There is nothing Elite Acela media hate more than getting checked by a conservative after trying to sneak in a bad-faith question premised on a bad-faith frame. Such is the case of CNN’s Abby Phillip, who had an absolute meltdown after getting called out by Scott Jennings and Brad Todd for suggesting that Education Secretary Linda McMahon tried to both-sides the Holocaust in a Congressional hearing.

Watch the exchange in its entirety, and judge for yourselves. A bit longer than what we usually clip, but important to see the entire exchange in its context (click “expand” to view transcript):

THUNDERDOME: Scott Jennings and Abby Phillip throw down over the Holocaust denial hypothetical thrown at Linda McMahon pic.twitter.com/VeBIUxOHpt

— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 5, 2025

CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP

6/4/25

10:38 PM

ABBY PHILLIP: I want to play -- because since you -- you brought up the anti-Semitism of it all, (Linda McMahon) was pressed by a different congressperson about all the different things that you may or may not be allowed to teach in American universities. Listen to this.

MARK TAKANO: Would the Harvard government department be compelled to hire faculty that believe the 2020 election was stolen?

LINDA MCMAHON: I believe that, there are rights to freedom of speech for their -- and the- on campuses and universities of colleges and universities across the country, freedom of speech should be allowed.

TAKANO: Does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an ideological litmus test?

MCMAHON: I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.

PHILLIP: A diversity of viewpoints about Holocaust denying?

SCOTT JENNINGS: That's not what she said.

BRAD TODD: That's not what she said.

JENNINGS: That's not at all what just happened there.

PHILLIP: Okay, hold on. She says --

JENNINGS: She's saying that college faculty…

 PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. No, no.

JENNINGS: … are uniformly partisan, liberal, progressive radicals. And that’s basically true.

PHILLIP: Okay. All right. Let me just read again what was just said. The question, "Does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department count as an ideological litmus test?" She says, "I believe there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campus."

JENNINGS: She was not --

PHILLIP: I don't understand.

JENNINGS: She was not answering what is a patently ridiculous question.

PHILLIP: Wait, excuse me. Excuse me.

JENNINGS: And I- and no Republican should take any lectures about anti-Semitism right now from Democrats. Excuse me.

PHILLIP: But why on Earth would she not be able to answer that question? Why would she even dodge the question?

JENNINGS: She has the same answer every Republican has had for time immemorial.

PHILLIP: So…

JENNINGS: Why isn't there any diversity of viewpoint among faculty at colleges? It was a ridiculous question.

PHILLIP: So, what is the -- so, what is the answer?

TODD: It was a joke of a question. It was a joke of a question. It doesn't deserve an answer.

PHILLIP: Okay. So, what's the answer? What's the answer?

TODD: The answer is…

PHILLIP: Is it an ideological litmus test to have a Holocaust denier be asked- to ask equal candidates…

TODD: That’s not an ideology.

JENNINGS: Is there an ideological litmus test that you have to believe in progressive radicalism --

PHILLIP: Wait a second.

JENNINGS: -- to get hired now? Because that's what it seems like to us.

PHILLIP: Holocaust denialism.

JENNINGS: That's the box they have to check.

PHILLIP: Which is card carrying, text book anti-Semitism. You think --

JENNINGS: She wasn't responding to that.

PHILLIP: -- that doesn't count?

JENNINGS: She wasn't responding to that. It is a patently ridiculous assertion.

PHILLIP: Why are you -- why are you assuming that she wasn't responding to that when she gave that answer in response to a question?

JENNINGS: Because I have -- because I'm a thinking human being who can see what a rational person would say to a ridiculous question.

PHILLIP: She didn't say “that's a ridiculous question.”

JENNINGS: You are totally -- you are totally misconstruing this.

PHILLIP: Scott, Scott, literally, we played it for the American people to see it, and hear.

JENNINGS: Yeah. And every single person's going to see it my way.

REECIE COLBERT: No, clearly you don’t want to-

PHILLIP: She -- she literally did not answer -- she did not answer the question the way you want to answer the question, and that question has an answer. What is the answer?

JENNINGS: The answer to that question is “you're an idiot” to that congressman. That’s the answer to that question.

PHILLIP: What- What is the answer to the question. What is the answer? Will the federal government -- if somebody comes in and says, “I don't believe the Holocaust really happened.” Will the federal government bring the hammer down on universities for saying, that is not a viewpoint that we are allowing on our campuses?

TODD: The question would be --

PHILLIP: That the answer -- the answer ought to be no, but it sounds like none of you want to give an answer.

