transcript
Speaker 1:
[00:00] Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening? Cryptocurrency and the Golden Age of Scams.
Speaker 2:
[00:06] Crypto markets operate 24-7, not like the regulated financial markets, and they're gamified and all these things. And so for that small percentage of the population that develop gambling addictions, this stuff is like crack cocaine. It's really, really bad.
Speaker 1:
[00:19] That's this week on Why Is This Happening? Search for Why Is This Happening? We're re-listing right now, and follow.
Speaker 3:
[00:26] Ari Melber, our top story is how this war and the economic fallout is undercutting Trump's support specifically on the right. You may recall all the way back in July 2025, when there were some influencers posting videos of how they were literally burning their MAGA hats. It was quite the image you can see here. It was stunning to some who are accustomed to the talk about the president who has such a loyal MAGA base. But this of course was just a few people. What was notable was the charred hats. We didn't even know which people they were. Tonight, it's not about burning hats. It's about burning bridges by very important MAGA leaders, the kind with millions of followers, not just the kind with a video camera and a hat. Tucker Carlson has gone beyond criticism to formally split with Trump. You've probably heard about this story if you follow the news, and for good reason. It is a huge deal. It is a break with Trump that it would be very hard to undo, and it speaks to a larger problem in the early lame duck period of this troubled second term. Tucker cast his defection as more than a choice. He basically said it was a moral necessity, a matter of conscience. He's even mused about a sort of religious failing, a possible evil or anti-Christ element working within Donald Trump. Fact check, way above my pay grade, but that's the level of vitriol of moral judgment against his one-time ally, Donald Trump. Tonight, we can tell you another former Fox host with a similarly large MAGA following, Megyn Kelly is channeling, frankly, the liberal critique of Trump that you've heard since at least 2015, when he burst on the political scene, that Trump is unfit for office because of his immorality, his character, his temperament. She also adds in the particular pain of former Trump backers who have found, often in public, that there is no loyalty in return with him. No matter how loyally you serve him, even, for example, as his vice president for the whole term, or in the rooms giving him national security advice only to find yourself indicted. It's the familiar refrain of people who did serve him loyally only to run into what Kelly, and I'm going to show you the clip, now calls his demon-like response. Notice how Tucker and Kelly both reached for the occult, the supernatural, the good versus evil frame, which is more than blue versus red, I would remind us. The issue is that Trump went on to try to ruin the lives of his own aides. Kelly, Bolton, Cohen, Vice President Pence. It's a pattern. That's what they found last term. They all witnessed it. And so someone who would do that to people who served him loyally, who he broke bread with, whose families he knew, how would he treat the rest of the unknown MAGA fans or soldiers or citizens paying their higher gas prices? If he doesn't care about them, he certainly doesn't care about you. And apparently, Megyn Kelly and her audience are discovering that now.
Speaker 4:
[03:38] There are aspects of his personality which are obviously not good. And that we've mostly just chosen to overlook. He's not a moral man. He's obviously not the greatest husband in the world. And he's extremely petty and thin-skinned. Extremely petty and thin-skinned. There's no loyalty in return ever from Trump, ever. At this particular moment, he's alienating so many of his core supporters. Some of those darker demons are much more in the front view right now.
Speaker 3:
[04:06] Demons, petty, amoral, alienating everybody. That's Megyn Kelly. This is a kind of breakdown that is now haunting Trump's second term at probably one of the worst possible times, certainly since the war has been a tough time for him going into the midterms. This is not a politics story like when you turn on the news and the top stories, an election or what political people are saying or a story about a politician. It's not really that. This is a politics responding to reality story. As people see Trump's war boosting the real prices they're paying right now from gas to groceries, a war with no apparent endgame. Americans overwhelmingly sour on Trump's economy. Remember, that's part of what got him elected about to improve the economy to lower prices. Fifty-six percent say he's hurting the economy. A paltry 28 percent thinks he's helping. Kelly is, Megyn Kelly is joining along with Tucker Carlson, who was even more emphatic than her because he's ditched Trump for good. He didn't just say, I'm out. He said, I'm out and I'm sorry I was ever in. He literally apologized for the 2024 backing like it was some kind of moral failing, something to reckon with his consciousness, if you favor that Tucker-esque discourse. Now, Trump sees these people ditching and he knows they matter. Podcast Titan Joe Rogan has been criticizing Trump on immigration, on deploying soldiers to US cities, and on the war. Now, he didn't give a burning bridge announcement the way Tucker did, and so it was noticeable that this White House tried to warm up the famously independent media star with a invite for a different issue that Rogan also covers. You can see him there directly behind the president, the issue of the drug war and the possible benefits of psychedelics. Now, Rogan attended, he spoke a bit, but you got to give some credit to Rogan's independence. He got that big access. There are a lot of people in media and politics who would be thrilled on the right to go join the MAGA Republican president in the Oval Office flanked by other cabinet officials, might mute their criticism at least for a month. So credit to Rogan, that access did not quiet what he says are his genuine concerns about Trump's war. Here he was again today.
