CNN Trump Town Hall Audience Was Told “Please Do Not Boo”

Apparently CNN told the audience of its diet Trump campaign rally that they could definitely applaud but they absolutely could not boo.

CNN has been catching rightful flak—even internally—for hosting its absurd town hall event with twice-impeached, criminally indicted former President Donald Trump one day after he was also found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

And now it seems that CNN somehow found a way to make it all worse.

Puck reports that before the town hall, CNN entreated the audience: “Please do not boo, please be respectful.” They were however allowed to applaud.

Such instruction, beyond the possibility that CNN did not actually try to get a balanced audience of Trump supporters and genuinely “undeclared” voters, may explain why the town hall appeared more like a Trump lovefest and less like an earnest exploration of whether a criminal and sexual abuser deserves to be president (this is needlessly generous: The answer is “no”).

Those defending CNN’s town hall—like Anderson Cooper—argue that the audience represented half the country (fact check: false; only 74 million people, or 22.5 percent of America, voted for Trump in 2020). But not every single one of them would have approved of Trump smearing the woman he was just found liable for sexually abusing and defaming, doubling down on the radical election lies that have only dampened Republicans’ performance since, or saying more lies than truths in such a short amount of time.

But we didn’t get to hear if the audience opposed any of this, because CNN didn’t let them express it.

The defenses of the town hall assume we have no awareness of who Trump is and what many of his supporters have tolerated, if not actively encouraged. But what many, not least myself, actually have no awareness of is why a news network would so eagerly host a farcical event under the guise of holding power to account and then beg the audience only to cheer for the power in question.

House Republicans passed a bill Thursday that would destroy the process to gain asylum in the United States.

The measure, which has been slammed by immigrants’ rights advocates, passed by a vote of 219–213, with just two Republicans joining all of the Democrats to oppose it. The bill squeaked through hours before the expiration of Title 42, the pandemic-era public health emergency measure that allows officials to turn away anyone at the border, regardless of whether they are seeking asylum.

The bill is unlikely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the White House has also vowed to veto it on the off chance it does. But the bill has a number of hard-line measures that show exactly what Republicans would do if they ever retake control of both chambers.

To start, the bill would require Customs and Border Protection to hire and train 22,000 more agents. It would also require the secretary of homeland security to resume construction of the border wall, a key policy under Donald Trump. The secretary would also have power to block any immigrant from entering the U.S. if doing so is deemed “necessary in order to achieve operational control over” the border. While current Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is unlikely to use this power, the secretary in a future Republican administration very well could.

Migrants who have passed through another country on their way to the U.S. and did not first seek asylum along the way could be considered ineligible for asylum. Once they reach the U.S., people would have to seek asylum at a designated port of entry, instead of crossing the border at any point. This effectively limits who can claim asylum to Mexicans, Canadians, or anyone lucky enough to have a tourist visa to those countries. The bill would also generally expand the reasons someone could be deemed ineligible for asylum.

Under current law, children cannot be detained longer than 20 days. But the bill would revise anti-trafficking laws to allow migrant children to be detained with their parents for the entirety of their immigration court process. Immigration officers could also let unaccompanied children withdraw their asylum applications, “even if the child is unable to make an independent decision to withdraw the application.”

The bill would also increase requirements for business owners to verify that potential employees have permission to work in the U.S., which would make hiring migrant workers less desirable. This could take a massive toll on the U.S. economy, which is already facing a worker shortage and historically has relied heavily on immigrant workers.

Republicans insist that this bill will solve the problem at the border, one of their favorite political talking points. But Democrats warn that the measure does nothing to address the root causes of the huge wave of migration the U.S. is currently facing.

“How do they propose to address our broken, fragile immigration system?” asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. “They continue to bend the knee to the former twice-impeached president of the United States of America in terms of their policy proposals.”

“The Republican approach is anchored in xenophobia and fanning the flames of hatred and distrust and of irresponsible policies that will do nothing to solve the problem.”

A man who says he is from Long Island and charged with committing unemployment fraud has voted to pass a bill to prevent unemployment fraud.

On Tuesday, George Santos was indicted on 13 counts related to money laundering, wire fraud, lying to Congress, and public theft of funds. That includes a charge of fraudulently claiming $24,000 in Covid unemployment benefits while making a $120,000 salary.

Just two days later, House Republicans passed a bill that purportedly aims to recoup Covid-19 unemployment benefits from fraudulent claimants. And Santos—who has either no self-awareness or a really great appreciation of irony—voted with them.

Many Republicans who’ve refused to disavow Santos also voted for the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act, a bill Santos co-sponsored.

Santos has pleaded not guilty to all charges and reached an agreement to be released on a $500,000 bond.

He has received permission to continue campaign activity, being only allowed to travel to New York City and Washington, D.C. To travel outside of those areas, he will need to obtain special permission from the government. The agreement enabled him to return back to the Hill and vote on a bill that, ideally, would stop crimes like the ones he allegedly committed.

The agreement potentially offers House Speaker Kevin McCarthy a smidgen of breathing room, amid Republican efforts to impose work requirements on Medicaid and SNAP benefits during debt ceiling negotiations.

Meanwhile, the unemployment fraud bill, which could in fact weaken the government’s ability to investigate fraud cases, passed 230–200.

