CBS’s Margaret Brennan is making a name for herself—but not in the way she thinks. As the host of Face the Nation, you’d expect the network to showcase one of its best. Instead, Brennan has repeatedly proven that CBS is, as the saying goes, “not sending their best.”
In a stunning display of historical ignorance, Brennan attempted to go after newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio by claiming that free speech led to the rise of Nazism and Hitler.
Watch the exchange here:
This is being shared everywhere, and it should be, because it’s historically illiterate, antagonistic to a fundamental value, and done so condescendingly from a highly paid “news” desk.
CBS Margaret Brennan blames free speech for the Holocaust.
pic.twitter.com/hRGvVuvjE4— Will Cain (@willcain) February 16, 2025
The take was so absurd that even Rubio looked momentarily stunned. Just weeks after JD Vance publicly dismantled her in an earlier interview, Brennan still hasn’t learned how to properly engage with her guests.
The online backlash was immediate and brutal, with critics highlighting not only the historical inaccuracy of her claim but also the sheer absurdity of the argument itself.
Increasingly the only reason to platform Regime Media is to allow it to self-immolate for the public to see
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) February 16, 2025
I'll explain, I know her kind well.
People in her social class conflate "ideas I dislike" with "literally Nazis."
She dislikes free speech, so obviously, that's what the Nazis were in favor of in her (very not good) brain.
It isn't more complicated than this.
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) February 16, 2025
I'm glad Margaret Brennan blamed free speech for the rise of the Nazis. It's always a virtue when a person in a position of authority and influence who was elevated beyond her station reveals her ineptitude and folly–so that the world can see her clearly henceforth.
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) February 16, 2025
Margaret Brennan embarrasses herself again
MB: “You’re standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to commit a genocide.”
Rubio: “Free speech was not weaponized to commit a genocide. The genocide was committed by an authoritarian Nazi regime.”pic.twitter.com/Yq8eji9YEa
— John Hasson (@SonofHas) February 16, 2025
Even VP JD Vance weighed in:
This is a crazy exchange.
Does the media really think the holocaust was caused by free speech? https://t.co/EBUKx75Wfm
— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 16, 2025
Brennan did find one defender—Jesse Rodriguez, a VP at MSNBC News—who rushed to her defense.
The Nazi regime used mass media, including newspapers, radio, films, and public speeches, to spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, dehumanize Jews and incite violence.
— Jesse Rodriguez (@JesseRodriguez) February 16, 2025
He was swiftly torn apart as well:
They also used trains to transport Jews to camps. Perhaps we should blame the trains? They listened to classical music as they plotted. They ate bratwurst and drank beer. No more music or sausages. Do you hear how ridiculous this sounds?
— Karol Markowicz (@karol) February 16, 2025
Dear God, I hope you all get fired for stupidity pic.twitter.com/rYU5u47jmN
— BartonBella (@BartonBella1) February 16, 2025
This MSNBC executive says MSNBC, a corporate mass media outlet, should be shut down and banned to prevent Nazism from rising again. Who are we to argue? https://t.co/cWW8gMV9hS
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 16, 2025
And that was not free speech, Jesse. That was government control of speech and press outlets. https://t.co/PWQEYtbj7v
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) February 16, 2025
For his part, Rubio fired back at Face the Nation with a direct response:
Under President Trump, American leadership is back. That includes free speech, bold diplomacy that puts our nation first, and peace through strength.
Made that clear during my interview with @FaceTheNation.https://t.co/3aCZMzdLNQ
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) February 16, 2025
At this point, you have to wonder—does anyone in the mainstream media know history?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Margaret,
The University of Virginia called; they want their diploma (w/honors) back.
Where you do think Margaret learned this nonsense? That and overseas studies in Jordan.
“claiming that free speech led to the rise of Nazism and Hitler”
I bet she has one of those watered down degrees.
Maybe or maybe they teach stupidity in the liberal arts now. You know, America invented slavery, America was built by slaves and oppressed minorities, white people ruined everything, etc etc
They teach a lot of stupidity in liberal arts now. Was bad in the 90s, has gotten even worse.