TODD: No. The answer ought to be what kind of litmus test is Harvard putting on its faculty now?

JENNINGS: Yes.

TODD: Only three percent of its faculty are --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: I mean, listen.

COLBERT: She didn't have a note card in front of her to tell her the answer and this is what happens when you have somebody who lied about having an education degree. They didn't teach about the Holocaust maybe when she was getting her French degree.

UNKNOWN: You all are way out-

COLBERT: If she actually has it.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: Way out over the rainbow right now. This is outrageous.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: No. No. You're accusing her of being a Holocaust denier?

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: No. No. No.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Hold it, Scott. Hold on. Hold on a second. Excuse me, Scott.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: Everybody, everybody stop. Everybody stop for a second. Excuse me, Scott. Nobody accused her of being a Holocaust denier.

JENNINGS: You're implying that that's what she wants.

PHILLIP: Scott- no one did that.

JENNINGS: You're implying.

PHILLIP: - It is completely -- Scott. Just stop for just a second.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: The line of inquiry here is an implication that she's like, “sure, let’s do that.”

PHILLIP: It is completely disingenuous for you to sit at this table and say that we accused her of being a Holocaust denier.

JENNINGS: I think it’s disingenuous to portray this interaction the way you are.

PHILLIP: Absolutely, no one said that. It is disingenuous.

JENNINGS: Then how are you portraying it? How are you portraying it?

PHILLIP: It's disingenuous. It's disrespectful. 

JENNINGS: I think the portrayal of it is totally wrong.

PHILLIP: Excuse me.

TODD: It was a disingenuous question from Congressman Takano.

PHILLIP: How is this a disingenuous question? The other part of the question is, if you are an election denier and Harvard said, “you can't be an election denier and teach at this school”, is that a litmus test?

TODD: The question is what litmus test is Harvard putting on its faculty?

PHILLIP: Okay. Listen.

TODD: We know they have one set of ideology.

PHILLIP: We got to go. But it is very clear that neither of you want to answer a very simple question.

JENNINGS: So now, you're accusing us? Are you accusing us?

PHILLIP: Are -- is Harvard --

JENNINGS: Are you accusing him and me?

PHILLIP: Is Harvard allowed or any school -- Is any school allowed to say that these are facts, and if you don't believe in facts, you cannot teach here? Are they allowed to do that?

JENNINGS: The question is, what is the litmus test today, and what kind of faculty do you want?

PHILLIP: Scott, don't -- do not answer a question…

JENNINGS: Do you want people who all have the same view, or diversity of views?

PHILLIP: Do not -- When you answer my question with a question, you are dodging. So, answer the question.

JENNINGS: When you ask me questions that I think- kind of ridiculous framing of this issue- then I think you're misconstruing the issue.

PHILLIP: How is it a ridiculous framing? Because you either -- you either believe that there are things that are facts or you don't. 

JENNINGS: I do believe in facts, and I also believe that that member of Congress was creating a disingenuous, ridiculous question designed for this "gotcha" moment right here.

PHILLIP: Okay. It is very telling that you are not able or willing to even entertain an answer. You could answer --

JENNINGS: I gave you an answer.

PHILLIP: -- the question right now and you have refused to do it.

TODD: Wait a minute. Harvard has a right to have any litmus test they want for their faculty. They're a private institution.

PHILLIP: Okay. All right. Well, there's the answer to your question. Thank you, Brad. I appreciate that.

This is one of those cases where Abby Phillip is absolutely undone by her hubristic tendency to cut conservative guests off before they can fully make their points. Less than a minute into their exchange post-video, and after Phillip’s ridiculous interpretation of McMahon’s response, Brad Todd TRIES to answer her question. But he can say no more than “the answer is…” before Phillip cuts him off.

And it is sometime shortly thereafter when Jennings realizes that not only is Phillip preserving Takano’s bad-faith frame, but attempting to pin it on panel conservatives. And it is at this point where Jennings and Todd begin pushing back.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together could watch McMahon’s response and immediately be able to ascertain that she was simply refusing to acknowledge Takano’s bad-faith Holocaust denial frame. Hence, her generic viewpoint answer which Phillip immediately twisted into a low-rent “Fine People Hoax”.

Phillip’s outrage and denial is all the more laughable when Jennings and Todd forcefully push back. What was “disingenuous and disrespectful” was trotting this smear out in the first place. All which could have been avoided had Abby Phillip simply listened for one more second and restrained her urge to cut conservatives off in service of narrative.