Sean Hannity CANCELS Geraldo Rivera

>>Geraldo has disagreed with other personalities
on Fox News when it comes to war with Iran. In fact, there was a video that went viral,
where he is saying it’s a terrible idea to escalate tensions with Iran and Brian Kilmeade
went at it with him. Now, recently he was supposed to make an appearance
on Hannity show, but that appearance was cancelled. And it seems like it was cancelled specifically
because Geraldo was gonna continue making the case that war with Iran is a bad idea. So he starts off with this tweet. Urging Donald Trump to keep his powder dry,
please don’t let this spin out of control. You can always hit them back. Please don’t let this become an escalating,
you hit me, I hit you back harder until we have another full blown, bloody Mid East war
on our hands. What would we win? And so then he ends up responding to someone
who apparently liked his tweet and he says, thanks. I’ll be on with Sean Hannity tonight counseling
restraint and talking about these deeply disturbing developments. And then later he said, Nevermind, Hannity
just canceled me. And I just like to end this whole exchange
with Malcolm Fleschner tweet, cancel culture strikes again.>>I really liked that tweet. So look, before we open this up for discussion,
I just wanna remind you of how passionately Geraldo feels about avoiding war with Iran. This was a segment that Fox had earlier. Take a look.>>Now we have taken this huge military escalation. Now I fear the worst. You’re gonna see the US markets go crazy today. You’re gonna see the price of oil spiking
today. This is a very, very big deal.>>And I don’t know if you heard
>>But this isn’t about his resume of blood and death, it is about what was next. We stopped the next attack, that’s what I
think you’re missing.>>According to the Secretary of State.>>By what credible source,
>>Okay.>>Can you predict what the next Iranian move
would be?>>They’ve been excellent, the US Intelligence
has been excellent since 2003, when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region for no real
reason. Don’t for a minute start cheering this on. What you have done, what we have done, we
have unleashed.>>I will cheer
>>Then you, like Lindsay Graham, have never met a war you didn’t like.>>That is not true, and don’t even say that.>>If President Trump wanted de-escalation-
>>We should just let him kill us for another 15 years.>>If President Trump wanted de-escalation
and to bring our troops home. What this was a reaction to-
>>What about the 700 Americans who are dead? Should they not be happy because of him?>>What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis
who have died since 2003? You have to start seeing things. What the hell are we doing in Baghdad in the
first place? Why are we there? Why aren’t these forces home?>>You’re blaming President Bush for the maniacal
killing of Saddam Hussein?>>I am blaming President Bush in 2003 for
those fake weapons of mass destruction that never existed and the con job that drove us
into that war.>>Listen, you gotta give people credit when
they’re right, and Geraldo was right there. I think that he took a strong position. I also give Geraldo credit for consistently
speaking out against Donald Trump’s disgusting immigration policies on Fox. I’m sure that’s not an easy environment to
share your accurate opinions in. But yeah, so Hannity canceled. Now, who knows? Maybe they canceled him to maybe replace that
segment with something that involves a legal analyst or?>>I don’t know, should we give Hannity the
benefit of the doubt?>>Hannity did not want any of that smoke. He’s like man, I saw what you did to kill
me. And I don’t think any more clearly than he
does. His producers probably said hey, we’re gonna
go ahead and cancel Geraldo because first off, Geraldo’s only mistake was revealing
what he wanted to do that night. When he talked to the person who retweeted
him or liked it and he goes, thanks I’m gonna be on later to make sure I council against
this. They’re like no that’s not the agenda tonight. That’s not what we’re on board for. Of course, yes again we’re speculating. But I mean, if it’s not the case, go and let
us know what the other difference was. I mean, they canceled on me tonight so I can’t
come on and say what I had to say. So I mean, again, what’ll happen is you end
up revealing what your real intentions are and what your real beliefs are. And people on the region are like, well, 700
Americans were lost. You don’t care about the Americans being lost
when it comes to anything else except for pursuing war. And then so, of course, when Geraldo brings
up the tens of thousands of Iraqis dying, there’s no answer to that. Those aren’t real people? Those are casualties of war. Or when we talk about how we wanna make sure
we keep American troops out of harm’s way. They go hey, well American troops they signed
up for it. They knew what they were getting themselves
into. Somehow when it comes to having any kinda
empathy towards people it’s all based on whether or not you’re falling not behind this president
and his line of ridiculousness. Secondly, Geraldo use Trump’s talking point
about we gotta get out of these stupid wars. You can’t follow a guy who continues to contradict
his own agenda and policies throughout his presidency.>>Right, exactly. And look, it’s hilarious to me to hear anyone
on Fox News or even anyone in cable news talk about how egregious it is or how much of an
injustice it is when Americans die. When in our own country they constantly push
for domestic policy that leads to more Americans dying.>>Totally, my god.>>I mean, how many American die every year
because they don’t have adequate health insurance? And they will attack Universal Healthcare,
over and over again. They’ll talk about how we can’t afford it,
can’t pay for it. When it comes to beating that war-drum, by
the way, which is the most expensive policy to support, they’re all for it. They don’t care about American lives. American’s overall, just like troops are nothing
more than pawns, nothing more than props, that these lowly individuals use to make their
arguments when it’s convenient for them. But when push comes to shove, you think they
really care about the lives of Americans? How about all those segments that Fox News
has done on homeless people? Do they care about them? They defame them, they slander them as dead
beats, as druggists, as all sorts of things. They don’t care about human lives. What cares about is appeasing Trump, making
sure that Trump is happy with him. Because you never know, you might lose access
to Trump if you criticize him. And you might not be able to get a job in
Trump’s administration. We all know that Trump likes to pick people
out of Fox News. So it’s just gross. And look, not to get too leftist, I guess,
whatever you wanna call it. But that’s what capitalism is, that’s what
capitalism does. It’s all about profit, it’s all about ensuring
that you have the upper hand and you increase your chances of making more money, right? That’s what happens in our media all the time,
right?>>Making money and being a tough guy, that’s
the other part of it. Even people who don’t have, I guess, the interests
for lining their pockets. It’s, hey, we’re tough guys, we’re America. Hey, we don’t let them F with us like this. Hey, you’re not gonna say that to me. There’s a superiority complex that we have
from the moment that we’re born that says, we have to make sure that we talk about how
much better we are than you no matter what. You can be on the lowest totem pole in America. But you’re like, I’m an American, I’m better
than you. But your life actually has nothing to do with
this American dream that they’ve sold you. That you’re supposed to somehow pursue. And one more thing that they don’t care about
lives for is school shootings, mass shootings, Car Club shootings. We don’t care about that stuff, thoughts and
prayers. What bombs we dropping on people to stop that
from happening? American lives are being lost every day. You don’t care about American lives.>>Again, it’s just something that they cite
when it’s convenient to them to support a policy that’s horrendous, usually. And, in this case, it’s escalated tensions
and war with Iran. So, again, credit where credit is due. I think Geraldo is doing a good job. And I think that he should be proud of the
fact that Hannity canceled his appearance, right? Look, I don’t know what his future is gonna
look like. Obviously, Shep Smith, who had the audacity
to speak the truth every once in a while on Fox News is no longer there. But we know what Fox News is, Geraldo knows
what Fox News is. I don’t agree with Geraldo on many issues. But if you have any integrity and you actually
want to share truthful analysis with an audience, Fox News is not the place to do it. You’re hardly even seen on cable news shows
period, much less on Fox News.