There was no freedom of speech or democracy under the Nazis. But there was freedom of speech and democracy in the Weimar Republic, and that is how the Nazis gained power in the first place. So it is true that freedom of speech and democracy indirectly led to the Holocaust, by allowing a party that opposed those things to campaign and win enough public support to be able to take power.
That is a well-known risk of freedom of speech and democracy. Our constitution allows itself to be amended, and it’s possible that a would-be dictatorial party will use the freedom of speech to persuade enough people to support an amendment that will repeal the Bill of Rights and elections. There’s really no way to prevent it, except to convince people not to vote for such things.
The Social Democrats of the Weimar Republic were doctrinaire Marxists [anti-Bosheviks]. SPD raised, paid and controlled the Freikorps.
Well…no. The SPD was one of the largest parties in Germany and was socialist. Didn’t like KPD or Nazis. But wouldn’t cooperate with the centrust parties, nor they with them.
This allowed the Nazis to “appear” more efficient and to provoke KPD into fighting which the Nazis could then “end” with their own violence.
The right and centrist psrties thought yhey could coopt Nazis. Oops…
A real mess and like most “educated liberals” Brennan has no clue.
Thick thin. Meant to upvote.
Well… yes.
The SPD were doctrinaire Marxists. Socialists. I made that perfectly clear. They opposed the Bolsheviks. I made that perfectly clear.
There were no “centrist” political parties; Monarchists, Bolsheviks and Socialists.
I remind you – Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. NSDAP.
SPD’s street bullies were the Feikorp. Freikorp militia. They enforced social behavior.
This is called the “Weimar Fallacy” and debunked by reputable academics at reputable universities. It is a trap for the intellectually simple.
Stick to the law.
I know it better as “Hitler ate sugar”. ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar )
The more professional term is probably association fallacy.
Your ‘Legal Sense’ has destroyed your common sense.
And even then, he’s not particularly good at the law
This term “Weimar fallacy” is very obscure, and few people use it. But the supposed fallacy, as far as I can tell, is that stricter restrictions on speech could have stopped the Nazis.
Well, it seems obvious that the sort of speech restrictions that they imposed would indeed have stopped them, or at least greatly hindered them. More importantly, not having elections would have stopped them from gaining any power. They probably didn’t have the kind of force needed for a second putsch to have succeeded, so it was indeed freedom of speech and democracy that allowed them to come to power. That is not a fallacy, it’s the plain and obvious truth.
Even if they could have come to power in some other way, e.g. by an armed putsch, the fact is that that’s not how they did it. They did it by competing in democratic elections, and by using the freedom of speech to convince enough people to support them. Therefore it is not a fallacy to point this out.
This is not a reason to restrict speech or democracy. If we restrict freedom in order to stop people who would restrict freedom from coming to power, then what’s the point? It’s like blowing a building up to prevent it from burning down. The whole point of resisting them is to preserve freedom, so if we must give up freedom to do so then why not just let them win?
Well, restrictions on freedom of speech and political parties didn’t stop bolsheviks from coming to power in Russia in 1917, did they? All it takes is a small and determined group to take power when there’s not much will to resist and the ruling class is in disarray. Happened in Russia in 1917, happened in Germany in 1933.
You can’t admit you were wrong can you Justice Milhouse
What else can conceivably lead to tyranny?
Meritocracy?
Entertainment?
Convenience?
Taken to the extreme, you can make a case for basically anything.
We all know the game this TV clown is playing. She isn’t intellectually honest. Giving her the benefit of the doubt is just as bad as what she’s doing, perhaps worse, because you’re letting her propaganda BS steamroll.
Obscure?
I went to medical school and learned about it in my first year PPE mandatory Liberal Arts course.
You sprung the trap and dove right in.
Own it.
The Weimar Republic’s mistake (one of many) was to try and silence the Nazis. They, in their own way, turned them into “victims:” in public perception.
Well…no. The SPD was one of the largest parties in Germany and was socialist. Didn’t like KPD or Nazis. But wouldn’t cooperate with the centrust parties, nor they with them.
