big to fail. these people need help. tons of money going up to rescue businesses that were in need. and every single time it's time to rescue people, they're screaming. is it legal, is that this, is it that? so, i appreciate the effort. i think the most important thing for the administration and congress do is to not necessarily focus on student loan cancellation, but forgot why so much money has been spent for college in the first place. >> oh for sure, 1000%. it's so proactively expensive for so many people. and there's also an argument that by doing this student debt forgiveness, student loan forgiveness, it only encourages colleges. >> that's the problem. >> but this is also the weird thing with a focus on cancellation. if you can spend more money on pell grants, or other things that make a cheaper for people to go to college in the future,

more people go to college. and you get more education. if you have the people have already gone to college, or you spend the, money that's great for them. but as a cause anyone additionally to get a college degree. it's not education -- >> that's not true. that's not necessarily true. >> why would people go and get a college degree based on the fact that somebody else received retrospective relief? they hope there will be another cancellation in 15 years? >> well, i know for a fact that because i was student loan free, i wasn't able to have extra money to pay for my son's education, so that he was not saddled with debt. there isn't just a simple, you know, disconnect where it's like, oh, well you are free, and you are in a silo, and that means your standing in life is not affected by anyone else is. that free money could also help feed people. that free money could actually help house people. there's a reason why it was decided it was emergency, because the student loan debt, those payments are taking food off peoples tables. >> that was a situation in 2020, 2021, when the economy was depressed. >> that's always been the situation. >> no, when the economy has the

capacity, and you send out hundreds of billions of dollars in extra money, it doesn't create hundreds of billions of dollars worth of extra goods and services. it just dries out the price. we're in a situation -- back in 20, 2021, we need a huge stimulus for the economy. the government actually overshot, that's why we end up at a percent inflation. and other need to find ways to de-stimulate the economy. so, that's part -- of you know, understood politically why the president to the salon announcement. and even i think it is illegal, actually think is a savvy political choice. i accidentally came out by -- come out ahead by doing. but it's not what it called for an economic system. it's 1 to 10 push inflation awkward, along with several other things also put inflation of. it's really important right now, both as economic manner and as political matter from president, to trying get inflation down. >> i think it's also important to look at the justices and their own backgrounds when it comes to their student loans, or their education. so, the justices all make close to $275,000 for their salaries. that does not include things like book deals and other forms of revenue. justice thomas wrote in his 2007 memorable time to take up student loans. and that he and his young family were struggling.

and he was still paying them off at age 43, when he became a supreme court justice. sonia sotomayor went to princeton and yell on a scholarship. i think that's interesting. four justices have tax free savings accounts for their kids. chief justice roberts has 600,000 in one of them. brett kavanaugh has 300,000. i just think that's interesting and whether or not that somehow colors their decision-making. >> but in most cases, look, in most cases the way the justices, especially at this elite level, the third branch of government, the judicial branch, they're jewish prudence, their judicial philosophy is, you know, of course they have their own personal experiences. but it's actually not inform by the personal expenses. it's informed by their approach to the law, their approach the constitution. >> i mean, that so -- i'm reading that. but sometimes i just don't know their own experiences. >> and so, i think if you look at other comments were in this case today, and this hearing today, it was about separation of powers, the role of congress, thoroughly executive branch. none of them are like, oh, well

i've a lot of debt, i understand we are saying. the constitutional question before them has nothing to do with their own personal experience. >> look, how do separate those? how you separate your lived experience from interpretation of what's on a piece of paper? >> that's what being a judge is. >> yeah, but do you -- >> that's the definition. >> that's a definition, but you think it's successful? do you think this particular court, in particular, do you think it's successful in separating its live experience with the words on a piece of paper? >> i think every single justice will tell you that their job the judiciary is to not adjudicate their own personal experience. >> i know the job description. but are they actually doing it? >> i think the way we got neil gorsuch writing a opinion, and bostock expanding federal civil rights protection for gender orientation and gender identity, basically this extremely nerdy look at this is exactly what these words say. and if you fire bob for having relationship with a man, and you don't fire and for having a relationship with him, and you are discriminating based on

sex. whatever that, was it was not about neil gorsuch. >> look, i understand. ideally, me, i just don't even know subconsciously right now for colored by our own expenses. but you the way, i take both your points. thank you very much. now, to this. fox news channel under a microscope after revelations that their top hosts knowingly pushed donald trump's election lies. but isn't even surprising? to the people who work there? like i did? and two of my former fox news colleagues, including margaret, are gonna join me to discuss this.