Speaker 5:
[06:25] How this is ever going to work out, I really don't know. How do you get out of this? And then what is the exit look like? Do we have troops over there forever now? Do we subsidize them if we blow up their power grid? I don't know. All the infrastructure doesn't make sense. They choose to do it when they did it.
Speaker 3:
[06:46] Fair questions, plain English, clear critique, and he didn't just mute it for two weeks or do some transactional thing. He's just doing what he does with millions of people listening. Seventy percent also say the economy is not only bad like I showed you, but in a separate polling question that it is getting worse, which reflects a downcast view of the Trump economy and what people likely perceive as the war problem going into the midterms. People don't expect this to happen overnight that we would get improvement. Fox News noting the economic gloom, the bad Trump rating signaled tough GOP midterms. The channel also reporting on what it has referred to at times as the Trump government's incompetence.
Speaker 6:
[07:31] New polls show people are not confident that our government is competent. And the president's approval rating stands at 42%. He's way behind on inflation, the economy and government spending.
Speaker 3:
[07:45] And that's just one poll. Trump is even lower in others. A third of Republicans unhappy with his leadership. The MAGA audience that Fox and Tucker and Kelly speak to has clearly found more skepticism of Trump. Democrats have a six-point advantage in the generic battleground ballot. That's from the nonpartisan Cook political report. It matches this situation. There is some time between now and the midterms. But again, there isn't any clear evidence that a lot of this would change overnight. Because as I mentioned, this is not a politics story by which we mean the ideologies and the brands and the things that people say in exchange about politics, in person and online. This is a reality story. Or as our friend James Carville said, an economy stupid story, but not just politics. The spike in gas prices is a war tax. It's hitting home. There are reports on the broader problems in the war Trump started where there isn't a good endgame, a fifth of the world's oil is now blocked. That is a worse position than we were in before this war started. The Pentagon today has told Congress that even when this strait is reopened as they hope, it would be a slow rebound, six months to clear out the mines that are in there because of the war, gas prices elevated through the midterms. This war of choice by Trump is also now the biggest energy threat in history according to the International Energy Agency. As Americans pay, as if this was all not bad enough in the very measurable ways that it is bad and worse than before Trump got involved, everyone would be happier in America and at the pump if he just didn't do things, if he just wasn't president, or at least president on Iran policy. That's true of even MAGA supporters. But amidst all that, the Trump administration's corruption deepens in public. I'll just tell you this as someone who's covered a lot of this, as a reporter and a lawyer, it could take years of thorough, independent, and I would hope non-partisan investigations to even get to the bottom of the Trump swamp corruption. The second term, unlike anything we've seen in the modern era, worse than Nixon measurably in the amount of graft, the crypto, the payoffs, the self-dealing, the alleged market and betting manipulation, which must be investigated because we don't know how high it goes. There's clear reports and evidence, for example, of abuse of insider information. We don't know if it goes all the way up to the top of the White House, or the upper middle range of cabinet members, or lower middle. It's a problem for the US either way. It has to be investigated if we care about it. Remember, bribery is also an enumerated impeachable offense, and if anyone got involved in bribery that touches on the president. Again, that has to be investigated, not assumed, investigated. But boy, is there a lot of smoke out here. And that brings me to this conflict of interest drawing huge concern today, as you, the American people, quite literally pay much higher prices for this open-ended war. Donald Trump's son, Eric, has scored a $24 million contract with the Pentagon for his company.