This allowed the Nazis to “appear” more efficient and to provoke KPD into fighting which the Nazis could then “end” with their own violence.
The right and centrist psrties thought yhey could coopt Nazis. Oops…
A real mess and like most “educated liberals” Brennan has no clue.
Somebody wants to date Margaret.
This is a take so bad it’s not even wrong, as several other people have pointed out to you.
As Sanddog notes, the Weimar Constitution and legal system was not just anti-majoritarian like the US Constitution, it was positively anti-democratic in the ability of the government to restrict speech (it is supremely ironic that the same people who keep likening the AfD to the Nazis keep wanting to do the same things to them) and political parties. Though the President was elected, the head of government (Chancellor) was appointed by him alone, and the President could unilaterally dissolve the Reichstag as well as issue decrees without consent of the Reichstag. The Germans were half-way to a dictatorship even under the Weimar Constitution.
If the Weimar Republic had not had elections, the Nazis could not have won one, or even have come second. If the Weimar Republic had not had freedom of speech, if it had been a tyranny like the Nazi one, then the Nazis could not have communicated with people and convinced enough of them to vote for them. This is just obvious.
In other words the leaders of pre-1933 Germany could have stopped the Nazis by becoming Nazis themselves. Not a recommendation.
It is simply a fact about freedom that it can lead to tyranny. There’s no way to stop it. It’s just a risk we have to take.
I think a very watered-down version of what Millhouse is pontificating about is: when people have freedom, they are free to do stupid things. Think about it. 4 years ago this country elected a vegetable living in the root cellar as President, although the fairness of the election appears tainted. And we were “free” to stupidly vote in Kamala to continue the downward spiral of this country, but praise the Lord, we didn’t.
I have see videos of Hitler giving speeches to cheering crowds. It seems to me the German people were gullible enough to vote for him. We have no shortage of gullible people in this country (most liberals).
The German Government did restrict Hitler’s speech, they sent him to prison. It was there that he wrote his book “Mine Kampf” (my struggle).
Bravo. Clicked on this article expecting some tone deaf comment from you that fails to read the room, and damn, did you not disappoint. “Freedom could, possibly, lead to bad outcomes.” Wow, thanks Capt. Obvious! You know what also can lead to bad outcomes? Censorship. If I can’t argue against you to provide a contrast opposing your position, someone could gain power, railroad everyone into forced compliance and put me in a camp “for my safety” or to get my mind “right.” And they’d be helped by some contrarian phallus like you that “ackthully’s” us with legal opinions so slavishly adherent to textual nitpickery while completely missing the spirit and intent. Ya know, screw it, maybe you’re right. Maybe we should ban speech. Howza about we start with YOURS? Or maybe you imagine that YOU should enjoy some exception?
Do you ever read what people write? Or do you just decide you don’t care for the person then vomit out nonsense?
Milhouse is so far ahead of most of the idiots who troll here that you can even see his exhaust.
It is good, though, that you expose your stupidity, that makes skimming your comments faster!
Because this entire discussion is a stale white dog turd. Censorhsip is a non-starter. I don’t need an “ackushully” academic summary on how freedom could lead to some bad outcome, or how voting can lead to electing bad actors – I learned that in 4th grade. Let’s run a D.U.H. Analysis on that – DUH! It’s been argued over and over and over, and its stupid to continue the academic argument or even feign giving it gravitas. Freedom does not cause extremists like Nazis – putting criminals in charge of your country who proceed to fuk it up, and then pass censorship laws to stop you from pointing it out so as to avoid their just punishment (and employ an army of legalista contrarians to haggle over periods and commas while they steal your rights from under you – THAT causes extremism. It forces people to vote into power those whose who WILL punish the guilty. The problem is, some of these people are themselves dangerous psychos. Say it with me now – the right to bear arms does not cause a lunatic to shoot up a school. The right to vote does not cause dictatorships. The right to free speech does not create Nazis. Why does this even have to be said? Ridicule any lunatic such as Brennan that runs her mouth preaching it, and embarrass any academic that even pontificates on the issue. Embarrass her and she’ll voluntarily leave the public sphere. For Gawd’s sake, the dumb who-ore is a JOURNALIST who supposedly owes her entire livelihood and career to the First Amendment, yet she is arguing to gut the very principle that empowers her. Do you know why? Because she’s NOT a journalist, she’s a propagandist who benefits from censorship of positions contra to her own. Nothing more. So let’s put away the old “Weimar Fallacy” into the attic with the old furniture, and move on to how USAID is stealing our futures RIGHT NOW to pay for Dairy Queen Flurries for Ukrainian furries. Or more topically, how Romania just voided an election whose result they didn’t like for “muh democracy” or how Zelensky suspended Ukrainian elections, alos for “muh democracy.”
