OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

De Niro Slams Trump at Get Out the Vote Rally

2 sources · updated 2026-10-06
Left 50% Center 0% Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right

What happened

Actor Robert De Niro spoke over the weekend at a “Hands Off Our Vote” rally in New York City organized by Indivisible and Hands Off NYC; actor Mark Ruffalo also appeared. De Niro called President Donald Trump a “coward” and a “fucking piece of shit,” said Trump was trying to “take our voice and power away,” and led the crowd in chanting “Keep your fucking hands off our vote.” He urged the audience to “take back the House,” “take back the Senate,” “take back the power,” and “take back our country” in next month’s elections, adding that with their support “we’re gonna send him away.” He also said “power to the people isn’t just a slogan — it’s the founding principle of our nation, guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles

2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 2
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Robert De Niro
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 2
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 2
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 5, 13:59 UTC by The Hill, naming its source.
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage presents De Niro's appearance as a celebrity attack on Trump and a get-out-the-vote appeal ahead of next month's elections. It never mentions voter rolls or why the rally was held. Right-leaning coverage is simply more complete on the event's subject: it treats the speech as an attack on a voter-list cleanup, then argues the cleanup targets the dead, people who moved, and noncitizens rather than legal voters. A reader of only the left-leaning account would not know the night was organized as a protest against that cleanup. Left-leaning coverage leads with the insults as the news. Right-leaning coverage leads by branding the appearance a "TDS" turn at a left-wing turnout rally, then quotes the same slurs. Which state's voter rolls, and how many names, was De Niro actually talking about?
Bottom line

The Hill covers De Niro cursing Trump before an election; only Breitbart reports he was attacking a voter-roll cleanup at a Hands Off Our Vote rally.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • De Niro spoke at a Hands Off Our Vote rally against the administration's voter-roll cleanup contextin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The rally was organized by Indivisible and Hands Off NYC contextin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Department of Justice arrested 16 migrants accused of illegally voting numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • De Niro said power to the people is the founding principle of the nation, guaranteed by the Constitution contextin The Hill · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Hill frames the appearance as a high-profile rebuke of Trump timed to next month’s elections, leading with the insults and the turnout demand to “take back the power.” Coverage presents De Niro as defending voting as a constitutional popular right, not merely a slogan, and as urging voters to reclaim power from an administration he portrayed as trying to strip it away.
The Right View
Breitbart casts the rally as a left-wing get-out-the-vote event and De Niro as “unhinged,” playing “TDS” hits and “spew[ing] false claims” that Trump is taking the vote from Democrats. It says “the Trump administration is not taking any legal voters’ vote away,” describing the policy as removing the dead, people who have moved out of state, and noncitizens; it cites a Justice Department request for state voter-roll data to check for noncitizens, a White House allegation that more than a quarter of a million foreigners illegally voted in recent elections, and DOJ arrests of 16 migrants accused of voting with false information.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is De Niro’s claim that federal election power should be checked at the ballot box because voting is the constitutional form of popular control, supported mainly by his “power to the people” language and the House/Senate turnout pitch. The right’s strongest argument is that the underlying voter-roll work is eligibility enforcement rather than disenfranchisement of lawful voters, with its best cited support the DOJ data request, the White House’s illegal-voting allegation, and the 16 arrests. The unresolved tension is whether those cleanup and enforcement steps operate as ordinary removal of ineligible and noncitizen names or as a partisan effort to shrink the other side’s electorate—something neither account here measures.

2 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.