AOC Takes A Shot At Biden

>>Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
fired a shot at Joe Biden. This was when she was asked about a Biden
presidency to which she responded, God.>>In any other country, Joe Biden and I would
not be in the same party, but in America, we are. Now this was in an interview with New York
Magazine. I wanna give you some more context so first,
let’s take a quick look at the article itself. One Year in Washington, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
reshaped her party’s agenda, resuscitated Bernie Sanders’s campaign and hardly has a
friend in town. But let me just be clear about something. She might not have many friends in the Washington
establishment, but she has a lot of constituents and voters who are rooting for her and we’re
certainly among them. Now here’s how that line came up in the article. She said the Congressional Progressive Caucus
should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line. Other caucuses within the Democratic Party
in Congress require applications, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out. But they let anybody who the cat dragged in
call themselves a progressive. There’s no standard, she said. And I totally agree with her on that. I mean, we had Democratic presidential candidates
claiming that they were progressives while they were supporting fascist regimes in India. I mean, that’s not progressivism, like it’s
just->>Well, it’s easy to label yourself something,
yes.>>Yeah, exactly.>>And it’s easy to also imply that you support
the same, like if I were to ask you who among the Democratic primary contenders supports
the Green New Deal? Well, technically all of them, I guess, do
you think it means the same thing for all of them?>>Of course not.>>100% not, which is why we need to dig deeper.>>So she says the same goes for the party
as a whole. She was quoted as saying Democrats can be
too big of a tent. And we certainly know that. I know that this year in particular, when
I say this year I mean over the last six months, has been difficult in labeling myself a Democrat. Because there are members in Democratic leadership
who have enabled Donald Trump to an extent that I’m beyond uncomfortable with. And so identifying as part of the same party
has been incredibly difficult, but the way that the primaries are set up if you’re not
a registered Democrat in certain states, you cannot vote in the Democratic primary. And it’s gross that we have a system that
set up that way.>>Yeah, I hate that the party allows in people
who are so like at least ideologically violent to what it needs to accomplish for its constituents. But I feel like I identify with the Democratic
Party for the same reason AOC says that she has. We’re the actual Democrats, we embody the
spirit of the Democratic party going back way longer than the relatively recent neo-liberal
pro-corporatist thing that’s been, you know it’s been around for three or four decades,
but a big part of the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership. But farther back there, like, the part of
party that was able to get so many reforms for working Americans, that’s what the Democratic
Party needs to be. And just because some of these people are
running for office for the first time, and the party’s currently filled with these ghouls,
doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to take it back.>>Yeah, you’re right. And we need to fight aggressively for that. Now people were not happy with what Representative
Ocasio-Cortez had to say about Joe Biden, and her views on the Democratic Party having
too much, casting a giant tent when it comes to ideology. And so since people gave her crap about it,
she defended her analysis. And she said, quote, yeah, I don’t know why
people are up in arms about this. Many other countries have multiparty democracies,
where several parties come together in a coalition to govern. In another country, I’d be in a Labor Party. Our primary field would cover two to three
parties and she’s absolutely right about that. Look, people have this visceral reaction to
Ocasio-Cortez because she has this incredible ability to call out the Democratic Party for
its devastating flaws and be effective in doing it. And so I think that that’s a great defense
of the point that she was trying to make. But she should also know that there are people
who are intentionally being obtuse. Like there are people who are intentionally
pretending like they’re dumb and they don’t understand what she’s saying, she didn’t say
anything controversial there.>>Yeah, it’s just true, learn about other
countries, I don’t know what to tell you. But that she has that ability to call out
the Democratic Party and specifically Democratic leadership, while also showing how it should
be done. She’s not just a critic. She is driving the conversation. She is organizing people and getting people
involved in this. That’s why you’re gonna see so many candidates
that were, some inspired by Bernie Sanders, others inspired by AOC. She’s in there as a critic, but she’s also
showing the way it should be.>>Absolutely.

Lindsey Graham REAL SALTY About War Powers Act

>>The House of Representatives has just approved
a resolution that Mike Lee in favor of. Its the War Powers Act, that would limit Donald
Trump’s ability to unilaterally go to war. And of course, this follows Trump’s decision
to assassinate Iran’s top military general. Now this is non-binding at the moment, and
look, let’s keep it real. The likelihood of Mitch McConnell even bringing
this type of legislation up for a vote in the Senate is, I can’t even imagine that would
happen. But it is important to note that there are
Republicans who are supportive of this including Mike Lee and Rand Paul. But there are Republicans who are vehemently
against it, and are speaking out against their fellow republicans who dare to question Trump
and his unilateral ability to go to war with any country he pleases. So first let’s go to Senator Lindsey Graham
who loves going to war, and would like the idea of Donald Trump, starting another one. Here’s what he had to say about Senators Mike
Lee and Rand Paul.>>And they’re overreacting quite frankly. go debate all you want to, I’m gonna debate
you. Trust me, I’m gonna let people know that at
this moment in time to play this game with a War Powers Act which I think is unconstitutional. Is that whether you mean to or not, you’re
empowering the enemy. You can have 535 commander in chiefs. The War Powers Act design constitutional,
there’s only one commander chief. If you don’t like the action, the Commander
in Chief is taking as Congress, you could defend those actions. We have control of the power of the purse,
but they’re great Americans. But when we get on the floor of the United
States Senate and the next couple weeks, and talking about restricting the ability to deal
with the religious Nazis and Iran. It will be seen by the Iranians as division
at home, I hope we won’t do it.>>Now the War Powers Resolution is not unconstitutional. In fact, I’m gonna go ahead, and read you
a portion from the constitution that is relevant to this conversation. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution
stipulates that Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and
reprisal. And make rules concerning captures on land
and water, to raise and support armies. And also to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval forces.>>That could mean anything.>>That’s weird, it’s weird that he would
call it unconstitutional when it’s part of our constitution. Now the resolution that just passed in the
House, I wanna give you a few more details about it. As I mentioned earlier it’s non-binding on
the president and would not require his signature. But house speaker Nancy Pelosi nonetheless
insisted it has real teeth, because it is a statement of the Congress of the United
States.>>Yeah.>>I can’t believe that she would think that’s
true.>>I think that she believes that she needs
to pretend that she thinks it’s true. And which is disappointing because I think
that the situation we find ourselves in almost every way is terrible, and I wish that we
weren’t there. I wish that Donald Trump had acted differently
or not acted at all. But I do think that has provided an opening,
we know that two out of three Americans think that the killing of Soleimani has made the
US less safe. I think that we’re seeing in the news just
today a demonstration of how theoretically we might be less safe. I think that, that situation the fact that
the people don’t want a war with Iran combined with Donald Trump’s speech where he wants
to pretend that he’s interested in peace and diplomacy. Creates an opening where you can put way more
pressure on Donald Trump and the Republicans not just to limit their ability to start a
war in the future. But say okay, if you want peace, if you want
diplomacy, we want diplomatic talks by this date. We want you to pull out of the region by this
time. We think well if you want peace, then we certainly
don’t need to be spending so much money abroad. Then let’s talk about dialing down the military
budget being spent overseas like if the people don’t want a->>That’s hilarious, John.>>I know it’s ridiculous-
>>And I know that most of the Democrats don’t even support it but-
>>Right.>>If he wants peace, if his base even some
of them want peace, certainly the voters in general want peace. Then let’s push for actual peace not just
a little bit more red tape for him to go through if he wants to bomb Tehran.>>Also, I would argue that Democrats should
have thought about the future when Obama was president. Because they were fine with President Obama
making decisions unilaterally when it came to what was going on in the Middle East. That was exactly when democrats should have
like thought ahead of time, and limited the powers of the executive branch to unilaterally
make these types of decisions. And so-
>>Yeah.>>And look, Obama was, I’m not even gonna
say he was like more responsible. I mean, he expanded Bush era foreign policy
and expanded the drone wars. I mean, we didn’t go into Yemen for the first
time under Trump’s leadership, that started under Obama. And so we have to hold our own party accountable,
and I know that we do that here on the show on a regular basis, but I’m talking about
Democrats, right? We need to be aware of the flaws in our own
party, and we need to demand more. And I know that people like Nancy Pelosi are
very uncomfortable, and get very offended by that. But you should read my latest op ed in the
hill. So you can see how she enables Donald Trump
more than anyone, right->>Take a look maybe sure.>>Yeah, actually, you tweeted it out. So you guys should check out his Twitter account,
I think I might have too.>>I have one coming up in the next few days
actually, about this very topic.>>I love it. Well, let’s go to Mike Lee, because he actually
responded to Lindsey Graham’s nonsense.>>If that is fundamentally antithetical to
the Constitution. Look, I love Lindsey Graham, he’s a fantastic
guy. We work closely together on a lot of issues. He’s dead wrong insofar as he’s suggesting
that this is playing a game. Mr. Graham, the Constitution of the United
States is not a game. In federal of 69, Alexander Hamilton explained,
why it is that we put the war declaration power in Article 1, Section 8? Why we put it with congress rather than the
executive? There are good reasons for that, and those
reasons need to be respected.>>So he makes good points there, so does
Ron Paul in this next video.>>I think it’s sad when people have this
fake sort of drape of patriotism, and anybody that disagrees with them is not a patriot. Look, I love my country, I have many family
members who have served in the military, and continue to serve in the military. I love my country as much as the next guy,
but for him to insult and say that somehow we’re not as patriotic as he is. He hasn’t even read the history of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that the
war making power is resides in Congress. He believes in this unitary theory of the
executive that presidents can do whatever they want. The only way you can stop them is by defending
a war. That’s not what our founding fathers said. It’s not what the Constitution says. And he insults the Constitution, our founding
fathers. And what we do stand for in this republic
by making light of it, and accusing people of lacking patriotism. I think that’s a low, gutter type of response.>>But I do have criticism for Rand Paul and
Mike Lee. While they might be right on this specific
issue, they have been enabling Donald Trump over, and over, and over again. They’ve been defending him, and his lies his
wrongdoings as executive, or Commander in Chief over and over again. And so they even did it after making these
types of statements because look, what do they care about? What do lawmakers unfortunately care about
more than anything else, their political careers? And when you go up against Donald Trump, there
are consequences if you’re a Republican. And so they have to add all these caveats
about Lindsey Graham, and specifically Donald Trump when they dare to cross him on issues
like war. Take a look.>>We’re not quite at war, and I hope that
this will be an isolated killing. And look, I’m a fan of the president. I think the president is showing remarkable
restraint in many areas of foreign policy, but on the idea of who has the power,
>>Congress only wields the power to declare war. Now look, I support President Trump, I support
the way that he has wielded his power as Commander in Chief. I think he’s actually been the most respectful
of all presidents during my lifetime of the commander in chief power. I do think that the people who briefed the
United States Senate today->>And who are they just so people at home-
>>Hello, me wrong, I love Donald Trump. He’s a he’s shown remarkable restraint. He’s so good, I mean, he’s the best. Yeah, you went on an international tour talking
about how amazing Kim Jong Hoon is. And they write each other love letters, and
he’s he should have all the time but he’s a remarkable president. He’s incredible, please, please don’t come
at me. Don’t come at me, Trump. Don’t tweet about me, please.>>What a couple a weenie is?>>Yeah, come on! Just you’re finally sticking up for something. You’re finally making a strong statement that
needs to be said as Republicans, right? You don’t need to qualify it by pretending
like Donald Trump is a rational human being who deserves to lead this country.>>Yeah, I don’t no which is more pathetic. So Rand Paul with his, I’m a fan of him stuff. He’s stood on the debate stage and he made
fun of your hair said you were ugly. We should choose our leaders for their intelligence
experience and all of that stuff. But stop being such a little weenie seriously. This is why you didn’t go anywhere in the
primary. So that’s like a personal thing where you
continue to suck up this guy that MIT like mocked him viciously. It’s the Ted Cruz level of deference. But for Mike Lee, what he wanted to have you
believe is he came out of that briefing, he was just red hot mad at how they wouldn’t
answer any of his questions. And they were clearly hiding things and he
didn’t like how they respond to his hypotheticals. But Trump is great, it’s just that the people
in the briefing, they disappointed me and probably Trump too. Well, who do you think told them what to say? You think that they were like, what were they
backstabbing Trump. Trump was like I want you to go there and
tell good Mike Lee everything he wants to hear. And then they were like screw Trump. We’re not telling them, anything. No, they don’t have anything, if they’re lying
it’s because they’re all lying. But he wants to pretend that I’m pointing
out all out there clearly hoodwinking the American people but Trump’s good. Don’t get mad at him. Doesn’t make any sense?>>It makes no sense. They wanna have their cake and eat it, too.>>Well, they want to have their cake, and
not be kicked out of the Republican party while eating it basically.>>Yeah, that’s what I mean like they want
to hold Trump accountable without really holding Trump accountable. You can’t do that. This started by Donald Trump. This entire escalation is Trump’s fault. Okay, the lack of intelligence that was cited
by Trump is Trump’s fault. The intelligence didn’t exist. He made a unilateral decision, and then he
and his administration tried to make excuses for it or justify it after the fact. That is exactly what happened. They know it, and enabling him in this situation,
enabling him and everything else he’s done as President, right? Enables him to continue acting this way with
no consequences. So if you’re gonna have a backbone and you’re
going to call him out, then do it appropriately, even if it means that you might lose your
political career. Because the whole point of having members
in Congress represent us is to have leaders represent us. Being a leader is not easy. Being a leader doesn’t mean that you do what’s
beneficial for yourself in your career. Being a leader means that you lead, you do
what’s difficult, and you do what’s principled. And Republicans have shown us over and over
again, that while they talk about how strong they are, and how patriotic they are, they
are the biggest powers in this country. Because they will bow down to power if it
means that they get to preserve their precious career.

