Rita Braver To Retire From ‘CBS News Sunday Morning'
'Those who know Rita and Sunday Morning realize how essential she's been to our work,' Rand Morrison, executive producer of Sunday Morning, wrote in a message to staffers.
More from Deadline
California Lawmakers Unveil Plans To "Modernize" Film & TV Tax Incentive Program Via Expanding Eligible Projects, Upping Credit To 35% In LA
GOP Lawmakers Warn PBS And NPR CEOs They Want To Defund Public Media - Update
The Atlantic Publishes Attack Plans That Pete Hegseth Shared On Signal Messaging App
'Not simply because of her excellent reporting, her keen sense of curiosity about all kinds of things, and her willingness to take on almost any assignment – however demanding or complex the subject – but also because Rita has always brought professionalism, clarity, and a passion for quality to every story that's come her way.'
He added, 'To call it this end of an era… barely does justice to the challenges we'll face now that we can no longer pick up the phone and call on Rita.'
Braver started as a staffer at the news desk in the Washington bureau in 1972, and later was chief law correspondent from 1983 to 1993. She worked on network newsmagazines including 48 Hours, Street Stories and Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel, and served as chief White House correspondent during the first term of President Bill Clinton. She has been national correspondent for Sunday Morning since 1998.
Braver has won multiple Emmy awards and was inducted into the National Television Academy of Arts & Sciences Gold Circle last fall.
Best of Deadline
How Jon Gries' Return To 'The White Lotus' Could Shape Season 3
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
How To Watch 'Wicked: Part One': Is The Film Streaming Yet?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here's what could happen next
WASHINGTON — A key House committee is looking into the investigation of the late Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking crimes, working to subpoena President Trump's Department of Justice for files in the case and hold a deposition of Epstein's jailed accomplice and former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee acted just before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) sent lawmakers home early for a monthlong break from Washington, a move widely seen as attempt to avoid politically difficult votes for his GOP caucus on the Epstein matter. The committee's moves are evidence of the mounting pressure for disclosure in a case that Trump has unsuccessfully urged his supporters to move past. But they were also just the start of what can be a drawn-out process. Here's what could happen next in the House inquiry as lawmakers seek answers in a case that has sparked rampant speculation since Epstein's death in 2019 and more recently caused many in the Trump administration to renege on promises for a complete accounting. Democrats, joined by three Republicans, were able to successfully initiate the subpoena from a subcommittee just as the House was leaving Washington for its early recess. But it was just the start of negotiations over the subpoena. The subcommittee agreed to redact the names and personal information of any victims, but besides that, their demand for information is quite broad, encompassing 'un-redacted Epstein files.' As the parameters of the subpoena are drafted, Democrats are demanding that it be fulfilled within 30 days from when it is served to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi. They have also proposed a list of document demands, including the prosecutorial decisions surrounding Epstein, documents related to his death, and communication from any president or executive official regarding the matter. Ultimately, Republicans who control the committee will have more power over the scope of the subpoena, but the fact that it was approved with a strong bipartisan vote gives it some heft. The committee chairman, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), said he told the speaker that 'Republicans on the Oversight Committee were going to move to be more aggressive in trying to get transparency with the Epstein files. So, we did that, and I think that's what the American people want.' Comer has said he is hoping that staff from the committee can interview Maxwell under oath on Aug. 11 at or near the federal prison in Florida where she is serving a lengthy sentence for child sex trafficking. In a congressional deposition, the subject typically has an attorney present to help them answer — or not answer — questions while maintaining their civil rights. Subjects also have the ability to decline to answer questions if they could be used against them in a criminal case, though in this instance that might not matter because Maxwell has already been convicted of many of the things she is likely to be asked about. Maxwell has the ability to negotiate some of the terms of the deposition, and she already conducted two days of interviews with Justice Department officials this past week. Democrats warn that Maxwell is not to be trusted. 'We should understand that this is a very complex witness and someone that has caused great harm and not a good person to a lot of people,' Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told reporters this week. Committee Republicans also initiated a motion to subpoena a host of other people, including former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as former U.S. attorneys general dating back to Alberto Gonzales, who served under President George W. Bush. It's not clear how this sweeping list of proposed subpoenas will play out, but Comer has said, 'We're going to move quickly on that.' Trump has often fought congressional investigations and subpoenas. As with most subpoenas, the Justice Department can negotiate the terms of how it fulfills the subpoena. It can also make legal arguments against handing over certain information. Joshua A. Levy, who teaches on congressional investigations at Georgetown Law School and is a partner at Levy Firestone Muse, said that the results of the subpoena 'depend on whether the administration wants to work through the traditional accommodation process with the House and reach a resolution or if one or both sides becomes entrenched in its position.' If Congress is not satisfied with Bondi's response — or if she were to refuse to hand over any information — there are several ways lawmakers can try to enforce the subpoena. However, that would require a vote to hold Bondi in contempt of Congress. It's practically unheard of for a political party to vote to hold a member of its party's White House administration in contempt of Congress, but the Epstein saga has cut across political lines and driven a wedge in the GOP. Ultimately, the bipartisan vote to subpoena the files showed how political pressure is mounting on the Trump administration to disclose the files. Politics, policy and the law are all bound up together in this case, and many in Congress want to see a full accounting of the sex trafficking investigation. 