Sunny Hostin mocked for ridiculous claim following Stephen Colbert's cancellation
On Tuesday, Hostin stated the Late Show's cancellation could start the 'dismantling of our Constitution' during a panel discussion.
CBS announced it was ending 'The Late Show' in May 2026, with the network and its parent company Paramount saying it was 'purely a financial decision'.
According to Fox News, Colbert's show was costing CBS $US40 million a year, but many liberal commentators cited politics as the reason for its cancellation.
The View co-hosts questioned CBS' reasoning for cancelling Colbert's show, citing the 'timing' of the announcement after it settled with US President Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
14 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'The View' co-host criticises Kamala Harris' post-campaign interview with Stephen Colbert
"The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin described former Vice President Kamala Harris' interview with Stephen Colbert as a "microcosm" of everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party after the party lost in 2024. "I was struck by, I'm going to try not be too harsh on this. This interview felt like a microcosm of everything that's wrong with Democrats post-election. I'm going to CBS and this sort of trying to make a point that they fired Stephen Colbert, which many on the left called an attack on democracy, a man who was making $20 million a year, someone I hold in high esteem, but the economics of his show were not working," Griffin said during an appearance on CNN's "Table for Five" on Saturday. CBS announced in July that they would be ending Colbert's late-night show at the end of the next broadcast season, citing financial reasons. However, Colbert's liberal allies believe the cancellation was political, as it came days after he criticized CBS' parent company, Paramount, for settling with President Donald Trump. "He was losing $40 million a year. He was in the Ed Sullivan Theater, which is expensive, to talk about the plight of democracy at CBS, a network that's having its own struggles right now, rather than talking about the economics of the situation and playing to something a shrinking audience that is network television, not realizing it's not where the American voters are," Griffin, an anti-Trump Republican who voted for Harris in 2024, continued. Griffin said Harris decision to appear on Colbert was like "announcing your exploratory committee on the sinking deck of the Titanic." CNN data analyst Harry Enten dismissed Harris' comments during the interview about a broken system. "Recently, I made the decision that I just – for now, I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken," Harris told Colbert after he asked about her declining a potential California gubernatorial run. "I just can't possibly believe that someone who was attorney general for a good period of time, a United States senator for a good period of time, and then vice president for four years and then ran for president, all of a sudden believes that the best way to solve it is from being outside the system. Oh, please. Not a chance on God's green earth that that's necessarily the case," Enten said, reacting to Harris' remarks. "What's probably going on is she saw what the polling numbers were, perhaps for her running for governor of California. Yes, she has left open the idea that maybe she could run in 2028 for the Democratic nomination. But I'll tell you Abby, I've looked at those numbers. She would be the weakest front-runner since 1992. So the bottom line is this, she is looking at the numbers. She knows what's cooking. And then all of a sudden, you know what? Actually, this lifelong politician, I want to be outside the system. Give me a break," the CNN data analyst added. Harris announced on Thursday she would be releasing a book on her failed 2024 campaign. Harris, in a video posted to social media on Thursday, announced that her new book, titled "107 Days," will be released in September and will provide details on what she calls "the shortest presidential campaign in modern history." "I believe there's value in sharing what I saw, what I learned, and what I know it will take to move forward," Harris said. Originally published as 'The View' co-host criticises Kamala Harris' post-campaign interview with Stephen Colbert
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Sky News AU
Kamala Harris spouts a bunch of ‘nonsense' in new interview
Sky News host James Morrow has reacted to former US vice president Kamala Harris' new interview with 'The Late Show' host Stephen Colbert this week. Mr Morrow described Ms Harris' answers as 'meandering sort of nonsense'.
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- The Advertiser
US appeals court keeps ban on LA immigration arrests
A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement. A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement. A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement. A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement.