Fox Host Does The Unthinkable, Defends Obama

>>Brian Kilmeade strangely decided to defend
Barack Obama. Now, this is in response to all the right
wingers who have been blaming Obama for the escalated tensions with Iran. When in reality, as we know, Donald Trump
started escalating tensions with Iran the moment he pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal,
started implementing these crippling economic sanctions on Iran. And then he later assassinated Iran’s top
military general. But here’s Brian Kilmeade, speaking out against
all the right wingers who are trying to deflect and place the blame on Obama as opposed to
Trump.>>I just don’t love bringing up the previous
administration, just like I didn’t like when President Obama kept bringing up President
Bush.>>Yeah, but it’s true.>>But it’s how do you know? Well, what I’m trying to say is with President
Bush, you heard that statement all along from President Obama. All was a dumb war, as people who were missing
limbs and no longer can see or missing legs. And here, it’s a dumb war they lost their
limbs in->>Brian, they got 150 billion dollars weapon.>>Well, that’s fine, everybody knows that
policy. But you gotta bring people together as the
president and just to continue to take shots at President Obama-
>>Because I think it’s->>Three and half years later, it doesn’t
make any sense.>>It’s a stupid show.>>Now, understand that Brian Kilmeade was
supportive of Trump’s actions. He defended Trump and his decision to assassinate
Soleimani. And he got into this giant argument with Geraldo
Rivera about it. Geraldo Rivera was critical of what Trump
did. And so he’s not speaking out against what
Trump did, but he is speaking out against people who are blaming Obama for what’s going
on with Iran.>>Yeah, but look, if that was the extent
of it, I would say, look at Brian Kilmeade, able to add a little bit of nuance and in
favor of someone who normally disagrees with him. But everything else he added on to it made
me think no, I don’t actually like this at all.>>I agree, I agree, yeah.>>I mean, look, he came out looking better
than Doocy, that’s a high bar for you right there. But no, he said let’s not bring up past administrations
in some sort of weird general DC. Let’s all be polite and always looking forward,
no analysis of what actually has been done. When he said don’t call a war dumb because
have died and lost limbs, what are you talking about? That’s one of the reasons it was so stupid
and pointless and shouldn’t have been fought. That’s not mocking those who fought in it,
that’s speaking with compassion about the suffering that they went through that shouldn’t
have ever happened. And we don’t say it just because we like judging
past actions. We wanna stop future stupid, pointless wars,
like the one that Brian Kilmeade was, he said, I’m cheering for a couple of days ago when
he was arguing with Geraldo.>>Right.>>I don’t wanna have another argument in
ten years looking back on all the people have died in the US-Iran war. I wanna avoid it altogether.>>That’s the reason why we need to be serious
in electing the right person to lead this country this year. Now with that said, I do wanna go a little
back in time. These are clips from the past week where right
wingers on Fox, on Kilmeade’s very network, decided to place the blame on Obama. Let’s start off with Pete Hegseth.>>Listen, this instant, this moment right
now is on Barack Obama, not Donald Trump. When Barack Obama retreated in Iraq and created
a vacuum, he unleashed two radical forces. First ISIS, which President Trump had to come
in and eradicate, but he also opened the door for Iran’s influence to totally take over
Iraq. To the point where now the legislature in
Iraq is effectively controlled by Iran. If we couldn’t solve the problem in Iraq with
150,000 troops and the right strategy, we’re not gonna do it now with 5,000. So whether we leave Iraq or not should be
done on our terms and based on how we stare down Iran and their ability to get the nuclear
bomb.>>Iraq called on the United States and Iran
to help them defeat ISIS in their country. That’s the reason why the United States sent
troops back to Iraq. That’s the reason why Iran sent its forces
to Iraq in order to help defeat ISIS, and they actually did a pretty good job in that. And so now following Donald Trump’s actions,
in doing a drone strike in Iraq, the parliament in the country decided to take a vote and
they want US troops out. All of the escalation, as of late, is what
Trump is responsible for. There was a perfectly fine nuclear deal. It’s a nuclear deal because it was specifically
meant to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.>>And it was working.>>And it was working, they were complying. When he decided to pull out, implement sanctions
and continuously provoke Iran, that’s when things started to get worse.>>Yes.>>So no, this isn’t about Obama, it’s been
three and a half years. What do you mean?>>Yeah, no, it’s not Obama. Actually, I blame Calvin Coolidge. No, I don’t know, we can just keep going back. You know what? It was George W Bush because-
>>And Obama was terrible, by the way.>>If he hadn’t started this war, then we
wouldn’t be there. No, actually it was Clinton because if he’d
taken out Sadam the first time then Bush wouldn’t have had to go in. You could just always keep passing the buck
to the past, it doesn’t mean anything. But that’s what Pete Hegseth does. There’s a couple different brands of horrible
right wing pundit and I would argue that he’s probably the worst. He comes from the Sean Hannity school where
his brain is only large enough for one running algorithm at a time. And it’s, how do I blame a democrat for whatever
it is? Even if it’s a direct predicted result of
a republican action, he’s gonna find a way. He’ll say, it was the democrats fault, throw
a couple of buzzwords out there and that’s it. And so it’s no wonder that he’s doing well
on Fox News. That’s all they need to do.>>That’s right, and there was one other person
on Fox News who wanted to blame Obama. That was Laura Ingraham.>>Whereas, Bush was too idealistic about
what was possible in Iraq, and whereas Obama was too defeatist about Iran, Trump’s a realist. He’s a pragmatist.>>So that’s the stupidity that you hear on
Fox.>>By the way, she was an outspoken advocate
for the war in Iraq.>>100%.>>Just don’t ever forget that, that she was
cheerleading for the war in Iraq. She wants to pretend that that’s not the case. And by the way, she also just coincidentally
wants war with Iran. But it’ll be totally different, it’ll be way
better this time. She’s a realist after all.>>It’s insane. By the way, Vickie, one of our members wrote
in and said, John’s got his energy back with lots of exclamation marks.>>I think I’m at the exact perfect point
of all the medications have lined up, but I am still on a lot of medication.>>And I also wanna announce that he’s starting
to get me sick, so I’m really looking forward to this weekend.>>You can’t prove that. It’s possible, I think Barrack Obama got you
sick, actually.>>It was, you know what, good point, good
point. Become a member, go to Members help to make this show happen, you
keep us sustainable, which is why I want to include your comments in the context of the
stories that we do.

