Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary Scott Descent today announcing a quote economic d
Speaker 1: Day against Iran and any of the countries that provide
Speaker 1: financial support to that country. Lest you weren't paying attention,
Speaker 1: we've been in the midst of a many months long
Speaker 1: illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran, So check this out.
Speaker 2: The US will.
Speaker 1: Impose punishing sanctions on countries and entities that do business
Speaker 1: with Iran, and it's aimed to ratchet up pressure on
Speaker 1: the Iranium regime amid the current no war, no deal limbo.
Speaker 1: This is what stuck with me when I saw this
Speaker 1: reporting from Axios. The Trump administration will also have to
Speaker 1: aggressively confront countries like China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Cutter, Turkey
Speaker 1: and others that still trade with Iran, something it hasn't
Speaker 1: done so far. You really think convicted fellon Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is going to start lowering the boom on China?
Speaker 2: You think he's going to do it with Russia?
Speaker 1: I mean, Cutter, the people that gave him his four
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar bribe of a luxury jet. Do you
Speaker 1: think he's going to lower the boom on those countries?
Speaker 2: What acroc of shits.
Speaker 1: But what I do know is We have eighteen active
Speaker 1: service members who have died died while doing their duty
Speaker 1: in this illegal war. We also have more than one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars in counting that's been wasted in this
Speaker 1: illegal war. And we have a whole slew offfeckless, ballless
Speaker 1: Republicans that have done nothing about this illegal war.
Speaker 2: So, in light of everything that has.
Speaker 1: Been going on, including this recent spate of threats to
Speaker 1: have economic sanctions, which by the way, have already existed
Speaker 1: against Iran, I thought it was important for us to
Speaker 1: get caught up with Congressman Jason Crowe from Colorado.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 1: He's on Armed Services, he's on Intel, he's a Bronze
Speaker 1: Star recipient, he did three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: I mean, somebody who would know the region and would
Speaker 1: understand the issues that are at play here. We have
Speaker 1: a very detailed conversation about what's going on, but then
Speaker 1: we also talk about why it's so critically important to
Speaker 1: get rid of the Republicans. Get rid of the Republicans
Speaker 1: because they're not doing anything, they're a waste of space,
Speaker 1: and to get Democrats elected this coming November.
Speaker 2: Take a listen.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is Congressman Jason Crowe, representing Colorado's six Congressman,
Speaker 1: thank you so.
Speaker 2: Much for joining me.
Speaker 1: Especially first of all, one, thank you for your service.
Speaker 1: It goes without saying that you truly understand what it
Speaker 1: takes to be able to serve as a patriot for
Speaker 1: this country. Your role on armed services and intel is
Speaker 1: incredibly important for this next question I have for you,
Speaker 1: which is thank you. Always listen. You're always welcome to
Speaker 1: come here. There's always a lot going on. I just
Speaker 1: kind of wanted to start with the top line, which is, look,
Speaker 1: the USS Lincoln finally able to come home back to
Speaker 1: San Diego after one of the most outrageous deployments that
Speaker 1: we've seen. We've covered it extensively here at Katie Fang News,
Speaker 1: but listen, as somebody who understands this sacrifice, just wanted
Speaker 1: to just get your top line thoughts about what it
Speaker 1: took to be able to get these people home.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, you know, we're still trying to get information,
Speaker 3: Katie from the administration. It's been a huge stone walling
Speaker 3: the last year and a half from this administration. No information,
Speaker 3: no briefings. There very few briefings, I should say very
Speaker 3: few hearings in the amount of information and briefings and
Speaker 3: hearings and information responses that we normally get from an
Speaker 3: administration has fallen off a cliff. Right. This comes in
Speaker 3: tandem with them kicking out journalists from the Pentagon, like
Speaker 3: they clearly don't want people to know what they're doing,
Speaker 3: what they're not doing, and they have cut off information flow,
Speaker 3: which you know, as a policymaker, makes it very hard
Speaker 3: to understand what is happening and what is not. So
Speaker 3: that's the first piece. The second is, you know, the
Speaker 3: larger Iran conflict, which is something that Americans just don't want,
Speaker 3: right eighty plus percent of Americans think it's a bad idea,
Speaker 3: and that's actually a bipartisan thing. It's one of the
Speaker 3: most bipartisan things in America right now. That people want
Speaker 3: us to be out of conflict in the Middle.