Speaker 7:
[10:50] Foundation Future Industries, a robotic startup, aims to develop these autonomous human-eyed robots. The company just secured a $24 million contract with the Pentagon and the company's chief strategy advisor, Eric Trump, President Trump's son. Congratulations to you both.
Speaker 8:
[11:06] Coming from hospitality, the uses are unlimited. But Maria, you're just talking about China. We are America first.
Speaker 9:
[11:13] We have to win this race.
Speaker 3:
[11:17] The sound you hear is of Trump breaking two vows at once. Drain the swamp and end forever wars. Pentagon budget ballooning in requests under this war, the price of the war ballooning that you're paying. The swamp, as you see, is active. Even if it doesn't reach the level of criminality, it is an obvious, elicit, scandalous conflict of interest to be paying off your son through the Pentagon in the same way that Republicans used to worry about much, much, much smaller sums, allegedly from a Biden son. And by the way, if any of that much smaller amount of money was only a product of his dad being president, it was also wrong, as we would report here. But however wrong it was as a measurable corruption matter, it has now been dwarfed by this Trump swamp while you pay for it. Donald Trump's family is profiting quite relatedly to his unilateral choice to bomb Iran and get more money for the Pentagon while everyone else pays the costs. If you wonder why Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly are mad, those are some reasons plus their audience. If you wonder why their audience is mad, well, that's obvious. And then the question becomes how mad is everyone going to get going into the voting booth in November? We're back with two special guests in 90 seconds. We're back with the New York Times Molly John Fast, also an MSNOW analyst and Josh Marshall, founder of the influential Talking Points Memo, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary. I want to get to that at some point, but we start, Josh, with this cascade and the burning bridges. I mean, Tucker is not speaking like a person who might reassess Trump next week.
Speaker 10:
[13:05] Right, right. When a president gets unpopular, things can move really fast. I think what we're seeing is not just this war is happening, all the partisans have a need, it's tied to their identity that they need to buoy up the person who they support. At a certain point, that starts to fade away. I think even hard partisans and influencers, people who are public people who are supporters, start looking for exit ramps. I think that's what I'm looking at most closely here, is things that I think if they had happened before might have gotten a different reaction. But a lot of people like Kelly, people like Carlson, people like Rogan, it's not even conscious necessarily. But you see the upside of supporting this guy is diminishing, and things that used to be reasons to rally to the chief, are reasons to kind of are seen as exit ramps. So you see it across the board.
Speaker 3:
[14:10] Yeah. I mean, Molly, what Josh is hitting is that we've talked a bit about how the system has changed, the media is changing, and Trump did recruit more of this energy on the online right.
Speaker 10:
[14:22] Yeah.
Speaker 3:
[14:23] But these folks are independent away, as Josh says, who then turn. Steve Bannon rose partly through Trump 2016, but now he's got a whole online operation where he's going at a lot of top Republicans. Here's how he sounds.
Speaker 11:
[14:37] Nobody should give another penny. And you got them up there whining, oh, we're going to lose the Senate. You're going to lose the... You're damn right you're going to lose the Senate because you've given nothing for people to work for. Complete total group of scumbags, Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, John Thurman, the whole lot of them.
Speaker 12:
[14:56] Yeah, I mean, look, these... Both of these people, Tucker and Steve Bannon, are trying to find MAGA post-Trump, right? They're trying to catch that wave. They see the bad polling, they see how expensive gas is. We all know here that once you make things more expensive, especially gas, it's very hard to get those prices down. And that's going to be a real problem for Trump. And there's one thing the Americans really hate, it's high gas prices. So they are trying to sort of feel out what it will look like to keep their audience. And remember, I think it's important to realize when you look at Tucker Carlson, he's not having a moral come to Jesus moment, right? That is, we all know him and we know he's very smart. That's not what's happening here, right?
Speaker 3:
[15:38] Come to AI Jesus.
Speaker 12:
[15:39] Right, come to AI Jesus. No, he's clearly having a moment of calculus. He's seeing it falling. And I'm sure these people are seeing in their comments the push from their viewers to sort of reject.
Speaker 3:
[15:51] Well, you're talking about online. I thought they say, don't read the comments.
Speaker 12:
[15:54] I read the comments.
Speaker 3:
[15:55] You do?