Bernie IS Biden’s BIGGEST Threat

>>Bernie Sanders has not only been rising
in the polls, but if you look at some of the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire,
he is performing incredibly well. In fact, he’s tied with Biden in some of these
polls. Now, the establishment-minded folks, first,
pretended like they were ignoring Bernie, didn’t take him seriously. But now considering the fact that he’s outraised
all of his opponents in the Democratic side, obviously, and he has the most small dollar
donors than anyone else on the Democratic side. Establishment Democrats are starting to panic
and that is noted in various pieces, but I’m gonna focus on the Associated Press and Politico. Now the Associated Press reported, establish
reminded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist
would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier
house, Senate and governors’ races. Less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses,
the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously. So they obviously should have taken him seriously
from day one, they should have taken him seriously since the 2016 election when he was able to
close this massive gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. He was an unknown politician from Vermont. But it was his policies, it was his vision
that inspired voters to rethink what could be in this country, right? And so if they don’t want to take him seriously
that’s on them. But what I’m more concerned about is now that
they do take him seriously what kind of games are they gonna play to try to crush him? And he’s been incredibly resilient so far. I have a lot of faith in him. However, I also know that the corporate arm
of the Democratic Party is rather vicious and will stop at nothing to smear someone.>>The frustrating thing, we’ve seen over
the past couple weeks all these articles where they look at as polling, and they say, my
god, he’s actually, he’s performing pretty well. They look at the general election polling
showing him doing well, especially in some of the states that Hillary Clinton lost against
head to head against Donald Trump. You can’t look at his fundraising and not
be impressed by that. But they’ve only moved so far they’ve moved
far enough to, hey, Joe Biden or whoever’s that’s more, in their lane, you need to be
worried about this, but not to. And maybe that means something. Maybe the fact that Sanders is doing so well
actually represents something about the potential Democratic voters in a general election. Maybe it says something about, man, if we
really wanna beat Trump, maybe this is the guy to get behind.>>Yeah.>>They can acknowledge all these factors,
but they can’t acknowledge what it represents, all they can see is that it’s an obstacle
to Joe Biden.>>Absolutely, look, they recognize that there
is something that really resonates with Democratic voters and independent voters by the way. The only problem is what he represents conflicts
with what their donors want. And I think that’s the main reason why they
push back against him so aggressively. Every argument that you’ve heard from establishment
Democrats against Bernie Sanders is easily debunkable, right? And oftentimes doesn’t even make any sense. Their argument is, he’s so to the left that
he would have no chance in the general even though after the 2016 election, polling indicated
that he was the most popular politician in the country, okay? And there are Trump supporters who said they
would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders. So they ran Hillary Clinton. She lost to Donald Trump. What makes them think that this time around
someone who is arguably worse than Hillary Clinton, I mean, look at Joe Biden and hit
not only his record, but what he’s running on today. What he’s running on today is, I’m doing nothing
for you. I’m not gonna change anything. Right, anyone who dares to question him about
that, he responds in a combative angry way.>>Yeah, that you like your corn pop, won’t
come down, Joe.>>Right, exactly. And so what makes them think that he’s a more
viable candidate as opposed to Bernie Sanders. The truth is they don’t even believe that,
what they got they need to appease their donors. And that’s really at the heart of this. So let me give you more. And it goes beyond donors as well. I mean, they’re thinking about their own careers,
their own ambitions, and are they likely to get positions in Bernie Sanders administration?>>Change the tune fast, maybe.>>Let me just tell you, Neera Tanden is not
gonna be in Bernie Sanders administration. And she’s still real salty that Hillary Clinton
lost because she lost out on a cushy job in the White House, which is a great thing. So let’s move on to some of the specific statements,
okay. Phil Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel jumped in
on this and said, you need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters
and about battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases
under Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.>>No specifics, how? Why does it get harder? If he is able to outraise all of the other
Democrats, all the other Democrats with small dollar donations? He has more individual donors. He’s not funded by super PACs. He doesn’t average donation is $18. He’s outraise every single one of them. So what makes you think that he doesn’t have
a shot at beating Trump?>>They don’t have to say, unfortunately. I think it was the Washington Post. Everybody’s passing around that, I’m a Republican
and I think Democrats should give me someone I’m comfortable voting for, that op-ed that
just came out, and a lot of people read that headline. They’re like, who is that for? It’s around the manual. It’s for someone who actually still believes
that that strategy would work. Yes, to get swing voters you need a centrist,
like Hillary Clinton because it worked. It worked really well in 2016
>>Yeah, it’s ridiculous. No one believes this. No one believes the arguments that they’re
made>>By the way, and he worked for Obama. Obama was the guy who was trying to present
himself as far more left than he was. And Obama won in states that Hillary was incapable
of. So even on his face, even if he believes that
secretly you should campaign as a leftist, but then actually rule as a centrist. He can’t pretend that he doesn’t understand
the appeal of running a left campaign. Because he’s seen it work in practice.>>100%, exactly. I mean, Obama certainly presented himself
as a bold progressive. Now part of the problem was he didn’t have
much of a record as a Senator. The people could refer to see if he was telling
the truth. And look, 2008 was very different. People were desperate to get rid of Bush and
Bush era like policies. And so John McCain wasn’t a likable candidate
at that time and people took a chance and really believed Obama’s messaging. But now, I just think the electorate is different
and they’re looking for records, they’re looking for evidence, they’re looking for receipts,
and they want detailed policies.>>Yeah.>>So let me give you more. I’m gonna skip ahead and talk a little bit
about what these Sanders critics originally thought with Elizabeth Warren in the race. And I love this part of the story because
it was exactly what we predicted, right? Cenk and I talked about this a lot on the
show. Several Sander’s critics noted that he has
largely escaped intense scrutiny throughout the campaign. We all know that’s untrue. In part, because some assumed that Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren, another progressive Firebrand, was a stronger candidate who would
cannibalize his support. With Warren’s candidacy struggling to maintain
momentum, however, those assumptions are now being questioned. So they were really relying on Elizabeth Warren
to destroy any chance of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee. But that didn’t work because unfortunately
Elizabeth Warren, kind of back pedaled on some of her progressive policy proposals,
specifically Medicare for all, I think that really tanked her campaign. So maybe don’t listen to the centrist advising
you and your campaign because I think the party, meaning the voters, have moved to the
left.>>Yeah, and I don’t think they predicted,
first of all, how many people would be in the primary. But of those people, how that would then shake
out in terms of who’s taking who’s support. It’s pretty easy to show that there’s at least
some overlap between Warren and Sanders. But there’s definitely overlap between Biden
and some of these other candidates, Buttigieg and things like that. And probably a little bit Warren, too. If she does back off some of the bigger, bolder,
progressive plans, then she’s not gonna lose the more centrist of her supporters, she’s
gonna drop some people that may go back to Bernie. But she’ll still hold on to the people who
are probably more likely to vote for Biden if she weren’t there.>>Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I think that’s what happened already.>>Yeah.>>To some extent.>>And really fast.>>Yeah.>>I will say, this sort of candidate arithmetic
is very difficult to do. If you actually look at who second choice
is. One of the most mind-blowing things that’s
been consistent throughout the last year is that generally, like Bernie Sanders and Joe
Biden, people generally think of the other candidate as their second choice. I know it doesn’t make any sense to people
who pay attention hardcore to the news, but a lot of people who like Joe Biden also kind
of like Bernie Sanders and vice versa.>>Yeah, it is kind of incredible.>>It’s weird. Just take it up with the polls.>>There was this conversation that I heard
on Michael Brooks’ show, this is months and months ago. But it was such a good point that I think
we often forget, especially as people who work in the news and we eat this stuff up
every day. Look, most Americans who aren’t like hyper
aware and paying like super close attention to politics and everything that’s happening. If you give them a survey on various political
issues, it’s really like a hodgepodge of all sorts of different things that are inconsistent,
right? And so you can’t think that all voters are
consistent on all issues. People have different life experiences, different
preferences, different worldviews. And so, I mean, look, it might not make a
lot of sense to us, but people have different opinions on various policies, so I could see
how someone might like Bernie Sanders and then also later support Biden, vice versa. I don’t get it, but-
>>Yeah.>>People are not necessarily super consistent
on the issues. And I wanted to read a quick comment from
our member’s section. Lib says, it’s class warfare, period. I think you’re commenting in regard to this
story and I think you’re right, right? This is about an economic message that resonates
across party lines. That’s the thing about Bernie Sanders that
I think is incredibly powerful. He talks about how this economy is rigged. He talks about the frustrations and the anxieties
of Americans. And we feel it. We feel it every day, even if you have a stable
job and you’re not too worried about where you’re gonna end up at the moment. We see it around us. We see people living on the streets and increase
number of homeless people. We see people who are dying. Hundreds of thousands of people have already
died as a result of the opioid epidemic. Even in my neighborhood, I see people shooting
up heroin. And the homelessness problem is series like
we see poverty all around us and those economic anxieties are real. And while the Robin manuals of the world are
not worried about those things because there are, sitting up on their ivory towers and
they’re not concerned about all this stuff. The vast majority of Americans are and when
they hear a politician in a very intelligent and digestible way explain what’s happening
economically to them and how we can fix it. It’s powerful. It’s much more powerful than Biden getting
angry because someone’s asking him a hard question that he doesn’t like.

