Welcome back to The Best & The Brightest. I’m Abby Livingston.

Tonight, we lead with my partner Dylan Byers’ notes on the ongoing political-media drama consuming CBS News, which has expanded beyond last week’s Tony–Ta-Nehisi dispute to include a number of self-inflicted controversies threatening news chief Wendy McMahon’s leadership. Plus insights from Washington power couple Peter Baker and Susan Glasser about the future of the G.O.P., in conversation with Puck’s very own John Heilemann.

But first, a few notes from me on the shadow race for the gavel…

Of course, members raise money in many capacities, and for all sorts of reasons. They bring in money for the N.R.C.C., in joint fundraising accounts, by hosting fundraisers for colleagues, and in other ways that aren’t traceable. Also, the latest filings only relate to the third quarter—many of these leaders have been raising money and cutting checks to candidates and members all cycle. But this simple methodology offers insight into their relationships on the Hill in the home stretch of the general election. To wit:

• Mike Johnson: Between his campaign and his American Revival leadership PAC, Johnson gave to about 79 members—fewer than some of his potential rivals for the gavel—but his checks were much bigger, with more than a handful of recipients receiving as much as $10,000. In sum, he donated about $381,000 directly to colleagues.
• Steve Scalise: The House majority leader doled out checks totaling about $272,000 to about 56 members via his personal campaign and his Eye of the Tiger PAC. Scalise, more than the others, also cut checks to various members’ own leadership PACs to help them earn credit for spreading their own money around to colleagues. To be clear, the Louisiana Republican has been in the No. 2 job all cycle long, and cut dozens and dozens of campaign checks in previous quarters.
• Tom Emmer: The former N.R.C.C. chairman from Minnesota gave to about 97 colleagues over the past three months via his Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans (yes, loads of members make up PAC names with acronyms that correspond to their names or initials), totaling about $266,000.
• Jim Jordan: The nine-term Ohioan gave out $259,000 to about 109 Republican colleagues via his campaign and Buckeye Liberty PAC. Because of filing quirks, his leadership PAC reporting window included September, while the others’ did not.

Now, here’s Heilemann on the future of the G.O.P. …

John Heilemann: Regarding Trump’s comments about using the National Guard to go after the “radical left lunatics,” where does this stand in the panoply of things you’re worried about if Trump gets reelected?

Susan Glasser: I would say that when a president of the United States says that he’s going to use the military against American people who have dissenting views—if that’s not in the top 10 things you’re worried about, then maybe you ought to reconsider whether you really want to be a citizen of the United States of America. And by the way, this is not a random stray comment, or a gaffe from a gaffe-prone octogenarian—it is, in fact, a throughline for Donald Trump. As astonishing as it is, it seems like millions of Americans—including people in enormous positions of power and authority, like Glenn Youngkin—have chosen to willfully forget that Trump spent the entire summer and fall of 2020 threatening not only to call out the military against American citizens, but that if he were not specifically constrained by his attorney general, defense secretary, and chairman of the joint chiefs, he would have already done so.

And in regards to a second term, the most specific pledge Trump has made is that he will not have anyone around him like the defense secretary and chairman of the joint chiefs who sought to constrain him. In fact, there was an interview the other day in the Financial Times with [Howard Lutnick], one of the co-chairs of his transition, who said, We will be imposing a loyalty test on anyone who serves in senior roles in this administration, and they shall be loyal not only to the policies, but specifically to the man. I would point out that is not what it says in the Constitution.

I imagine if any other presidential candidate that we have covered in the totality of our career said what Trump said—and if Kamala Harris did right now—it would have been front-page news and blanket cable coverage. Trump said it less than 48 hours ago, and it’s already irrelevant in the media. Do you think there’s any story right now that would materially change the trajectory of the race on Trump’s side?

Peter Baker: If you think about what Trump’s campaign in 2024 comes down to, it’s two words. One is retribution. That is the motivating factor here, that’s what’s driving him. The second word I think is important, that we ought to remind people of, is termination. That’s the word he used for the Constitution. He said we should have termination of the Constitution in order to return him to power and boot Joe Biden out of power mid-term, without another election.

If you’re willing to say we should terminate the Constitution, that’s about as serious a thing I can think of in a democracy. And it goes far beyond the question of whose child tax credit is better, or whose immigration policy is better, whose foreign policy is better. All of those are super important issues, but if you have a candidate for president who says he’s willing to terminate the Constitution and wants to serve another term in order to exact retribution, I agree that’s a huge running story, and somehow it’s lost its shock value.

[Continue reading online, or listen here.]

