It's difficult for legacy media to shock those of us who've been following it closely with a critical eye. We've grown more than used to the liberal bias, the left-leaning framing, the overused buzzwords. In fact, we're more likely to be shocked when a legacy media pundit or host shares an even-handed observation, perhaps some grudging acknowledgment of a fair point made by President Trump or his administration. 

Still, my jaw dropped when I saw this exchange between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Margaret Brennan on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday morning. It starts with Rubio defending the speech delivered by Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference on Friday — one that clearly ruffled European feathers and caused some serious clucking from the legacy media contingent. 

But then, to push back on Rubio, Brennan actually says: "Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide." She seems to either be somewhat choked up as she delivers this stunner or, perhaps, tripped up by it as she haltingly spits it out, with "conduct" sounding more like "contuct." But whatever possessed her to take this tack, it is, without question, one of the more bizarre (and ahistorical) things I've ever seen issue forth from a host's mouth.

MUST-SEE: JD Vance Triggers Munich Security Conference, Rips European Hypocrites to Their Faces

JD Vance Roasts CBS Host for Moaning About Refusing Afghan Refugees: 'I Don't Really Care, Margaret'

Rubio, for his part, rightly and firmly rejects Brennan's premise. Watch their entire exchange below:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio defends @JDVance's "historic" speech last week in Munich, leaves ABC's Margaret Brennan speechless after she tries to claim that free speech was "weaponized" by the Nazis. Incredible exchange: 👇 pic.twitter.com/GYLZfopVwP

— Scott Morefield (@SKMorefield) February 16, 2025

RUBIO: 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, I think the valid points he's making to Europe is: We are concerned that the true values that we share — the values that bind us together with Europe — are things like free speech and democracy and our shared history in winning two world wars and defeating Soviet communism and the like. These are the values that we shared in common, and in that Cold War, we fought against things like censorship and oppression and so forth. And when you see backsliding, and you raise that, that's a very valid concern. 

We can't tell them how to run their countries...He simply expressed in his speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought...he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And honestly, I don't know why anybody would be upset about it...You don't have to agree with someone's speech — I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don't have to agree with someone's speech to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it, and you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid. I assure you the United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don't go around throwing temper tantrums about it. 

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 —

As noted above, Rubio then rightly points out the fallacy of Brennan's contention:

RUBIO: Well, I have to disagree with you...no, 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 — 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 the sole and only party that governed that country, so that's not an accurate reflection of history. 

I also think it's wrong — again, I go back to the point of his speech...The point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and in tolerance for opposing points of view within Europe, and that's of concern, because that is eroding — it's not an erosion of your military capabilities; that's not an erosion of your economic standing. That's an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this trans-Atlantic union that everybody talks about. And I think allies and friends and partners that have worked together now for 80 years should be able to speak frankly to one another — in open forums — without being offended, insulted, or upset. And I spoke to foreign ministers from multiple countries throughout Europe — many of them probably didn't like the speech or didn't agree with it, but they were continuing to engage with us on all sorts of issues that unite us. 

So, again, at the end of the day, I think that, you know, people give all — that is a forum in which you're supposed to be inviting people to give speeches, not basically a chorus where everyone is saying the exact same thing. That's not always going to be the case when it's a collection of democracies, where leaders have the right and the privilege to speak their minds in forums such as these.

As a recovering liberal myself (albeit what we might refer to as a "classical liberal"), I'm not sure I'll ever quite get over the pivot the left has made to characterize free speech as a negative — a danger even — while simultaneously howling about "threats to democracy." And to hear a network news host flat-out assert that it was "free speech" in Nazi Germany that led to the horrific genocide they perpetrated on the Jews and others — I don't even know where to go with that. 

My headline asserts Brennan's lost the plot, but upon further reflection, I'm not sure she ever had it.