Megyn Kelly To Kaepernick: “Everything is Racist”

>>Megyn Kelly hasn’t really been out in the
public much lately. But she did decide to respond to Colin Kaepernick’s
tweets about US aggression toward Iran. So first, let me give you what Colin Kaepernick
had tweeted, and then I’ll give you her response. She said, there’s nothing new about American
terrorist attacks against black and brown people for the expansion of American imperialism. America has always sanctioned and besieged
black and brown bodies both at home and abroad. American militarism is the weapon wielded
by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world. Now-
>>Yep.>>Anyone who knows anything about American
history and American foreign policy sees what he’s talking about here. This isn’t simply about race. This is about US foreign policy toward countries
that are typically majority black or majority brown, right?>>Yep.>>And why, why do they do that? And I’m gonna fill in those blanks in just
a second. But Megyn Kelly, in her lack of sophisticated
thinking says, because everything is racist. Everything. Even fighting back against terrorists who
kill Americans. Nike, feeling proud? Okay, so if you’re so concerned about terrorists
killing Americans or terrorists killing people that they shouldn’t be killing. How about the fact that Donald Trump defended
Mohammed bin Salman after he ordered the killing of a US resident and Washington Post journalist
Jamal Khashoggi. Didn’t bother you, right? Didn’t bother you. I mean, it’s just such a disingenuous argument. And besides which, Colin Kaepernick is actually
making an important point that isn’t often made by public figures, especially people
in the entertainment industry or in athletics. Colin Kaepernick comments about things that
are so important to shed light on. And US imperialism is incredibly important
to discuss, especially in the context of what the United States is doing in the Middle East
right now. So for anyone who maybe didn’t have, and most
people in America didn’t, the appropriate history lessons about what the US has done
with coups abroad. We’ll do a quick run through of it. And I wish we had more time cuz there’s so
many interesting details to every single one of these examples, but we’re just gonna run
through some of the examples right now. So first off, when it comes to Latin American
countries, our CIA has loved orchestrating coups. We have orchestrated coups in Argentina, Brazil,
Cuba, Chili, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, okay? Now, we attempt to stage a coup in Cuba, we
failed there. So we weren’t successful in every single
case, but every single time you see this happen, especially in Latin American countries, there
are US business interests involved, right? It’s not because we’re trying to spread democracy. It’s because there’s some sort of resource
that the United States government wants access to. So we’ve done coups in countries like Iran. So in 1953 there was a coup in Iran. It was orchestrated by the United States. Despite continued speculation about the CIA’s
role in a 1949 coup to install a military government in Syria, the ouster of Iranian
Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh is the earliest coup of the Cold War that the United States
government has acknowledged. They’ve acknowledged it, okay? But you don’t hear much of it in US history
classes. In 1953, after nearly two years of Mossadegh’s
premiership, during which he challenged the authority of the Shah and nationalized an
Iranian oil industry previously operated by British companies, he was forced from office
and arrested, spending the rest of his life under house arrest. Did you think that you could just nationalize
your country’s oil and the US would let you get away with it? We don’t think so. Let’s move on. Guatemala, 1954, though the United States
was initially supportive of Guatemalan Guatemalan President Arbenz, the State Department felt
his rise through the US-trained and armed military would be an asset, the relationship
though soured as he attempted a series of land reforms that threatened the holdings
of US-owned United Fruit Company. A coup in 1954 forced him from power, allowing
a succession of juntas in his place. Classified details of the CIA’s involvement
in the ouster of the Guatemalan leader, which included equipping rebels and paramilitary
troops while the US Navy blockaded the Guatemalan coast, came to light in 1999. I mean, the examples go on and on and on. Congo in 1960, what we did to Patrice Lumumba. I mean, how many more examples do you want,
okay?>>I think she doesn’t want any.>>I’m sorry, Lumumba, Lumumba.>>And I would argue she probably doesn’t
care.>>But that’s what I wanna know. Look, Megyn Kelly’s not dumb. I don’t think she’s a dumb person. She’s a lawyer. She worked her way up to pretty lucrative
gigs at Fox News and then I think it was CBS or NBC.>>Well, no offense to us, but being a host
doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a genius.>>No, I get that. I get that.>>She had a public spat about how Santa’s
white. She’s kind of dumb when it comes to racial
stuff.>>You’re right. You’re right. Right.>>To hold these simplistic, stupid, bigoted
views on race you can’t be that intelligent.>>You guys, the United States will go into
countries and overthrow democratically elected leaders. We just did it in Bolivia. We just did it in Bolivia. We will do that. We will go into a sovereign country, overthrow
a democratically elected leader for our own business interests. So when someone draws attention to that because
they want our country to be better, to keep our country safe, to keep sovereign countries
safe and democratic, it’s a dumb ass response to say because everything’s racist.>>Yeah, it’s hard to be Megyn Kelly. When you say bigoted things people call you
a racist, it’s rough.>>That’s the woman who gets paid tens of
millions of dollars to be an idiot, it’s devastating. That’s what this country values.>>She’s so awful that she makes me like Charlize
Theron less.>>No, don’t say that.>>Although Bombshell was pretty good.>>It was okay.>>Yeah, it was fine.>>Charlize Theron is a national treasure.>>She is, exactly.>>Yeah.>>Yeah, she’s as bad as she ever was when
she was on Fox News. She somehow managed as she like pulled the
ripcord, got out of there, to seem more reasonable than someone like a Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly,
but she’s not. She was picked for that position because she
believes the same sorts of things that they do.>>I want to give some snaps to Colin Kaepernick
because what he was drawing attention to there is important. And a lot of people in America never get the
appropriate schooling or learn the appropriate history of what our country has done. And you need to understand the history to
really dissect and understand what our current foreign policy is. We should be able to hold our elected officials
to a higher standard, and we should not allow them to sell us this nonsense about how the
US government is looking to spread democracy abroad. When in reality, we’ve done a lot to undermine
democracy in other countries consistently over the decades.