And now, here’s Dylan with the latest drama inside CBS News…

There was a lot more to chew on, too. On a separate front, CBS’s 60 Minutes had foolishly edited a recent Kamala Harris interview so that she appeared to give different answers to the same questions, which invited scrutiny from Donald Trump. Days later, House Speaker Mike Johnson seized on an edit of his own remarks in a CBS Face The Nation interview, fueling a right-wing narrative of media manipulation that was propelled further when Johnson got the coveted retweet from Elon Musk. Combined with the Dokoupil mess, the multipronged crises cast new scrutiny on McMahon’s leadership capabilities, and her ability to deal with what the Journal recently described as “a baptism by fire.”

Meanwhile, on the Upper West Side, these same subjects hung over the table at El Fish, where former CBS News president Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews was being bid adieu by her former direct reports, including Stacey Benson, the network’s chief financial officer; Ross Dagan, the head of news operations; Terri Stewart, the head of newsgathering; Claudia Milne, the senior vice president of standards and practices; and Christa Robinson, the former communications chief. Generally speaking, this group has a more nuanced appreciation of McMahon’s struggles than Tony or Shari, but they are just as cognizant of how dispiriting recent events have been for CBS.

Of course, Shari will soon have no bearing on CBS’s future, and Ingrid is already effectively gone. So perhaps the more salient talking point for these discussions was the news, first reported here last week, that McMahon will meet with Paramount’s future leaders David Ellison and Jeff Shell on Thursday. (My partner Matt Belloni has reported on some of Ellison and Shell’s other one-on-one sit-downs with division heads across the company, as well as the requisite ring-kissing of Paramount-adjacent talent like Taylor Sheridan and Tom Cruise.) As I noted, the conversation with McMahon will focus on business strategy and financials, of course. But, surely, the future C.E.O. and president of Paramount will also be quietly examining the I.Q. and the E.Q. of the leaders running their divisions. This isn’t Shell’s first go-round overseeing a portfolio with a news division, and he surely has a lot of ideas about how this one should be run.

As for the Dokoupil matter, yes, McMahon was obviously grappling with a Herculean challenge, trying to appease bitterly divided constituencies in a polarized, self-important legacy newsroom—and with the added pressure of an outspoken and opinionated outgoing owner. At the same time, her decision to announce the Tony ruling on an all-staff call and, yes, on October 7, betrayed a fundamental inexperience with both talent and P.R. management, which—as any seasoned media executive will tell you—really is at least half the job. Indeed, as one media executive put it to me this week, a cardinal rule of this business is that “you don’t embarrass your talent.”

This was far from Kim Godwin-level folly, but in light of the coming TV news comp realignment, OConnell’s quote also read like a warning to Roberts and her GMA co-hosts—all of whom will be asked to renegotiate their $25 million-a-year contracts in the years ahead; indeed, George already is—that they are replaceable. (Some media insiders also noted an inadvertent racial faux pas). At the very least, it’s definitely the sort of thing that’s likely to upset the talent in question, and may force OConnell to call and genuflect. “This may be the single dumbest quotation I have ever read in my life by any media executive,” one veteran media executive told me. “I think I understand what she is trying to say, but I think that it is something that should never be attempted anywhere near a reporter.”

True, such unforced errors have been the norm in this business, whether it’s former CBS News chief Neeraj Khemlani indiscreetly offering Norah O’Donnell’s job to Brian Williams, or the myriad occasions upon which former CNN C.E.O. Chris Licht left his talent exposed, from Kaitlan Collins being forced to fend off audience ridicule in the Trump town hall to Jake Tapper’s temporary humiliation during that ill-fated primetime experiment.

Of course, one of the benefits of inheriting a news network is the opportunity to write a new chapter. Shell surely has some thoughts about what he’d like to change, particularly when it comes to the bigger structural challenges that pose a far more existential threat to the business than anything stirred up by the Dokoupil drama. CBS Mornings has been sliding in the ratings for months, and now averages less than 2 million viewers despite the presidential campaign cycle. O’Donnell will soon step down from Evening News and hand the show to a rotating cast of hosts, which will certainly save money but just as assuredly hurt ratings. 60 Minutes obviously does not have the heft it used to, editing errors aside. And while McMahon is trying to advance the news division’s streaming efforts with a third hour of CBS Mornings, this seems relatively unambitious in the grand scheme of the network’s challenges. Finally, at some point, McMahon or her successor will have to implement yet another round of cost cuts.

In any event, Shell will inherit many far more significant challenges when he takes over Paramount: the unprofitable streaming business, the Hollywood studio, retrading the NFL rights, etcetera. And that, alas, is the point. Each year, the news business represents a smaller and smaller, and less consequential, piece of the portfolio—and with that, ironically, a bigger pain in the ass to manage.