CBS's Face the Nation host, Margaret Brennan, had lots of scolding for Secretary of State Marco Rubio in her interview with him Sunday, given her displeasure with Vice President J.D. Vance's speech defending free speech last week in Munich.

Here's how Brennan brought that up:

NEW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio smacks down CBS News' Margaret Brennan after she bizarrely claimed the Holocaust happened because of too much free speech.

Brennan verbally struggled as she tried relating JD Vance's comments on free speech to Nazis.

Brennan: "[Vance] was… pic.twitter.com/9n1TdcRy1i

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 16, 2025

The full CBS transcript is here -- the money quotes in added boldface are here:

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what happened in Munich, Germany, at the Security Conference. Vice President Vance gave a speech, and he told U.S. allies that the threat he worries about the most is not Russia, it is not China. He called it the "threat from within," and he lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right. He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AfD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?

SECRETARY RUBIO: Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are, after all, democracies. The Munich- Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions. And so, I think if anyone's angry about his words, they don't have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think actually makes his point. I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech, whether you agree with him or not.

... and ...

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that. That the censorship was specifically about the right-- 

SECRETARY RUBIO: -- Well I have to disagree with you. No- I have- I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history.

Free speech was "weaponized to conduct genocide"?

Charlie Gasparino, a Trump-friendly conservative, desperately tried to parse out why she could say such utter rubbish, because, well, she's his friend:

What @margbrennan probably meant is that there was free speech in pre Nazi Weimar Germany that led to the creation of the Nazi Party. But even thats an absurd comparison since the minute Hitler consolidated control there was no free speech, no opposition and that’s when the… https://t.co/8l1qDihVvc

— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) February 17, 2025

There is an argument to be made that she was talking about pre-Nazi Germany when Hitler was giving Jew-hating speeches to adoring Nazi masses. But even that kindest of interpretations was not accurate.

Pre-Nazi Germany's Hitlerite brownshirts were no fans of free speech. They actually suppressed free speech by smashing up newspaper offices and radio stations, and beat up voters in voting booths exercising their free speech rights, getting what they wanted through naked thuggery.

Some accounts from people familiar with that experience were here:

But there really wasn’t free speech in pre Nazi Weimar Germany because the National Socialist attacked the free papers and they had their Brown Shirts attacking other ‘free’ political groups and parties, including mugging voters at voting stations on the day of the vote.

That…

— seaborn (@seaborn7) February 17, 2025

Margaret Brennan asserting that Hitler used free speech to conduct a genocide is the most insane statement I’ve ever heard anyone say with a straight face on TV. @margbrennan should apologize for attempting to rewrite history and champion the most vital tool used by genocidal… https://t.co/ZWLt6XPRBl pic.twitter.com/8sTb4v4n9X

— Lindsay Penney (@TexasLindsay_) February 16, 2025

St. Maximilian Kolbe certainly got his radio station, used to broadcast religious messages, shut down by Nazis:

In 1939, the Nazis arrested Father Kolbe, clamped down on his publications, and prohibited SP3RN from broadcasting again.

As Hitler is reputed to have put it in 1933: "One is either a German or a Christian ... you cannot be both."

In Brennan's world view, too much free speech allowed Hitler to make speeches so mesmerizing to German masses they fell all over themselves to vote for and elect Hitler.

But even that is junk history.

I found a remarkably good one, concise and accurate, from the truly the most unlikely of sources, Marc Brodine of the Communist Party, USA, addressing this question in 2020:

It’s true that Hitler’s Nazi Party was the single largest party and voting bloc in Germany in 1932–33. It’s also true that Hitler became Chancellor through constitutional means — that is, he was appointed to the office by Paul von Hindenburg, Germany’s president.

In this sense, German fascism was exceptional. Most other fascist regimes come to power through military means. In Italy, Fascist Squadristi, the infamous “Blackshirts,” marched on Rome, leading King Victor Emmanuel III to appoint Mussolini Prime Minister. Spain’s fascist dictator, Franco, came to power in a bloody civil war. In Portugal, Greece, Chile, Brazil, and Cuba military coups installed fascist rule. Germany’s case stands out by the degree to which Hitler and the Nazi Party used elections to develop a mass base.

At the same time, it’s important not to overstate Hitler’s sway with voters. In July 1932, the peak of the Nazis’ electoral reach, they won 37% of the vote, while 35% went to the Socialist and Communist parties. By November 1932, the tables had turned. The Nazis won 32% of the vote, but the combined total for Socialists and Communists was 36.8%. In the last election before Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor, his party was losing ground!

Brodine explained well what was going on here:

So what happened?

Most of the history we learn in school remembers Hitler as a talented demagogue: giving fiery speeches, whipping up a frenzy of anti-Semitic paranoia and nationalist fervor, rallying the people to the Reich. But that’s only one side of the picture. Hitler was just as diligent about courting Germany’s ruling class, its financial, industrial, and military elites. He understood that the Nazis would not come to power through direct electoral means, and that he would need their support in order to rule.

According to the constitution of the Weimar Republic, the chancellor and other cabinet members were appointed by the party, or coalition of parties, that held an absolute majority in the legislature. But two successive elections, July and November 1932, had produced no absolute majority in the Reichstag, and all efforts to form a coalition had failed. The decision of chancellor fell to Hindenburg, as president—but in January of 1933, Hindenburg refused to appoint Hitler, declaring even on the day before he issued the appointment that he would not do so.

That’s when Hitler’s efforts to court Germany’s big capitalists paid off. Bankers and industrialists pressured Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to the office of chancellor. They did not make that decision based on Hitler’s electoral strength. In fact, it was after the Nazis had begun to lose votes, in November 1932, that they intervened. Many right-wing industrialists who had not previously supported the Nazis thought that this might be their last chance to exercise the fascist option, short-circuiting democracy to prevent the left from taking control.

Sound like any place you know on the other side of the pond?

What's disturbing is that Brennan, who is touted and feted in journalistic circles, doesn't know a lot about history, particularly Hitler history, even as she's touted as the best thing in journalism. She knows the surface history, not the real one, and uses it to promote outright lies suggesting that free speech causes Holocausts, so only state control of the press can prevent it.

By the wildest of coincidences, CBS's other big outlet, 60 Minutes, put on a segment promoting the German ruling parties' efforts to promote censorship under the rubric of 'civility' and 'disinformation' instead of the raw suppression of speech that this is. Those leaders are literally sending in the SWAT teams to hapless Germans posting memes they don't like on the Internet.

Secretary of State Rubio handled Brennan's idiocy with grace and aplomb, not retreating an inch.

Tom Bevan said he could have intellectually belted her if he wanted:

Incidentally, Rubio response was correct and cordial, but he also let her off the hook. He could have - and should have - fully embarrassed her on national tv for being so historically illiterate. https://t.co/687VE4WyIw

— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) February 16, 2025

But he didn't need to.

Brennan has made a fool of herself before the entire nation, demonstrating zero understanding of history even as she tries to wave it at the Trump administration. Instead of landing a blow, she stepped on a rake, raising questions everywhere as to whether she really belongs where she is.

Image: X video screen shot