Speaker 12:
[15:56] I do, you read the comments.
Speaker 3:
[15:58] I try not to read most comments. It's a longer conversation, but now MS NOW viewers know how to reach you. Yes, they do. In the comments. But we joke, but the implications are serious because we're not in a three network Cronkite world. We are witnessing this when Trump says, get me that podcaster to the White House. What does he care about? We can't do it wrong. Trump is shrewd. He says, well, we'll get him on mushrooms and maybe it'll buy us a couple of weeks. You and I know, and you do independent media, there are transactional folks in Washington where that would work.
Speaker 10:
[16:29] Yeah.
Speaker 3:
[16:29] Not on Joe.
Speaker 10:
[16:31] I think not on Joe, but also again, a lot of this is very primal, strong horse, weak horse. I think Trump's partisans look at him now and he seems spent. You come off the series of things that happened in earlier this year, the court ruling on tariffs, how the ICE occupations of these blue cities turned out. You see with Iran where one day he's talking about destroying whole civilizations, and then the next he's one unilateral ceasefire extension after another. He looks weak. He looks played out.
Speaker 3:
[17:10] You can see he's failing.
Speaker 10:
[17:11] Yeah, I think you rally to someone who's strong enough to do things for you. He doesn't look like someone who's strong enough to do things for anyone, including himself right now.
Speaker 3:
[17:22] It's funny you say that I was interviewing someone who was much older, looking back on the world of strategy, and they told me years ago, they said, all people say they like the underdog. You know what they like more than the underdog? The winner.
Speaker 10:
[17:35] Yeah.
Speaker 3:
[17:37] He tapped into that sometimes as a lying winner, but he did win some things. You're saying now he's what?
Speaker 10:
[17:42] He looks weak. He looks like the weak horse, and no one wants to be on the side of the weak horse. They want to be on the side of the winner, and on all of the areas in which he used to be so powerful, that he was funny, that he could smack people down, that he would make people cry to use the word they love so much. He's not doing those things now, and I think people can see it across the spectrum, and it has emboldened his adversaries, and it has made his people who were his supporters say, all right, maybe I need to loosen up the bonds here a little bit.
Speaker 3:
[18:14] Well, it is funny because tactically, not policy, but tactically, there's a Biden-esque thing going on, where you go, wait, was this it? And the truth was, and we can have the whole communist discussion in addition, but the truth was, I covered Biden for decades. So I'm getting older, I'm just not as old as him. The truth was, it did become a different Biden. And the Biden who got there was different. And here, people have a national debate about Trump. A lot more people oppose him and dislike him right now. I just went through the numbers, but people who used to like things about him, those things aren't even on display. What you said, what they look at is the humor or the banter. Other people find it obnoxious. Here's Mike Pence, who, as I mentioned, like Megyn Kelly is like, oh yeah, he's not loyal. Here's Pence on the Pope clash.
Speaker 13:
[18:58] I found the language and the images offensive. I think the president was right to take one image down. I think if I was advising him as I did every day for four and a half years, I'd say, let the Pope be the Pope and you'd be the president.
Speaker 7:
[19:16] Have you called him on this or anything else speaking of advising him?
Speaker 13:
[19:20] I have not.
Speaker 3:
[19:22] After someone tries to get their fans to kill you, to execute you in public, you're not always just trading, hey, I missed your call. And I'm not making light of it, but it's ridiculous. And yet he's speaking out on that religious front, which did bother people, but also to Josh's point, they were louder about being bothered because the president's weak.
Speaker 12:
[19:41] And he's also a lame duck. Like there's the physics of Donald Trump, which is he can't run again. He's 79 years old. He's a lame duck. And when you have people like Mike Pence, who has had this experience with him, Pence has been almost a little bit scared of coming out. And I think you're seeing people get braver and braver. And part of that is because they're getting braver. And part of it is because they see the polls and they know that this guy is the lamest of lame ducks.
Speaker 3:
[20:09] Wow. Even gamey.
Speaker 12:
[20:10] It's gamey and lamey.
Speaker 3:
[20:12] Lamey and gamey. You know, the condition of the media and corporate media has become a matter of huge public interest for democracy, Bezos firing people at the Washington Post. We are more independent than we used to be because we made a separation from communists, but we're corporate media and I'm very proud to work in a place where I have editorial freedom. But I know people at CBS and other places that don't feel they have that freedom. You are a pioneer in independent digital media. Tell us about the 25th anniversary.