That is not accurate. Hitler lied to gain power then immediately shut down free speech and the free press to ram his agenda down their throats. The Reichstag fire etc. None of that was done with free speech.
And the Weimar Republic did not have free speech as we know it. It still had government censors and control of the media. As did the Kaiser. One of the creasons Hitler was able to gain power was the German media reporrted the German army winning WWI right up until the surrender. Hence the “stabbed in the back” myth was used by the Nazi’s. Largely becaasuse of the lack of a free press.
“And the Weimar Republic did not have free speech as we know it” I do not think Milhouse or anyone else here claimed it was. Read carefully and try to comprehend what is being argued. You’ll display less ignorance that way.
And hell, douche bag, Free Speech in the US in the 20s and 30s was entirely different than the absolute we think of today.
Try to read some history and think before you comment. You’ll seem less stupid.
“Free Speech in the US in the 20s and 30s was entirely different than the absolute we think of today.”
Justice Holmes screwed the pooch heavily in Schenck (1919) by comparing distributing anti-draft leaflets — an activity nearly everyone today recognizes as core protected speech* — to “shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
*Except for maybe the 32% still not sure what a woman is.
There is a way to prevent the loss of the Bill of Rights… but that requires more than moping. Depends how lightly the chains fall on the shoulders.
The first German concentration camp (Dachau) was initially intended to intern Hitler’s political opponents, which consisted of communists, social democrats, and other dissidents. 1933.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Millhouse, you are a sad pathetic homunculus.
Like clockwork, the roach scurries out from his dungheap to squeak ‘the left is right’.
Milhouse, always defendin evil.
Go away, your lies aren’t working anymore.
Wrong. The wiener Republic censored via decency laws. The Nazis bragged about their punishments.
The NAZI’s used mass media to incite violence says representatives of the mass media.
The embarrassment of Brennan’s comical historical illiteracy is eclipsed hours later on the same network when 60 Minutes broadcasts a shockingly passive ‘expose’ on Germany’s terrifying criminal speech code. It’s a segment that more closely resembles a commercial (paid for by the German govt) than it does an attempt at non-partisan journalism. It’s impossible to overstate what a clear & present danger the vast majority of US ‘journalists’ (largely working at the national outlets) are to civil rights. Be afraid because this is terrifying.
“It’s a segment that more closely resembles a commercial (paid for by the German govt)”
Maybe it was. It’s not like the USAID checks are cashing anymore.
Dr. Goebbels must be turning in his grave. He orchestrated the largest single-party propaganda and censorship regime in history. She probably mispronounces Nazism, along with vigilantism and zoology.
Brennan would be lucky if any ‘education’ she got was a GED.
I looked her up on Wiki. Surprisingly, she graduated from Convent of the Sacred Heart in Greenwich. It’s one of the most expensive Catholic all-girls prep school in the country. My wife graduated from one of the other schools in Convent of the Sacred Heart network. Academically, they have a wonderful reputation as places of academic rigor and excellence, as does the University of Virginia, her collegiate alma mater. This just proves that some of the dumbest people in the country have some of the best academic credentials.
Must have cost a pretty penny.
I don’t know what it would have cost back in the early 2000s. Today, tuition alone is $52K/year. I believe it’s the most expensive Sacred Heart school in the country, even more than the the one in Manhattan and Atherton, CA.
What exactly did she learn for all of that money?
How to make funny faces?