Media Using Cancel Culture To Smear Bernie

>>There was an opinion piece written over
at Jezebel that caught my attention. The writer is Ashley Reese and I wanna preface
this by saying, she’s not a bad guy, she’s a good guy, okay? She seems to be a Bernie Sanders supporter
and she wants to, at least the feel that I get, encourage Bernie Sanders supporters to
avoid provoking some of the centrist Democrats who have been smearing him and his supporters. And what she references is the Bernie Would’ve
Won line which I think is a completely accurate line. But she thinks that it’s actually causing
more harm than good. So the title of her piece’s The End of Bernie
Would’ve Won. And I wanna give you a few excerpts and then
we can discuss it. Because again, I think she’s well meaning,
but I think that she hasn’t been hit with everything that’s made me super jaded about
about this country and about centrist Democrats specifically.>>By the way, an alternate headline that’s
also online. Is Bernie Would’ve Won is canceled. Okay, that sounds even more obnoxious. But a lot of times the writers don’t write
the headlines just to be fair.>>Right, so let me give you a few excerpts
from Ashley Reese’s article. Out of the anger, the dismay, the fear that
followed November 8, 2016, came a bitter refrain repeated by those who supported Bernie Sanders,
Clinton’s main competitor in the Democratic party, Bernie Would’ve Won. Effectively poured salt on the post-election
wound. Its central argument drew from early stats. Sanders gained more votes than Clinton in
crucial states like Michigan and Wisconsin during the primary, which later turned red
during the general. Additionally, Sanders was considered the anti-establishment
candidate during a year when being anti-establishment was en vogue. Trump ran and won on it, and though he didn’t
get the popular vote, Clinton should have won, his anti-establishment messaging proved
victorious in a slew of swing states. Now, this is where it starts to get maybe
a little shaky where people could disagree.>>Hold on, before we get to that part->>Yeah.>>Let me just both agree and disagree already. So you can tell she’s a good guy because she
gets that there was an anti-establishment vibe. She gets that that’s why Trump won. Already that makes her leagues above all the
mainstream media who have never acknowledged that because it would mean that there’s an
anti-them vibe, right? So she’s correctly deduced that, that was
the driving force. And I don’t disagree with Clinton should’ve
won. We shouldn’t have the Electoral College in
the first place, so it’s not about bitterness at all. In fact, I am bitter at the Electoral College
because she got 3 million more votes and she should have been president. But the part that I disagree with and it’s
really problematic is, just that little phrase she had said in the beginning, effectively
poured salt on a post-election wound. No, that’s not the point. So folks on the other side, in the corporate
Democrats said, you guys you’re being mean. This is really hurtful, you’re trying to pour
salt on the wound. At least from our point of view, and I think
from the overwhelming majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, that’s not the point at all. The point is to say let’s not make that mistake
again.>>Yes, exactly, especially when centrist
emocrats like Joe Biden, are really relying on this message of electability to win the
Democratic nomination. But the fact of the matter is he is certainly
not more electable than someone like Bernie Sanders, because Biden represents more of
what Hillary Clinton represented. In fact, I think he even goes further in talking
about his willingness to work with Republicans. In fact, recently he noted that he would be
open to choosing a Republican as his VP. Disaster, right? So if you think that that makes you more electable,
you’re insane. And so that’s the reason why the Bernie would
have won line gets used so often. Because there are progressive voters in this
country who are hoping that that message gets across. That someone who is progressive, who actually
cares about fixing this rigged economic system is more electable than someone who wants the
status quo.>>Yeah, so my main beef with this piece is
that Ashley is not acknowledging that progressives and the whole country is being gaslit by corporate
Democrats and the mainstream media saying, remember, the establishment candidate, the
so-called moderate centrist candidate, is more electable. But that’s what you told us last time, and
she didn’t win. She’s not president. It’s not about putting salt on the wounds,
it’s that they’re gaslighting us just like they did last time. Look, I will go further. The mainstream media is engaging in a lie,
it’s on a mass scale. They are saying even though it is the most
obviously provable lie, the person you told us who was more likable last time has the
same policies as Joe Biden is the more establishment candidate and she lost. But you turn around and go, nope, nope, nope,
nope, nope, nope. Bernie’s not electable, just like we told
you last time. Populism doesn’t work even though Trump won. Anti-establishment doesn’t work even though
Trump won. No, you shouldn’t believe your lying eyes. You should believe our propaganda. But the establishment candidate is more electable. And they’ve repeated it a million times, a
billion times until it drilled into people’s heads. I was talking to friends and family recently,
and they’re like, I don’t necessarily agree with Biden, but I gotta vote for him. Cuz he’s more electable. God damn it, their propaganda worked. That’s the whole point here.>>Yes, exactly, exactly. So, I’m gonna skip ahead to where she kind
of talks about why she wants to cancel that line, right? The Bernie should have won line. As much as I largely agree with the ethos
behind Bernie would have won, I’m canceling it for 2019. Too many people are losing the plot. A useful identifier like neoliberal has become
so abused that is has become trite, and criticizing milquetoast Democrats for supporting centrists’
policies or policy agendas is now grounds for being called a Russian bot. And then later in the piece she kinda talks
about how well, Bernie has managed to build this diverse coalition. The reputation is that they’re a bunch of
Bernie bros, right? That there isn’t diversity, that it’s a bunch
of white males who are super aggressive on Twitter, and maybe we should move away from
lines like Bernie would have won so the centrist Democrats don’t go after us so hard. But this is my biggest issue with her piece
because, don’t make the mistake that I think a lot of people make. They’re not the good guys. The centrists that go after Bernie Sanders
supporters and smear them and put out propaganda against them and propaganda against Bernie
Sanders, they have no interest in playing fair or speaking the truth. They are ruthless, they play dirty, and they
have no interest in telling the truth. So don’t allow them to frame the discussion. And don’t allow them to influence the way
you behave. Now, obviously, be respectful, be civil, but
I think that making arguments like Bernie would have won are important arguments to
make, especially when it comes to all the misinformation about electability.>>This centerpiece, Ashley is clearly smart
and has the actual facts. That’s why it’s frustrating that I think she’s
accidentally helping the propoganda of the wrong side. So let me explain what I mean by that. She also talked about avoiding the mistakes
of last time, so it’s not like she doesn’t know that. She does and she did put it in the piece,
so that’s important to note. But when she talks about the Sanders’ people,
she says they have a reputation. Well, okay and she says they have a reputation
of being surly white leftist dudes. Then she goes on to say that’s not an accurate
representation of Sanders base. So she knows and acknowledges in the piece,
but so then why did you repeat it?>>She repeated it because she’s trying to
make a point about how, hey, let’s get rid of that reputation. And one way to get rid of that is by avoiding
phrases like, Bernie would’ve won.>>Yeah, and so that gets to the very heart
of this. So the last paragraph she says, there’s too
much work to do to get caught up in the same skirmishes on loop for another three years. No, so those skirmishes are not a sideshow,
are not counterproductive. They’re actually the real battle. I don’t mean like being too vituperative online,
etc. No, I’m talking about, you have to acknowledge
that the corporate media is on the side of the corporate Democrats. And even those words might be offensive to
some, but they are, in fact, the corporate media. They’re all multibillion dollar corporations
who wanna maximize profit including the money they get from money and politics being spent
on ads in their stations, okay? And the access that they get to politicians. Those corporate Democrats are corporate. They do take money from corporations and do
serve their interests. So those folks are the ones that are together,
gaslighting the whole country and telling them remember the Bernie supporters are all
bros and surly white leftist dudes. And something about Bernie Sanders makes me
sick to my stomach even though I don’t know what it is. But I’m gonna do propaganda on the so called
left wing channel of MSNBC. And so Ashley, they’re all doing that in unison
and so then they turn around and go, is it reminds me of, I’ll use an old, old analogy. Rowdy Rowdy Piper in the old WWF. He was a bad guy wrestler. He’d hit somebody over the head with a chair. When they turn around to hit him, he’s go
whoa, whoa, whoa, what, right? And that’s what the media does. They smash us over the head, say, you guys
are just all white males. You’re only the like minorities, all these
slur, smears, etc, right? None of a base, in fact, as Ashley recognizes,
etc. Then when we turn around and go, that’s not
true. Everybody goes, there goes the Bernie Bros. Guys, now, you’re starting the skirmish. Why are you doing this skirmish, we’re on
a loop.>>They’re actually in bad faith.>>Because we’re trying to desperately get
our message out that they’re lying to you, they’re lying to you that populist is more
electable. Independents don’t want corporate politicians
that are Democrats or Republicans. They want someone who is actually gonna fight
for them. That is an honest politician, then that’s
more populist independents inside the election. These are facts and I can back it up with
polling, so why do I raise my voice to try to get past the din of the corporate media
that oppresses us all with their propaganda that is based on lies? Those are facts. So don’t take it out on us when we fight back. We didn’t start the fight. They started the fight. And they did it in 2016 when they said Hillary
Clinton is already leading, she has an overwhelming lead. When they hadn’t done a single vote, they
did it based on super delegates who hadn’t even voted yet and who were part of the corrupt
establishment. They’re doing it this time by saying on a
loop a million times over, Biden is more electable. Biden is more electable, establishment is
more electable, moderate and centrist is more electable, even though it’s empirically incorrect,
right? So just all I’m saying is, don’t bash us for
trying to fight back against this giant machine that is spewing lies and propaganda.>>Right, and the establishment wants to intimidate
you from speaking the truth. Really, that’s at the bottom of all of this. They want to dissuade you from telling the
truth about the candidates, from speaking the truth about what actually happened in
2016, and don’t let them do that. Don’t give them that kind of power.