Speaker 10:
[20:40] Well, we just came off our 25th anniversary that we've been in publication, which is like centuries in digital media terms. Independent media is critical right now because independent media, you don't also make farm supplies or you have an entertainment company, and the president and the regulators can come at you. So what we do, what other independent news organizations do is really important. We're in the middle of our big membership drive that we do every year now. That is how we fund what we do.
Speaker 3:
[21:10] How do people connect with that?
Speaker 10:
[21:12] You just come to talkingpointsmemo.com, and you will see a pitch to join our community. It's a great deal and it's a great organization. Our whole team does great work.
Speaker 3:
[21:22] Yeah. Well, I've known your work a long time. I commend it. Around here, they say we don't do endorsements, but I've been reading this site for a long time, and we rely on you as a journalist and an expert, and it couldn't be more profound right now. I would tell folks, if you can, and some folks can't because they're buying gas. Right. If you can, subscribe to your local newspaper or a national newspaper, or supporting outlets like yours that are independent, not for sale to MAGA billionaires or anyone else. I think it's good for journalism, so that's my two cents. I appreciate your work.
Speaker 10:
[21:53] I really appreciate it, Ari.
Speaker 3:
[21:54] Josh and Molly on the big stories. Thanks to both of you. Coming up, there's a new swing against the related topic of these mega deals. A MAGA billionaire who wants to own CNN and more. We have the pushback and Matt Belloni on that story. It's an important one. Critics warning about dissent and free speech. But next, Andrew Weisman returns on the DOJ's flailing efforts to indict their opponents and what comes next.
Speaker 1:
[22:23] Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why is this Happening, Cryptocurrency and the Golden Age of Scams.
Speaker 2:
[22:29] Crypto markets operate 24-7, not like the regulated financial markets and they're gamified and all these things. And so for that small percentage of the population that develop gambling addictions, this stuff is like crack cocaine. It's really, really bad.
Speaker 1:
[22:42] That's this week on Why is this Happening. Search for Why is this Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.
Speaker 3:
[22:51] The Trump DOJ is facing a raft of scandals, a credibility crisis, and now in a very unusual move it's paying over a million dollars to Carter Page. He was a Trump advisor in 2016. This is pursuant to a case he filed over getting wiretapped. Very rarely does the US government pay million bucks or more to someone who was lawfully observed. That's how it works. A lot of people, of course, in our country are surveilled. He was a national foreign policy figure who faced that. If it's familiar, remember Michael Flynn got exactly the same amount, 1.25 million, over his concerns that he was mistreated in the Russia probe. The larger question is whether the DOJ is using your taxpayer dollars to pay Trump officials in cases that normally they would have won on the DOJ side, meaning they wouldn't owe them anything. Pam Bondi's replacement is making what some call splashy partisan moves. That's one of our MS NOW reporters who looked into the way that he has the civil rights group, Southern Poverty Law Center, indicted on an unusual theory. We'll be following the evidence, but many people say there's little there. Blanche says the organization, which has been an anti-hate group, meaning it uses various tools and sometimes research and informants to follow right-wing hate groups, it says they actually were funding them.
Speaker 14:
[24:14] You have Biden, you have others pointing the incident as being a stark example of something that they view as exemplary of a major problem in this country, and you have the exact same organization giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to an individual who helped organize that event. So if you feel like there's a man behind the curtain, in this case, you were right.
Speaker 3:
[24:40] Whatever you think of the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are people who think that they are too expansive in calling everything a hate group. But this is America. You can be wrong. You can use words to describe other people and groups. But that's their thing, being a liberal-oriented civil rights group that's against hate groups. To believe Blanche's theory, you have to believe that they actually secretly wanted to support white supremacy, which the New York Times says isn't supported by the evidence. I've got Andrew Weissman, former FBI General Counsel and Mueller Prosecutor here. Let's start there. Your view of the case legally, and if it doesn't have legal merit, what is it?