How to make the same successful arguments against free speech that German authorities did to get where they are now. Unfortunately, she learned nothing about how arguments that persuade cultural authority-kissers don’t work well with cultural outlaws
Woman should read at least History of the Third Reich at least
She doesn’t need to. She saw The Producers on broadway.
Even that was significantly more accurate than anything this woman was saying
She should just resign at this point.
Of course there’s always Occam’s razor. She’s not dumb. She’s the Nazi. No message but mine.
Margaret Brennan is not just talking about free speech … she loves free speech. She specifically said that she was talking about WEAPONIZED free speech, which is very dangerous and destructive. There was a famous documentary about the dangers of weaponized free speech done by the British researchers, Monty Python’s Flying Circus. They told the tale of the funniest joke in the world and how it wreaked havoc, leaving nothing but death and destruction in its wake. Interestingly – and to Margaret’s point – it was used during World War II!!
I actually lived near a man who grew up in Nazi Germany, was a member of the Hitler Youth and fought at Stalingrad. We had numerous conversations about the propaganda going on. He said it was pretty simple. They were indoctrinated from grade school on so by the time Hitler started the war no one knew any better because all they saw in the press, heard on the radio etc was what Hitler wanted them to hear. It was not free speech in any sense of the word.
The dumbness of her take is that she conflates “free speech” with “mass media”.
The state can try to control what ideas are permitted at both extremes. On one hand, the state can use its power to try to control ideas via censorship.
On the other hand, the state can exert power over the mass media infrastructure and dictate the messaging.
For example, after Russia invaded Ukraine Zelensky consolidated state control over the country’s mass media infrastructure. I wonder if Margaret believes the messaging Ukrainians are allowed to hear from its mass media is “free speech”?
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
“They were indoctrinated from grade school on”
I wonder who our Nazis are.
60 Minutes falsely framed two USAID contractors as longtime employees fired for political reasons. In reality, they were communications consultants, not permanent staff. Their contracts ended as part of routine government transitions, not a “loyalty purge.” But of course, the media spun it into a manufactured crisis.
https://x.com/TrackDaddyKy/status/1891342387198501219
It turns out they were actually speechwriters for Samantha Power, former head of USAID
Featuring the insufferable Scott Pelley, who always has the look of “extreme constipation” on his face.
But rather than eating prunes, Pelleu is turning into one.
Brennan seems to be one of the folks that views freedom as ‘scary’. More precisely she views the exercise of individual liberty by others for purposes/goals she disagrees with as ‘scary’. The left has become a group of conformist Karens scolding the rest of us. Ironic that the leftist wokiestas are mounting a reactionary defense of the status quo to conserve their power. Their power and control is intertwined with those of our political, governmental, corporate and private institutions they gained dominion over.
Margaret, free speech is a two way street. That should fix ya!
And this is why we don’t believe anything the media spews out. The purveyors are both ignorant and dishonest.
“He met with extreme right wing groups” this means he met with political disidents that do not share the left wing globalist view. But she does not think she is trying to censor the messaging. Incabable of understanding the idea that other people disagree.and may have a legitimate point of view.
It’s a form of stupidity.
Have you ever once heard a boot licking liberal like Brennan in the media use the term ‘extreme left wing’? You have not..and you never will. To them, there is no such thing as being too far to the left.
CBS edited out the part where Margaret Brennan went on about the dangers of flair.
Brennan is exhibit A of the leftists that infest the American media. Not smart, so went to college to get a liberal arts degree; the most worthless investment you could ever make with your money. Goes into media, because she is a radical liberal who is obsessed with forcing her ideology onto everyone around her. Because her ilk are now ranked lower than members of Congress on the ‘who we cannot stand’ scale, every once in a while she will make some pronunciation in an attempt to garner attention…this is her latest attempt. She of course, fancies herself to be the smartest person in the room, and always will.
“I may disagree with you but I’ll fight to the death for your right to express your opinion.
— A. Hitler (1939).
Was she stupid before joining CBS or was it an acquired skill?
I don’t understand why people keep giving her oxygen. Stop writing about her. Stop listening to her. She’s one step removed from Greta.
Ignore her. Don’t feed trolls.