Fox News Infighting For Trump Access

>>Oftentimes when critiquing the media the
topic of access to politicians comes up. And recently the Hollywood Reporter gave the
access to some internal emails with Fox News. And it determined that, yeah, they’re very
much concerned about access to Trump administration officials, including Steve Mnuchin. Now interesting enough, they back stab one
another between shows within the network in order to gain access to these politicians. And I wanna give you a few examples. So in April of 2017, a producer Lou Dobbs’
Fox Business Network program Played up the show’s ratings advantage over Maria Bartiromo’s
morning show when trying to land an interview with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. So here’s what the email read and this is
written by the producer, Secretary Mnuchin next week you think?, the producer said in
an email to Mnuchin’s spokesperson. He is doing Maria Bartiromo you know, much
lower ratings than us and I say that in an endearing way.>>No, you don’t.>>Nope, not at all endearing, just trying
to S talk her, if you will so he comes on your show instead. Let’s just be honest.>>It’s incredible. I mean, okay, so let me give you more. In June of 2017, the producer wrote back,
my dearest Tony!>>I already love this man.>>No, okay, let’s stop for a second.>>My first role here at TYT, this is after
my temporary position filling in for JR was up and I really wanted to stay here. And you were like, you wanna be the guest
booker, in addition to doing marketing or whatever. And I never wrote an email like that in my
life, my dearest Tony, my dearest so and so, it’s condescending.>>I almost thought they were gonna write
my beloved.>>Okay, let me give you more.>>I’m sorry, that’s reserved for Kim Jong-un.>>We fell in love. All right, my dearest Tony. I see Mnuchin is doing Varney tomorrow. I am hurt!>>Just when you thought it couldn’t get any
better. I am hurt, my dearest. How hard you’ve betrayed me. I thought we were betrothed, and there you
are on another Fox program.>>I am hurt! I really, really need him for Lou. She then added, thank God, I just asked someone
from Stuart Varney’s show and they said he won’t be doing their show. That’s great news. This is some shady stuff, man.>>Yeah.>>Can you imagine if I wrote an email like
that to like the spokesperson or the assistant for whoever? Like let’s say Obama, I’m just throwing a
name out there. Like I want Obama on No Filter but then I
hear that Obama agreed to do The Damage Report.>>I love that idea, yeah.>>And I’m like, my dearest so and so, I am
disturbed that you would allow Obama on the Damage Report. This damages their reputation, disgusting.>>All right, by the way, Damage Report’s
a great show. You should watch it.>>Okay, no, I was gonna do something similar,
like Nina Turner. You were like, he’s already booked on Damage
Report. You undercut John with, do you know my view
count is higher than Damage Report? Please.>>That’s so shady.>>So my betrothed, please come on my show
instead.>>Okay, there’s an important commentary here
when it comes to access to politicians. We’ve talked about it before. We’ll talk about it again. But I will say that this shows me how different
TYT is from almost any other so-called newsroom, right? Because we genuinely like each other. John’s my legitimate friend. I did a toast for his wedding.>>Yeah.>>I can’t ever imagine sniping him like that
behind the scenes.>>When I was at MSNBC people were super competitive. I had a producer warn me when I was getting
great ratings as a fill in host, be careful, people are gonna be out for your head.>>My God.>>I’m like, why? I’m doing great. He said, what kind of a sucker are you? What do you mean why, I’m doing great? Because you’re doing great. And he told me that other hosts don’t want
fill-ins who do better than them, which almost never happens. But if you do better than them in the ratings
when they’re out they’re like, no, I’m done with guy. No way, that’s embarrassing.>>Look, I get that. I get the human instinct. Because if you have a fill-in that’s better
than you and somehow the ratings skyrocket when you’re on vacation and the fill-in comes
in, well then your job is really gonna be jeopardized there, right? But within a company where you’re talking
about two full-time hosts, two full-time shows, you want that network to succeed. It’s not gonna succeed with one well-performing
show.>>They don’t care about any, all they care
about is themselves. But, I mean, the idea that you would have
someone fill in for you and then take over a show, like wait a minute.>>See, I know I seem to have an ego, for
good reason sometimes you’ll think. But if you don’t, then you’re happy when other
people succeed. I know it seems crazy to TV people, right? But it is possible that, especially if you
agree and you wanna actually empower people, it’s wonderful when they succeed and they’re
part of your same network.>>Let me give you some more of these emails. By the way, this is all fighting for Steve
Mnuchin, which I can’t imagine. I wouldn’t fight for Steve Mnuchin if my life
depended on it. I wouldn’t even fight for my own life to get
Steve Mnuchin on the show. I’d be like, all right, just take me I’m done. Okay, it’s over. All right, let me give you more. A few months later, a different Fox Business
Network producer requested that Mnuchin appear on Bartiromo’s show. During a discussion of when to schedule the
interview, the producer said, as long as he is NOT on CNBC or another Fox Business Network
program, please, okay.>>By the way, just look, legit reason why
they care so much is not just the exclusive because people think, my God, Mnuchin’s on. I gotta turn on to Fox Business, a sentence
that has never been spoken in the English language.>>Never.>>It’s because then the clips that come out
of that interview get covered by the rest of the press.>>Mm-hm.>>But if you’re the second one to do the
interview you get a lot less coverage. The first person to do the interview gets
all the coverage for the rest of the media, which might then help your ratings later. So that’s the phenomenon, just giving you
the context.>>And then Bret Baier got involved in one
of these instances. So in the fall of 2017, a planned interview
with Mnuchin on Bret Baier’s weekday Fox News show was scrapped after his production team
learned that Mnuchin would also appear two days earlier, not even on the same day, two
days earlier on Chris Wallace’s Sunday morning show. We would really like to have some sort of
exclusivity with our interview, Baier’s booker wrote. And then eventually Baier himself sent an
email, and this is what he said. Okay, we assumed you knew that a major Sunday
show interview, or two, two days before a sit down with me would take a little of the
steam off the booking. We would love to have the Secretary on, but
maybe later in September now. So that kinda goes to what you were saying,
Cenk, you wanna make sure that someone doesn’t steal all your thunder before you have your
sit-down interview with a Trump administration official, or any politician for that matter. But I think the important lesson to take away
from this is think about what this signals to a person in a position of power when you
have so-called journalists fighting for you. If they’re fighting for you, then you have
leverage and you’re able to reject people if they critique you even a little bit or
if they say something hard-hitting about the Trump administration, something honest or
truthful about the Trump administration. You’re far less likely to grant that particular
show an interview if you know that they’ve been critical. Because you get to take your pick, right? It’s like a buffet of friendly media outlets
and shows that you can choose from. So why go with someone who’s gonna be critical?>>In fact, that might partly explain why
Lou Dobbs is so over the top. The other day he said that Trump might be
receiving accolades for centuries from here, right? Like it was so over the top it literally sounded
North Korean. And they’re this close to saying he has no
anus.>>Okay, and so there isn’t anything that
Lou Dobbs couldn’t take and make into reverence for the dear leader Donald Trump. It’s so overwhelmingly over the top. Part of it is he wants to get an audience,
partly he’s lost his mind, but the third reason is access. Cuz if he can kiss Trump’s ass harder and
longer than Bartiromo, then he’s gonna get access to more guest from the Trump administration
than Bartiromo is. So that’s how this game is played.>>Yeah.>>Now to be fair to them, they actually do
have access where as, and with the stuff that’s said on their shows does get covered widely. And that’s an advantage that TV has, which
drives them to this level of competitiveness. Here a guest could say anything. Unless it’s damaging to progressives it’ll
never be covered, right? I’m just keeping it real. So it doesn’t really matter if they say it
on No Filter or Damage Report or Secular Talk or Young Turks, etc. I remember Mel Brooks once stopped in, this
was a million years ago, and broke huge news on our show. It was Young Frankenstein was going to go
to Broadway. At that time he was super hot on Broadway
and he’s Mel Brooks, he’s a legend, and it was like a big deal. We told all the press, my god, Mel Brooks
said on the air, and here’s the tape of him saying he’s gonna bring Young Frankenstein. No one ran the story.>>Two weeks later he told the New York Times
or something, and the coverage exploded and every outlet covered it. Like, my God, Mel Brooks is bringing Young
Frankenstein to Broadway. But, dude, we sent you a video of him saying,
where you could see it was him, saying it. And you’re like, it doesn’t count. It’s just the mainstream media is so weird.>>Yeah, I mean, it seems like they don’t
really have any taste for you from the very beginning.>>No, they view people with power already
and money as legitimate. Anyone who is not already incredibly wealthy
or incredibly powerful the mainstream media views as illegitimate, and it affects all
of their coverage. So, yeah.>>It’s interesting because it really depends
on, if you’re in the media, it really depends on what your objective is. Because if your objective in the media is
to get these big names on your show so you can make news, so other news outlets applaud
you or run some sort of coverage of your interview. Then yeah, you’re going to go out of your
way to not really do your job, just do things to attract those people onto your program
because it’s really ego-driven. You want that attention. But really the whole point of getting people
on your program is to have interesting conversations that your audience can benefit from. Your audience is supposed to have something
to take away from that conversation. But a lot of these big wig, hot shot people
in cable news and the mainstream media don’t care about that at all. It’s all about their own egos and getting
media attention. Who cares about that?>>I never said, like the idea that they would
care about their audience is hilarious. Part and parcel of those promises to gain
that access is don’t worry, you won’t get any tough question here. And so our audience will not get to find out
the whole truth about you. We’ll cover it up and make you seem better
than you actually are. And that’s obviously the number one problem
with this craven desire to get access to officials. Just being friendly with folks and getting
them on your show is not a big deal unless you are tilting your coverage. And you could see clear as day from Fox News
and Fox Business, it is as tilted as it could possibly be. And now you see from the internal emails that
they pretty much promise that. One last thing, the Mel Brooks story and how
we got him on the Young Turks like 12, 14 years ago is a super fun story. And there’s a Young Turks host who’s really
good friends with Mel Brooks. Although those two stories are different. I wanna tell that in the post game, okay? Okay.>>So and become a member and
get all of our fun post games where we also dish about other inside baseball about the
media and how it works too. So check it out. It’s great for members and members make this
show happen. Thank you guys.