my name is joshua florence, and one thing i learned being a firefighter is plan ahead. you don't know what you're getting into, but at the end of the day, you know you have a team behind you that can help you. not having to worry about the future makes it possible to make the present as best as it can be for everybody. plates. plates. plates. there's somehow no better way to travel this place, than on a plate. and when you add price drop protection, expedia pays you back if your flight becomes cheaper. so you can taste your way, through every single plate and never wonder if you found a good deal. because the good deal found you. ♪

mass general brigham -- when you need some of the brightest minds in medicine. this is a leading healthcare system with five nationally ranked hospitals, including two world-renowned academic medical centers. in boston, where biotech innovates daily and our doctors teach at harvard medical school and the physicians doing the world-changing research are the ones providing care. ♪ there's only one mass general brigham.

>> it was only under oath that rupert murdoch, the chairman of fox corporation, had to finally admit that many of his hosts endorsed donald trump's election lies. he also admitted that he keeps conspiracy theorists on the air because it makes him money, and that he tried to silence some of the journalists who are actually telling the truth about donald trump's lost. this all came to light thanks to demean as 1.6 billion dollar lawsuit against fox.

and so did my next guests. connor powell was a fox news foreign correspondent, he's now freelancing for cnn. margaret hoover was a regular contributor on the arriving factor. it's great to see both of you this evening. connor, always great to see you. so, this dirty laundry of foxes has come to light because of the dominion lawsuit, the depositions of which have been made public. you know how they operated. is there anything this lawsuit that is surprised you? >> there is nothing about this lawsuit that surprises me. the only thing that would have surprise me is if the primetime hosts had actually told the truth during this entire thing. and the fact that, like, rupert murdoch has tried to say it wasn't fox news, but it was these primetime hosts, sean hannity, laura ingraham, tucker collison, if they're not fox news, then who is? when murdaugh says it wasn't fox news, the very people who

are the most identifiable people of fox news were on air spreading misinformation, spreading these election lies. and murdaugh allowed it. he not only allowed when people told him to stop and he was gonna get the company into trouble, as the head of the organization, not only fox news, but the larger fox company, he continue to allow. it's so, he allowed fox news to do it. it wasn't some rogue reporter or rogue anchor. it was the entire network, led by the various biggest stars. >> and only that, one of the biggest myths i was found about foxx was that there was some bright line between the new side and the prime opinion side. i work on both sides of that so-called line. and i found the journalism rules to be often nonexistent, basically. or at least a, even on the so-called new side, they fudged them under rogers direction, roger ailes's direction, then the chairman. so often that they were often not existent.

but you are on the straight new side. what did you find in what your assignments, and your reporting? >> yeah, i was fortunate i was halfway around the world most my career, covering stories that very people at fox wanted to physically be there. so, i don't have to watch the channel. i very rarely have to interact the executives, because i was halfway around the world in different time zones. but i had the experience where when people push back on what i was reporting, i stayed with what i knew were facts. and i stayed in my own lane in terms of what was opinion and what was factual reporting. i know a lot of reporters there who see themselves as hard news, straight reporters. but also feel the pressure to get on air with stories that will attract the management of the company. i'm sure you've seen that as well. and that's when the biggest problems there, if you want airtime, the majority the people there have to sort of tow this conservative commentary line. and that's true for the news people, as it obviously is

promoted and true for the primetime people. >> you're so right. and a lot of the bias does come from story selection there. margaret, as anything surprised you in the revelations from this dominion lawsuit? >> you know, i left fox news in 2012. and continued of course to observe how they were covering the stories. and i actually think it got worse overtime. it was not great when i was there. of course, i was not on the new side, but the opinion side. i was there to get my opinion and be a commentator. i did always have a very clear sense that there was a certain opinion, a certain point of view that was rewarded. you've got to show up more and be on more shows and get a bigger contract if you had a certain point of view. and i was a little bit insulated from that. sort of chose to be, because that's what felt authentic to who i am. but it got worse. and what became clear to me in 2016 and then the 2020 election is there was a point of view that almost was indiscernible from the republican national

