CNN anchor in the dark about Sam Brinton, the infamous, nonbinary ex-Biden nuclear official
Brinton first made headlines in mid-2022 after being appointed to lead nuclear waste policy at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy as a nonbinary gender-fluid person who uses they/them pronouns. Brinton stayed in the news as the luggage theft scandal played out, but Brown apparently missed the entire ordeal.
During a heated segment on Tuesday, Brown said the Trump administration was "trying to claw back several employees who oversaw nuclear weapons," when Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., reminded her about Brinton.
"You talk about nuclear secrets, you had a person who was in charge of nuclear secrets, a man, who dressed up as a woman, would go into the airport and steal women's luggage, was overseeing those nuclear secrets under the Biden administration and I never heard y'all say a peep about that," Burchett said.
Brown shot back, "I don't know anything about that, I'll be transparent."
Burchett told the CNN anchor she should "look up" the Brinton story.
Brown might be in the dark because CNN largely ignored the Brinton story, publishing an online story headlined "Top Energy Department official no longer employed after luggage theft accusations," in December 2022.
The story was covered on-air by CNN only once, according to a search of Brinton's name via Grabien Media, when a December 2022 report on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" downplayed his ties to Biden.
"Several House Republican lawmakers jumped on the case to claim this incident in the case of the Biden administration prioritized wokeness over competence hiring Brinton in the first place. But we should note, Brinton was not a Biden appointee instead hired as a senior civil service official," CNN's Jeremy Diamond told viewers.
The comment by Brown really showed her "ignorance," according to Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, who noted it was a "huge story" outside the liberal bubble.
"If you're a news anchor at CNN, I guess you overlooked anything that revealed the incompetence and sheer insanity of the Biden administration," he said on "Gutfeld!"
"It should be the new motto for CNN, 'We know nothing, but at least it's transparent," Gutfeld joked.
CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Brown not knowing the Brinton story.
In December 2022, the DOE announced Brinton had departed the agency but declined to comment on the reason.
In October 2022, police charged Brinton with stealing a traveler's baggage worth a total of $2,325 from the luggage carousel at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport after flying in from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 16 of that year.
And in early December 2022, Las Vegas prosecutors charged Brinton with grand larceny of an item valued between $1,200 and $5,000. Police accused Brinton of stealing a suitcase with a total estimated worth of $3,670 on July 6, 2022, at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas. The bag contained jewelry valued at $1,700, clothing worth $850 and makeup valued at $500.
Brinton was on an official taxpayer-funded trip to the Nevada National Security Site in Las Vegas at the time of the alleged Las Vegas theft.
Then, in February 2023, following reports of those two cases, a female Tanzanian fashion designer based in Houston told Fox News Digital that some articles of clothing Brinton had been photographed wearing were in her luggage that she reported missing in Washington, D.C., in 2018. Brinton was arrested by Maryland and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority police officers related to Khamsin's allegations.
Brinton was able to escape jail time in all three instances.
Brinton agreed to enter an adult diversion program during a hearing on the Minnesota charge. Under the adult diversion program, Brinton was required to have a mental health evaluation, write a letter of apology to the victim, return any stolen property and complete three days of community service.
Brinton was ordered to pay $3,671 to a victim and $500 in additional fees, including a criminal fine, in the alleged Las Vegas theft. Clark County Judge Ann Zimmerman then handed Brinton a 180-day suspended jail sentence, a sentence that doesn't need to be served, and ordered Brinton to "stay out of trouble."