Speaker 15:
[25:17] This has all the hallmarks of being a spectacularly failed indictment. This is why I say that. It is a speaking indictment where the government presumably is putting its best foot forward, where if it has good evidence and key evidence, you would expect to see it there. This is what is missing from the core allegations in the indictment. The theory of the fraud that's charged is that the donors to the Southern Poverty Law Center were told that they would be giving money for purposes A, and in fact, that those purposes were not A. In other words, that they were told that this money would not be going to, for instance, doing this sort of undercover work, and in fact, the money was being used to go for this undercover work. Here's the problem. That's not what the indictment alleges, and there's not a single piece of evidence cited for any donor being specifically told the methodology that the Southern Poverty Law Center would engage in. In other words, if there was a fraud, you need to have some specific statement that was told to the Southern Poverty Law Center donors, that was then proved to be not just false, but a lie. Here, there isn't even a specific statement that's alleged to be false, that was made to a donor. One of the things that you would have expected, Ari, I would have expected is, where's the evidence that any donor has told the government that they were misled, that they were told and given a specific promises to how their money would be used? I contrast this a lot with the Build the Wall case, where Steve Bannon and others were charged and convicted, because there the donors were alleged to have been told, and then it was proved up, that none of the money would be going to such things as salaries, or private costs that were being funneled off to Steve Bannon and other executives, and that in fact was what the government could show, which is that the donors were told A, but it was used for not A. That's what's missing here. So, I really can't imagine that the government has that proof, but they just somehow forgot to put that into the indictment.
Speaker 3:
[28:02] And it then raises the question of whether this is animus. Are they out to get a group that they see as lefty? And it's not just lefty.
Speaker 15:
[28:10] It's lefty, but I think it's impossible, in my view, to not view it as not just lefty, but this is a group with a storied reputation in terms of civil rights and defending the black community in this country.
Speaker 3:
[28:28] Well, I'm not... Since we're lawyers, I'm not saying they're just lefty. I'm saying there are partisans inside the administration who may view them that way. And isn't the better way to handle these debates is with speech in public. If you want to say you don't like that they called some political groups hate groups, and you could see why some folks object to that, then you debate it out. But it seems like if it's not on the evidence, then it's what? It's anti-speech, anti-freedom animus to go after them?
Speaker 15:
[29:01] Yeah. I mean, look, there can be people who on the left, the middle, on the right, who disagree with various groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, who agree with certain things they're doing and certain things that they're not doing. That's all fine. That's what happens in this country. That's true of almost every organization. It can be true of any politician, all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that somebody has done something criminal. To bring a criminal case, you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime. Here, it is just so to me appalling that the indictment doesn't specify what is the actual crime, what is the false statement that was made to donors that got money from them, that said the money would not be used for this purpose. That is what is missing and has somebody who's been in the department for over 20 years. That's what you do when you are a supervisor overseeing cases like this. You would say, if you were working for me Ari, I would say, Ari, where's the statement? What is it that you are relying on to prove a criminal case? Because it's not there, you do have to ask the question you are correctly asking is, why are you bringing this case?
Speaker 3:
[30:28] What is it?
Speaker 15:
[30:28] Why are you targeting them? It's really hard to come up with a reason that is not based on the group that is being supported by this particular group, which is a group that supported the civil rights of the black community in America. They have been targeted, and it remains to be seen where the government can prove this case, but it certainly is not on the face of the indictment.
Speaker 3:
[30:59] Yeah, clearly. Andrew Weissman, thank you. Very clear, and it's a big story. We hadn't hit much yet with everything going on. I'll tell folks coming up, Trump's crypto company has its own problems with corruption and an insider, that's someone who they worked with now, blowing the whistle on them. That's a big story. Critics also sounding the alarm about this media consolidation that we discussed earlier tonight. We have a special guest. They want to buy CNN. They want to have Warner Brothers. They want to dictate a lot. We will keep bringing you these stories without fear or favor, and that one's next. Major changes in the media and at CNN and a media consolidation that is continuing today. A step in the process, shareholders voted to approve a Paramount merger. There's been blowback from journalists and dependent critics and Hollywood artists who are concerned about the many ramifications of this deal. It's basically the one we've been reporting on where a MAGA ally will have more control over CNN, as well as CBS, which they already own, Warner Bros. movie studios, and just a lot more leverage. There has been a lot of concern.