AOC Calls Out Tulsi Gabbard’s Impeachment Vote

>>After Tulsi Gabbard voted present during
the House impeachment vote, there’s been a flood of criticism toward her decision to
do that. And one of the Progressives in Congress, Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that this wasn’t a good idea. Here’s her exact quote, whenever we have a
vote, we should vote yes and we should vote no. And voting present is a very tough position
to be in, to not take a stand in a moment that is so consequential I think is quite
difficult.>>Yeah, look, obviously I agree with AOC
and there’s a reason why Gabbard is not voting in either direction. She, it appears to me, that she wants to preserve
her optionality in which party to be in. And which way to take her political career
but that seems brazen. So look, I’m done trying to figure out Tulsi
Gabbard.>>Yeah, I don’t care about figuring her out.>>Yeah, look, but to me, when she was in
Congress and she voted with progressives 90% of the time. I was thrilled to take that vote and have
her as an ally. 10% of the time when she would vote to keep
out refugees, be okay with torture. In about every single instance, if there was
a issue regarding Muslims, she would vote against them. Okay, I was not familiar with those votes,
we were honest about all of that, right? And overall we were happy to have her as an
ally. And now that she’s done this weird plight
where she’s running for president with no chance at all. And that’s fine, we had her on several times. I gave everybody a chance, we gave her a chance,
we open mind everyone. And at that time, she’s still 90% Progressive. Now, she’s been turning and turning and turning. And now we’ve gotten to this weird place where
she’s defending Trump. Because think about this guys, this is so
important. When a Democratic who’s running for president
comes out. And she used this word a day or so ago, she
said that it was a hyper-partisan, okay? Since the Democrats have been hyper-partisan,
then the Republicans turn around and go, see? Even a Democratic presidential candidate says
the Democrats are hyper-partisan. Now, Tulsi, I think, said there was hyper-partisanship
on both sides.>>Really? Both sides do it? After all this time, you’re gonna come out
with both sides do it? And accuses Democrats of being hyper-partisan,
that is a Republican talking point. So I don’t know what the hell she’s thinking,
I do know what she’s doing. It is not remotely helpful, and most importantly,
it’s just not true.>>So look, Tulsi Gabbard supporters are now
going after AOC and they think that her, by the way, she was right. I don’t think AOC was angry or too aggressive
in her comment, she made a point that I think she’s actually pretty legitimate, right? You’re voting on something as important as
this impeachment vote. And there’s an abundance of evidence showing
that Donald Trump did exactly what he’s been accused of doing by the initial whistle blower. You have all these ambassadors and Trump administration
officials testifying against him. But some of Tulsi’s most avid supporters are
saying, well, AOC didn’t take a stance when it came to Venezuela. She was asked about it, and she said that
she deferred to leadership. Okay, well she was asked by reporters what
she thought about it. And I would have preferred that she had an
answer to that question, there’s no question about that. But if she were on the floor of the House
and she had to cast a vote on foreign policy related to Venezuela or any other country. And she took a cowardly position of present
as opposed to voting yes or no. Then she deserves that criticism, there’s
no question about it. But to compare this impeachment vote to a
reporter asking AOC what she thinks about Venezuela. I think is a little ridiculous, and a bit
of a stretch.>>Look, I think Tulsi’s lost a lot of progressive
supporters, the jury’s be any comment on that. For the folks who are still there, everybody
has got a right to their opinion. And by the way, if you still agree with us
on 90% of stuff, I love it and I’ll take it. And I hope that you don’t shut off your mind
and then go, okay, since your criticize my dear leader. Now, no matter how much I agree with you on
other things, I will oppose you. But that’s your call to make, right? But I got to ask you, do you still think she’s
Progressive? Now she’s claiming that the Democrats are
hyper-partisan and going after poor Donald Trump? Okay, if you think that, it’s a curious definition
of Progressive. But I think that most Progressives, not most,
99% of Progressives are on AOC’s side, not Tulsi’s.

Steve King Tricked By Twitter Troll

>>Twitter troll who goes by the handle MuellerDad69
fooled white nationalist, Representative Steve King so hard that he deserves an award. So what did you do exactly? Well, according to Business Insider, the account
MuellerDad69, claimed to be owned by a Starbucks manager who proudly discriminated against
social conservatives by banning his employees from saying Merry Christmas to customers.>>I’m gonna interrupt for a second, I saw
that headline online, and I was like, no, it didn’t. That didn’t happen but people were taking
it seriously at the time, they didn’t know it was a troll. Yeah, I’m like that’s I don’t know what the
story is at all I saw was the headline but I pulled up Ben Mankiewicz that didn’t happen. And it turns out-
>>God the media so dumb, his handle is MuellerDad69, and you just like reprint it, right? But anyway, okay.>>The media retweet it just printing what
anonymous troll say. I never seen that before.>>Right, yeah. So the tweet was then reposted by Representative
King on Facebook. So let me show you what the the post look
like. Again, this is MuellerDad69
>>I’m the manager of a Starbucks in Charlotte North Carolina. I have informed my employees that they will
be fired on the spot if I hear them say Merry Christmas to any customers. I’m doing it because I personally dislike
conservative Christians.>>Come on, come on, I mean, and aren’t you
at least a little skeptical that, that might not be the case?>>He’s like, no, no, no, I saw it on Twitter,
so it must be true.>>Must be true, must be true.>>But by the way, almost all the mainstream
media actually does think that.>>Yeah, and it’s really depressing. So Steve King sees that, and he posts it on
his Facebook account. And then he captions it Wow!>>It’s true, it is Wow!>>It’s wow that you posted it. It’s so pathetic.>>So now unfortunately, a Starbucks spokesperson,
an official Starbucks spokesperson had to respond to this story, and clarify that no
such person exists. Meaning, that there’s no such manager who
has forced employees to avoid saying Merry Christmas. Reggie Borgas says, our baristas are offered
the autonomy to choose how to greet each person, which can be anything from the usual to Merry
Christmas. No script is provided, right? Now the Twitter account has been suspended,
and Representative King has kept that post up. He hasn’t changed it in anyway, but I’m happy
that he kept it up. Because it allowed me to read through the
comments of his supporters. And this was one that I particularly enjoyed. If I lived near there, I would go in every
day just to say it, and not by a thing. What you showed them,
>>Can you imagine someone being offended by that, by the way, like some random person
comes in. Merry Christmas, and then runs away,
>>I am so offended, there’s no war on Christmas, guys. There never has been, there never will be. It’s this made up conservative like story
that gets recycled every year. And I can’t believe the media falls for it.>>Trump now started saying that the Liberals
are doing a war on Thanksgiving.>>Yes, yeah.>>Okay, it’s just, it’s endless. Now there’s not the first time that Steve
King has fallen for getting trolled online. He’s also been trolled by some professionals. Like our own Kenny Klips, okay, Ken was just
having fun. Ken club besides a wonderful senior investigative
reporter, but just as a gag that he didn’t think that Steve King would actually fall
for. He asked him on 4th of July, as Ken was doing
a war on 4th of July obviously. Sarcasm, okay. He said sir, can I get a retweet for my uncle,
Colonel Nathan Jessup? He’s in the Marines of spending the fourth
overseas keeping our nation safe. And put a picture of, Jack Nicholson from
a few good men seeking retweets.>>Come on, man, there’s just like, how they
used to say about David Letterman. There’s no off switch on genius with Steve
King there’s no ops switch an idiot.>>Okay, okay, but back to MuellerDad69 for
a minute, okay? So he has done similar things in the past. The same account has previously claimed to
discriminate against military service members, and police officers who are customers at Starbucks. Like he just like, but this is exactly what
trolling is, right? You say outlandish things in tweets, or on
social media in an effort to get people riled up, and it works.>>Yeah, well, I see mostly trolling is hideous,
okay, and meant to get people angry. And not in a joking way, but, I got you. I said something racist, and you were upset
about it. Yeah, good reason I’m upset about it, right? But 20% of trolling is fun, where you’re making
obvious jokes. And then people who have no sense of humor
are like, wow, I salute you, Colonel Jessup, you really do need a few god man. Somebody’s gonna be on that wall, right, so
this is the funny version of trolling. And only Steve King falls for it, actually,
it’s not true, a lot of media fall for it.