The Washington Free Beacon reported last year that Brinton "pleaded guilty to petit larceny as part of a sweetheart deal that will see him serve no jail time after facing felony charges that carried a sentence of up to 20 years" in the Khamsin case in D.C.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats' approval rating craters to 35-year low: WSJ poll
Democrats' approval rating with registered voters has plunged to a 35-year low, while Republicans maintain an edge on most of the top issues Americans care about, a new poll found. A whopping 63% of registered voters view Democrats unfavorably, dramatically eclipsing the 33% who had a positive impression, marking the lowest rating they scored since 1990, according to a Wall Street Journal survey. That abysmal rating for Democrats comes against the backdrop of lackluster figures for President Trump and Republicans. Trump's approval rating sits at 46%, with 52% who disapprove of the commander in chief. The figure is higher than this point during his first term, which was 40%. Republicans' approval rating clocked in at a net seven points unfavorable. If congressional elections were held today, 46% of voters indicated they'd back a Democrat, compared to 43% who would support a Republican. 3 The poll suggests that House Democrats have their work cut out for them to ensure they can flip control of the lower chamber. AP 3 Democrats are also carefully eyeing pickup opportunities in Senate races. AP A majority, 51%, also said the change Trump is bringing has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, compared to 45% who agreed the president was making positive adjustments. Still, across the board, voters preferred the GOP approach over the Dem position on a range of key issues. Voters trusted Republicans over Democrats on inflation by about 10 points; on immigration by 17 points; and handling illegal immigrants by 17 points, the survey found. In one unique finding, respondents disapproved of Trump's tariffs by 17 points and Republicans still scored 7 points higher than Democrats on that issue. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey, told the outlet. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone teamed up with Republican Tony Fabrizio, Trump's trusted pollster during the 2024 campaign cycle, to conduct the survey for the Wall Street Journal. 3 President Trump's approval rating was underwater but higher than at this point during his first term, the poll showed. REUTERS One area where congressional Democrats topped Republicans was vaccine policy and healthcare, per the poll. Democrats are still reeling from their 2024 election loss, and key figures within the party have openly vented that the party doesn't have a strong message or sense of direction. Typically, the party out of power in the White House is favored to have a strong performance in the midterm elections, which is why many observers believe the Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. However, the Wall Street Journal poll shows Democrats are still remarkably anemic as the party struggles to find its footing. Around this time in 2017, voters called themselves Democrats over Republicans by 6 percentage points, per the poll. Democrats later went on to flip 40 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections. This go-around, Republicans have a 1-point edge in party identification over Democrats. Republicans have a threadbare 219 to 212 House majority and are scrambling to defy history by retaining control during the 2026 midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll sampled 1,500 registered voters between July 16–20 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
Politico
19 minutes ago
- Politico
Elon Musk is threatening to put third-party candidates on the ballot. Democrats are giddy.
'My first reaction was, it seems pretty confined in substance,' Mayo said. 'And because of that, I think it pulls some of the following that he has that has sort of found its way into the Republican Party base.' Musk did not respond to a request for comment sent via email. Voters regularly overstate how likely they are to vote or join a third party. But recent polling suggests Americans are at least theoretically open to it. While nearly half of voters say they would consider joining a third party, only 17 percent are interested in joining a Musk-led option, according to polling from Quinnipiac University from earlier this month. But that party could pull disproportionately from the GOP, per the survey, which found that nearly three times as many Republicans as Democrats would consider joining Musk's proposed third party. Barrett Marson, a Republican political strategist in Arizona, cautioned that a libertarian-minded candidate backed by Musk could attract support from either direction, putting Democrats in battleground districts at risk too. 'If anyone can be a spoiler or at least put up a candidate who has a chance to in either direction, it's Elon Musk, because he has the drive and financial wherewithal to match it,' Marson said. Still, Musk's ability to successfully field third-party bids will be highly dependent on the particular districts he targets and the candidates he puts on the ballot, said Charlie Gerow, a Pennsylvania-based GOP operative. 'Elon Musk's money is enough to sway a significant number of elections,' Gerow said. 'But you have to look at the individual candidates and the message they run on. There's a lot of factors that will play into whether or not he's successful. I think at this stage it's hard to predict the outcome when we don't really know what he's going to do.' Even if Musk fails to get candidates on the ballot, his bad blood with Trump will be sorely felt by Republicans, who benefited massively from his largesse in 2024. Ultimately, Democrats are still confident the effort would more than likely play out to their benefit should it come to fruition, said Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey, who is gearing up for one of the most competitive Senate races next year. 'I think if something has Elon Musk's branding on it, that you're not going to attract Democrats, and you're not going to attract many independents,' Bailey said. 'I think if it's got Elon Musk branding, you're likely to attract the vast majority of right-wing Republicans, so I don't think those voters are probably that gettable for us anyway.'