Speaker 16:
[32:13] This merger threatens so much when it comes to jobs, when it comes to cost for consumers. It threatens so much when it comes to free speech and freedom to access news.
Speaker 8:
[32:27] This is the trumpification of the media, of our media and our news, the same way they did to the universities. If you don't fight it, if you capitulate, you're degradate, you're degradated.
Speaker 10:
[32:38] Journalism is about the truth, and the truth has no right or no left.
Speaker 9:
[32:42] It's not good for journalism at all.
Speaker 3:
[32:45] CNN veteran Don Lemon, who has faced many different types of pressure. He's currently under DOJ indictment, a controversial case. The deal will consolidate control of the media to an even smaller group of powerful billionaires. You will notice that while they have different political histories, today, all four have been very cozy with Trump. This is the tech media alliance. David Ellison, the Paramount billionaire, is hosting a private dinner honoring Trump tonight. The government still oversees aspects of these murders. They have to approve through the DOJ the bids to buy Warner Brothers and CNN, or they can choose to try to challenge it on antitrust or other grounds. We're joined now by Matt Belloni, founding partner of Puck News, host of the Town podcast, and someone that is known as an expert on all of this, especially out in Hollywood. Welcome back.
Speaker 9:
[33:40] Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3:
[33:41] The news is that this thing is going forward. What's the likelihood that continues? For our viewers who are interested in democracy and civic journalism, what are the impacts?
Speaker 9:
[33:54] Well, this was largely expected. The shareholders were seen as, this is a great deal for them. The company was trading at about $7 or $8 per share before the Ellison's were interested in it. It ended up selling for $31 a share. Obviously, the shareholders are going to take that. But it doesn't mean that this is a done deal. There are a number of different regulatory issues that still remain open. The federal government is less likely to be a hindrance to this deal. We know the coziness between the Trumps and the Ellison's. I mean, this party tonight is one aspect of that. They're really in bed together. But the state attorneys generals have made a lot of noise about going after this deal and they have had some recent victories. The Live Nation case, they just got a jury verdict in New York that Live Nation and Ticketmaster are a monopoly, and there's a television station merger between Tegna and Nextar that Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, really wants to go through, and another judge blocked that deal on antitrust grounds. We're seeing a lot more activity right now on the state level than we are at the federal level, which could mean something for this merger.
Speaker 3:
[35:10] A lot of folks, they look up at business stuff, and if it's not your business, if it's not your job, they tune it out a little bit. It seems dry. This has gotten more traction and attention, partly for the characters involved, and it does seem to affect regular people. I mean, what do you say to the consumer? Whether they're thinking about streaming fees and creativity, or like I mentioned, journalism, where does the consumer fit into a mega deal like this?
Speaker 9:
[35:34] Well, most people don't know who owns the media and the movies and the TV that they consume. But I would argue that they should, because it's pretty important and it is consolidating in many ways. This is going to put one person or two people, Larry and David Ellison, over a vast swath of not only news with CNN and all of its outlets, but television, everything from CBS to the cable channels, TBS, TNT, sports rights, the UFC rights, and the movies that come out. By most accounts, this will lead to one company owning about 25 to 30 percent of the movies that get released in theaters, which creates a whole separate thing of the kind of entertainment that is being produced. David Ellison has said very often that he loves movies, he's not going to change the output. But the point is, he could. The incentives there are to consolidate, to make less, to extract profit, and to raise prices.
Speaker 3:
[36:43] Yeah. The Trump approach has been very clearly publicly shakedowns. They've admitted it, they've been made fun of for it. The FCC chair is doing the opposite of what he said his obligations were in public 10 years ago. Old him doesn't believe new him, here he was being interviewed about it.
Speaker 17:
[37:05] You've used this authority differently in terms of promoting coverage that you want to see.
Speaker 18:
[37:12] Well, I mean, licenses aren't sacred cows. There's certainly conduct that broadcasters can engage in, and maybe they have, that will result in them losing their licenses.
Speaker 17:
[37:21] The critics of yours would say you're trying to chill free speech and also chill any negative reporting and criticism of this administration.
Speaker 18:
[37:30] There's lots of ways to get your message out there if you don't want to comply with the unique rules that apply in the broadcast medium.