committees point of view. and it just seemed as though fox news was the official spokesperson for the trump administration. and what you've seen these documents is that's exactly what they were. there's literally no difference, no firewall, nothing separating the two of them. they were arms in and of each other. >> and furthermore, when there are real journalists who are trying to report the facts on some of these lies, this is in the dominion law suit, about shepard smith. when sheppards mill attacked the trump administration's lies on air, rupert murdoch emailed suzanne scott, one of the presidents, and jay wallace, another when the president, calling it, quote, over the top and telling them they need to chat to him. and in other words, there is this chilling effect, when one of the journalists is trying to, as you know, conor, it is trying to tell the truth about something. sometimes, management says that's too much truth. so conor, i know you had a similar experience. what was your final straw? >> my final straw was i was

slowly starting to see people interfere in reporting that i never heard of in my entire life. and i was covering the embassy moved from tel aviv to jerusalem in 2017. and fox blew it up. they sent a ton of anchors. it was a huge deal for the embassy with the embassy move. and i wanted to gaza to cover that side the story. we all predicted and knew there was going to be violence. and after the embassy moved, of course there was a huge rash and break out of violence. and 36 hours after the embassy moved, fox still had all of these anchors praising the trump administration and president trump for this move. and they were -- they had editorial producers telling reporters to stop talking about the violence that erupted. and just to talk about the great and glorious embassy decision move. and that was when i sort of said to myself, they are coming for all the reporters at this point. they are going to try to inject as much editorial as they can. and for the most part before that, i had always been able to

push back. and i began to see more and more that. and that's when i said i have to get out of here. >> yeah, conor powell, i really appreciate your candor. thank you so much for explaining what your experience was. i think it's valuable. margaret, as always, thanks so much for explaining yours as well. okay, coming up, president biden and the first lady ordered the exact same dish at a popular restaurant in washington, d.c.. why? isn't that a huge waste? they could've tried two different dishes. our panel has very strong thoughts about this. with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews. and when you book and pay throug you'reovered by our happiness check out gi.com today. angi... and done.

(woman) what would the ideal weight loss program look like? no hunger, no cravings, no isolation, more energy, lasting results, and easy. is that possible? it is with golo. these people changed their lives with golo without starvation dieting. whether you have 100 pounds to lose or want to shed those final 20, try golo for 60 days and never diet again. (uplifting music)

>> president biden and first lady jill biden have washington buzzing. because, you won't believe this -- a order the same dish at a restaurant! i'm not kidding. the washington post reports that they went to the popular

redhead restaurant in d.c., and they both ordered the rigatoni with sausage. we are back with josh barrow, -- margaret hoover margaret hoover and -- who does this? >> they are eating the same dish at a restaurant! >> why is this a story? if she were to cook rigatoni, would they both not be eating the same dish anyway? >> -- you can sample each other's! >> you went to the restaurant because you can get something to eat! >> no! >> if you and your dining partner both want the same thing, you get the same thing. >> that's a libertarian view -- that the republican party has moved away from that. >> they are trying to take away our freedoms. >> they are -- >> no, it's that you coordinate with your day so that you -- >> it depends. have you been there before? are they ordering something really unusual? is it just a hamburger? you don't always need to taste everything at the table. >> there is one conclusion --

the one conclusion is, that dish must be extraordinary. >> i agree. >> because if they both ordered it knowing that there is a full other menu options, this rigatoni bus be the best rigatoni in all of washington -- >> [laughter] >> the rigatoni with fennell, sausage, and pecorino cheese -- >> i bet you the bidens can get a reservation if they want to go back -- >> i bet they'd have carry out. i bet they even have would delivered to the white house -- >> they also split a chuckery salad -- i'm not opposed to that -- >> oh, i love a chicory salad. -- josh, you are -- >> they also got this interesting appetizer, grilled bread and butter. that's a lot of carbs, mister president. >> -- you should get bread and butter -- >> no, it's grilled --