'We can't allow individuals, especially those at the highest level of our government, to protect child sex traffickers,' said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), a committee member. The Trump administration is already facing the potential for even more political tension. When Congress comes back to Washington in September, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers is working to advance to a full House vote a bill that aims to force the public release of the Epstein files. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Smithsonian exhibit monkeys around with the scientific evidence on human origins
The Trump Administration recently called out the Smithsonian Institution for pushing 'one-sided, divisive political narratives,' leading GOP Sen. Jim Banks last week to introduce a bill prohibiting the Smithsonian from promoting woke ideology, as The Post exclusively reported. But American history isn't the only domain in which the Smithsonian, with an ideological ax to grind, advances misinformation. The National Museum of Natural History's Hall of Human Origins vastly distorts the scientific evidence on human evolution, seeking to convince visitors that there's nothing special about us as human beings. 'There is only about a 1.2% genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees,' the exhibit starts, with large photos of a human and apes. 'You and chimpanzees [are] 98.8% genetically similar.' 6 The Trump Administration recently called out the Smithsonian Institution for pushing 'one-sided, divisive political narratives.' Shutterstock / Paulm1993 No doubt you've heard this statistic before because many science popularizers say the same thing. Yet it's been known for years that these numbers are inaccurate. Thanks to a groundbreaking April paper in the journal Nature, we know just how wrong they are. For the first time, the paper reports 'complete' sequences of the genomes of chimpanzees and other apes done from scratch. When we compare them to humans, we find our genomes are more like 15% genetically different from chimpanzees'. That means the true genetic differences between humans and chimps are more than 10 times greater than what the Smithsonian tells us. The museum distorts human origins in other areas, too. Again, the purpose is to diminish the exceptional place of humans in nature. 6 The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins exhibit is seen at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. AP The museum's Human Origins fossil hall claims the ancient species Sahelanthropus tchadensis was an 'early human' that walked 'on two legs.' But leading paleoanthropologists sharply dispute this claim. A Nature article found that 'Sahelanthropus was an ape,' and many features 'link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.' A 2020 Journal of Human Evolution paper showed that Sahelanthropus' femur was like that of a chimp-like quadruped — in other words, it didn't walk upright, and it wasn't a human ancestor. 6 The Smithsonian exhibit presents ape-like australopithecines as 'early humans' who walked upright 'on the ground' much like us, but many scientists don't agree with this characterization, according to reports. Courtesy of Casey Luskin Similarly, the Human Origins exhibit presents the ape-like australopithecines as 'early humans' who walked upright 'on the ground' much like us. Some paleoanthropologists agree. But other scientists strongly disagree, pointing out that some australopithecines showed evidence of ape-like knuckle-walking and only limited capacity for running. Their upright-walking ability was likely best suited for walking along tree limbs, not 'on the ground' exactly like we do. Large questions remain about how they walked, and the Smithsonian gives no hint of the scientific controversy. 6 The museum had a display of *Australopithecus africanus* bust in 2010. Courtesy of Casey Luskin The museum's hominid reconstructions also humanize apes while ape-ifying humans. Australopithecus afarensis (the iconic 'Lucy') is portrayed thoughtfully gazing up at the sky, while Australopithecus africanus is presented smiling, perhaps at a friend's wry remark. Yet australopithecines had brains about the size of a chimp's, and there's no fossil evidence they were capable of abstract thought — or humor. We should remember the famed Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton's declaration that 'alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.' 6 The exhibit asserts that humans and chimpanzees are '98.8% genetically similar,' but recently published research found our genomes are more like 15% different from chimpanzees. Courtesy of Casey Luskin The Smithsonian's exhibit also gives scientifically misleading support to the idea humans evolved slowly — saying 'we became human gradually,' much as Darwin imagined, from 'earlier primates.' Again, the result is to blur distinctions between us and other creatures. Yet the great Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr acknowledged there is a 'large, unbridged gap' in the fossil record between the australopithecines and the first humanlike members of our genus, Homo. In his words, we're in a position of 'not having any fossils that can serve as missing links.' One scientific commentator even said this evidence calls for a 'big bang theory of human evolution.' Why doesn't the Smithsonian disclose any of this information? 6 July marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes 'monkey' trial. AP This month is the centennial of the Scopes 'monkey' trial, remembered as a warning against hiding scientific information about human evolution. How ironic that 100 years later, the nation's premier science museum obscures scientifically objective data on the very same subject. To fail to correct this exhibit is to use taxpayer money to miseducate the public about a question of profound scientific, sociological, and philosophical importance. Casey Luskin is the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture's associate director and co-author of the book 'Science and Human Origins.' He holds a geology Ph.D. from the University of Johannesburg.
Politico
4 hours 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.'