Speaker 3:
[37:38] Very few denials there. Not like, oh, we support the First Amendment, right? It's more like, hey, you might lose your license. And how is this, you're so wired in, how is this playing on the creative side in Hollywood? Because you have all the normal business pressures and you want to move tickets. But you know what's worse than that to most people creating something? Government pressure. Oh, you can't have this plot line, you can't cast this person, and all the stories have to end with the dear leader is great. Not a good recipe for great art.
Speaker 9:
[38:07] No, and I think we saw an example of the backlash with the Jimmy Kimmel affair last fall, where he was criticized for some comments about Charlie Kirk and the FCC commissioner got involved because Jimmy Kimmel Live airs on ABC. Based on that pressure and the station group pressure, ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel off the air and the backlash was immediate to the point where they had to figure out a solution to get him back, because I think the average American sees that and cringes when they feel like it's censorship. Regardless of your political affiliations, if you don't like Jimmy Kimmel, just don't watch. But what Brendan Carr is doing is he's taking advantage of this one line where the public airwaves must be used in the public interests. That is a very vague statement that he is interpreting as the public interests that perhaps benefits the administration and evens out what he sees as pretty rampant anti-Trump sentiment in the traditional media. So he's trying to use that to get even and it shows.
Speaker 3:
[39:19] Yeah. We've had a broadcast time with a lot of data and a lot of conservatives and some MAGA leaders who are all critical of Trump. Trying to censor and pretend that's not true as a government oversight strategy is very different than facing the fact that that's the moment we're in, that's the country's electorate we're in. Matt Belloni, always good to have you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Coming up, a Trump insider who was involved in the crypto company says he can blow the whistle. We have that story next. There are many corruption problems facing the Trump administration. There's an outside company they've used, a very secretive Trump crypto company, that is rife for questions about conflict of interest or potential bribery, and now it's facing complaints coming from inside the Trump crypto house. This is not outside critics, one of the company's top investors going to court, so this is pretty serious, accusing it of criminal extortion. This new case claims that the company's managers see the project as an opportunity to leverage the Trump brand and profit through fraud. The Wall Street Journal reporting on this fraud allegation, the lawsuit comes from an investor who also posted a video attending the crypto gala just last year. Again, the question of whether they were auctioning off access and influence in a way that breaks the law, and that could be a law broken by the president who, of course, basically has a lot of immunity while in office, or by anyone under him, including his family members who don't. Trump also, we should note, pardoned. A billionaire convict last fall who was also supporting the family crypto business, raising the question of whether there was any agreement or bribery. He's been throwing VIP access parties at Mar-a-Lago for people who buy the meme coin which again raises the question of what are you getting? Can you sell a coin or something virtual? Sure. But if there is an actual deal or understanding that that gets you secret access, no. There's also the reports about a UAE billionaire they call the Spy Sheik. A journal reporting that he bought secret stakes in the crypto company right before the inauguration and that documents raise questions about any deals or expectations there. The White House does want distance. They are claiming that Trump is not involved in this business directly, which doesn't exactly clear all the other executives or his children but just says if it's bad, leave him out of it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1:
[41:48] Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening? Cryptocurrency and the Golden Age of Scams.
Speaker 2:
[41:55] Crypto markets operate 24-7, not like the regulated financial markets and they're gamified and all these things. And so for that small percentage of the population that develop gambling addictions, this stuff is like crack cocaine. It's really, really bad.
Speaker 1:
[42:07] That's this week on Why Is This Happening? Search for Why Is This Happening? We're every listening right now and follow.
Speaker 3:
[42:15] Died.
Speaker 11:
[42:15] Times Square 1980 was so gritty, dirty.
Speaker 1:
[42:19] I worked for a long time.
Speaker 3:
[42:21] This is me and Jay McInerney walking around right after he joined us here at MS Now. We went into Times Square and you can hear that entire conversation on The Beat podcast. Open your phone to podcast, search Ari Melber, The Beat. You can hear him and Andrew Weissman and everything we're up to. So subscribe. That does it for us.
Speaker 19:
[42:39] Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MS Now Daily Newsletter. Each morning, you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.
Speaker 20:
[42:49] Voters weighed in. Donald Trump's dismissal of their concerns has been weighing on his political standing.
Speaker 19:
[42:54] Updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MS Now all in one place. Sign up for MS Now daily at MS.Now.