>> my issue is with the red him, not the bidens -- >> they should be giving you bread and -- >> -- >> what if they just give you the bread? is it like $4.50? -- >> it's like -- >> that sounds delicious. >> it does sound delicious! >> is this a sponsored segment for the -- >> this segment, brought to you by -- >> -- there's one way editorial selection could slam this. this segment could be used some news networks as an opportunity to slam the bidens for hypocrisy. and other networks, it could be used to demonstrate how meritorious the bidens are at sharing. here, we are just going to play it straight. [laughter] this half and half -- >> splitting evenly -- >> we are not that interested in the bidens. we are just interested in the rigatoni. >> -- ever order the same dish as your husband? >> i do. that's the whole point.

-- we swap halfway through. >> extraordinary -- >> maybe, now, we will -- walk >> you swap with your husband? >> yeah, rarely. >> in general, people overthink the menu at restaurants. they sit down like it's the last meal they are ever going to have and stare at it and optimize -- you have to look at the menu and find something, you are like -- oh, that sounds tasty. and then you order it. then you can go back to -- >> oh, josh! you make it sound so simple, josh barro. think you all very much. meanwhile, we want to get to this story. tennessee's governor plans to sign a controversial anti drag show bill into law as soon as it arrives on his desk, he says. but there is a decades old photo sparking charges of hypocrisy. we will explain, next. new downy rinse and refresh! just add to your fabric softener tray. it doesn't't just cover odors; it helps remove themem up to 3 times better than detergent alone! try y new downy rinse and refresh.

with powerful, easy-to-use tools power e*trade makes complex trading easier react to fast-moving markets with dynamic crting and a futures laer that lets you place, flatten, or revse orders so you won'tiss an opportunity

the first time your sales reached 100k was also the first time you hit this note... ( screams in joy) save 20% with the lowest transaction fees and keep more of what you make. with a partner that always puts you first. godaddy. tools and support for every small business first.

lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner. when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people that we needed and the people that have been here taking care of us. see if your business may qualify. go to getrefunds.com.

>> tennessee's republican governor bill lee says he plans to sign a controversial bill that will ban drag shows in the presence of children. this is curious in part because, in what is believed to be a high school yearbook photo, bill lee appears dressed in women's clothing and wearing a wig. this was posted on social media -- cnn has not been able to verify this photo. louise office calls us costume a, quote, lighthearted school tradition that should not be conflated with what he calls, quote, obscene sexualized entertainment, and quote. this bill is a serious issue for some transgender parents. >> i am literally not allowed, legally, in the state of tennessee, because of this so-called drag bill, because it prohibits people who dressed different than their biological

sex. this is real. this is affecting our lives. there are transgender americans and transgender children who are fleeing the states. my family has an escape plan. it is not a joke. most people have never had a conversation with a transgender person. and yet, they are more than happy -- and legislating on it. >> the anti drag bill has passed in the tennessee house and is now awaiting approval from the republican-controlled senate. meanwhile, another near collision of -- plans. it's the fifth this year. why does this keep happening? that's next.

♪ i like to move it, move it ♪ ♪ you like to... move it ♪ we're reinventing our network. ♪ ♪ ♪ fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated.

the united states postal service.

my cholesterol is borderline. so i take garlique to help maintain healthy cholesterol safely and naturally. and it's odor free. i'm taking charge of my cholesterol with garlique. >> the faa now investigating

the fifth runway near miss this year. this one was at boston's international airport. a private jet started to take off, without clearance. this is last night, while a jetblue flight was preparing to land on intersecting runway. according to flight radar 24, the two planes came within 565 feet of each other. here's the air traffic control recording. >> lined -- . this is 65 -- or maintaining a rate of 6000. >> we're heading up to -- so, sitting at the altitude. >> 3000. >> 3000, f 206. >> i like the calm there. this scare in boston was just a day after a close call between two commercial planes in burbank california. and a few weeks ago, you will remember in hono