At the very least, Santos’s colleagues seem to see it all as validation for the bill:

Last month, Trump-approved Republican Ohio Senate candidate Bernie Moreno broke ground on his Senate campaign by demanding reparations for white people.

Turns out that Moreno, his daughter Emily, and her congressman husband, Max Miller, each donated thousands of dollars to now criminally indicted Representative George Santos.

In fact, more than 58 percent of Santos’s donations from Ohio came from the trio and the broader Miller family. Representative Miller donated a total of $8,700. His father, Abraham, donated $5,800, while his mother, Barbara, donated $8,700. Moreno capped his donation at a single individual max donation of $2,900, as did his daughter and Miller’s wife, Emily.

The revelations are fascinating for a few reasons. For one, Miller is one of a growing handful of members of Congress who have called for Santos’s removal in light of his spiderweb of lies and, now, criminal charges. Turns out the Miller family spilled nearly $30,000 into a basket case.

Moreover, Moreno thus far does not seem to have echoed his son-in-law’s concerns with Santos. Which is all the more interesting given that the Ohio Senate candidate now faces his own charges of being “Ohio’s George Santos.” Republican strategists in the state leveled the broad accusations in the Daily Mail, arguing that Moreno has flip-flopped on how he describes his background and his family’s supposed wealth.

Recently, Moreno has leaned in to describing his family leaving Colombia in the same vein as Cuban immigrants fleeing “a government that was imprisoning us for our beliefs, that was taking away our businesses, taking away our rights.” (Despite the flimsy comparison, Moreno’s own Colombia was under conservative rule at the time, not scary socialists’.)

The GOP strategists argue Moreno was much more willing before he entered politics to talk about his family’s “privileged” life in Colombia, how he grew up with “multiple” properties” with “staff,” and how his father’s family home was “so large that it was converted into” the German Embassy.

“Bernie Moreno is the second coming of George Santos. God forbid Bernie Moreno ends up as the GOP nominee in Ohio,” one strategist said to the Daily Mail. “This is a s***show waiting to happen.”

It is possible for multiple things to be true: Moreno’s family may have been relatively wealthier in Colombia than in America. After all, upon arriving, for instance, Moreno’s father apparently had to accept a much lower-paying job at a hospital due to not having a U.S. medical license.

But GOP strategists also argue that Moreno’s political posturing is flip-flopped too. In 2015, Moreno wrote in a tweet that Trump, the “bully in chief” who “is now cry baby in chief,” was Hillary Clinton’s “best fundraiser and ally.” He also tweeted that “listening to @realDonaldTrump is like watching a car accident that makes you sick, but you can stop looking.” Since then, Moreno has been hungry for pats on the head from Trump, and enjoyed receiving one via Truth Social a week before he announced his run.

“Word is that Bernie Moreno, the highly respected businessman from the GREAT STATE of OHIO, and the father-in-law of fantastic young Congressman, Max Miller, is thinking of running for the Senate,” Trump posted. “He would not be easy to beat, especially against Brown, one of the worst in the Senate!”

Moreno’s potential exaggeration aside, the family’s previous full-throttle donations to criminally indicted Santos may also serve as a reminder of Representative Miller’s own shady past. Look no further than his being subpoenaed for his potential role in planning rallies leading up to the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

The new face in Congress also reportedly has a history of assault. In high school, he reportedly shoved a woman “effectively down the stairs” after she allegedly resisted his attempts to touch her. In 2007, Miller was charged with assault, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest after punching someone in the back of the head and running from police. And he reportedly pushed against a wall and slapped his former romantic partner, former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham.

Miller, Santos, and now, perhaps, Moreno. Money flows between the trio, and now further scrutiny of them is welcome.

CNN’s decision to host a town hall with twice-impeached, criminally indicted, convicted sexual abuser Donald Trump did not pay off, with the event garnering just a mere fraction of the former president’s previous viewers.

The Wednesday night event was jam-packed with some of Trump’s greatest hits: lies, misogynistic attacks, election conspiracy theories, and insults leveled at anyone who tried to fact-check him. Countless people in the news media, including CNN employees, have slammed the town hall and the network for hosting it.

But even though many news outlets, The New Republic included, remain absolutely gobsmacked at the prime-time train wreck we witnessed Wednesday night, it turns out that not that many people witnessed it with us. The town hall averaged just 3.1 million viewers.

For comparison, almost 71.5 million people watched Trump win the 2016 election. In 2020, later, an average of 21.6 million viewers watched the Republican National Convention—far fewer than the previous election, but still miles away from Wednesday night.

That’s got to sting for Trump, who cares deeply about television ratings. Throughout his presidency, he was obsessed with how many people tuned in to watch his speeches, more so than the actual content of his speech. This gave us many reality television–style gems intended to attract more eyeballs, such as waving a Q-tip around during a coronavirus briefing or giving Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the State of the Union.

When everyone was either trapped at home or sick with Covid-19, Trump bragged repeatedly that his daily briefings got some of the highest ratings on television. And in February, he posted an internal “viewership report” on Truth Social claiming that the ratings for his visit to East Palestine, Ohio, were “off the charts”—even though no major network covered the trip.

It’s funny that someone so ratings-obsessed got such terrible ratings, but an even better idea would have been not giving Trump that kind of a platform in the first place.