Speaker 2: East or done with it.
Speaker 3: They're done spending trillions, literally trillions of dollars in thousands
Speaker 3: of American lives and endless conflict in the Middle East.
Speaker 3: And then with regard to Lincoln, two things going on here.
Speaker 3: One is the expenditure of money, the vast amounts of
Speaker 3: money it takes to have things like aircraft carrier battle groups,
Speaker 3: because it's not just the carrier. By the way, when
Speaker 3: you send an aircraft carrier, there are actually dozens of
Speaker 3: ships in support network resources that go into that. We're
Speaker 3: talking billions of dollars here, So there's the expense of
Speaker 3: resources in money and taking things out of the Indo Pacific,
Speaker 3: Like there is zero aircraft carriers right now in the
Speaker 3: Pacific to counteract China because they've shifted them all to
Speaker 3: this conflict. And then the strain on our soldiers. And
Speaker 3: the last thing I'll say here is there's a difference
Speaker 3: between what our military is asked to do and making
Speaker 3: sacrifices and doing tough things. You know, I was a ranger,
Speaker 3: I was a paratrooper. I went to Rackt in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: We are trained to do tough things, and our service
Speaker 3: members will welcome the opportunity to do tough things because
Speaker 3: that's why we got into service to begin with.
Speaker 1: YEP.
Speaker 3: That's different from incompetence and corruption and lack of preparedness
Speaker 3: and a lack of a mission that leads to unnecessary suffering,
Speaker 3: which is what we're dealing with here right now. That's
Speaker 3: a huge difference because this administration is said, Oh, they
Speaker 3: need to stop complaining. This is what the military does. No,
Speaker 3: this is not what the military does unnecessarily suffer. We
Speaker 3: do tough things if we need to.
Speaker 1: Well, and let me be Claire, I don't need pete
Speaker 1: Hegseth offering his criticis and let alone bone spurs Trump
Speaker 1: sending there trying to criticize what our men and women
Speaker 1: and sons and daughters are doing.
Speaker 2: Look, fundamentally, we have at least eighteen.
Speaker 1: Act As service members' lives that have been lost as
Speaker 1: a result of this illegal war. You know, I have
Speaker 1: to ask you, Congressman, because oversights really important. Armed services
Speaker 1: Intel both have incredibly important roles and getting to the
Speaker 1: bottom of what the hell is going on here? I mean,
Speaker 1: you talk about us having exposed flanks, right, because now
Speaker 1: we have other conflicts or other potential issues that could arise,
Speaker 1: and we're rediverting all these resources and attention to be
Speaker 1: able to deal with this illegal war. What are your
Speaker 1: Republican counterparts telling you though about this? Because we're clocking
Speaker 1: more than what seven months now on this six months
Speaker 1: of this war, and I just feel like we now
Speaker 1: hear there's an economic d Day coming against Iran. But
Speaker 1: does that mean that we are Our might didn't work,
Speaker 1: so now we're trying to go to the dollar pain.
Speaker 1: I mean we're already feeling the pain already as Americans financially.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, this economic D Day. Let me started with
Speaker 3: the last thing and then we're bad. It is economic day.
Speaker 3: It's just insane, like we according to Donald Trump, we've
Speaker 3: won this war over eleven times. We've crushed her around
Speaker 3: six or seven times already. H you know the next
Speaker 3: thing is going to be the thing, right, We're going
Speaker 3: to crush them now this new strategy, we've taken over
Speaker 3: the straits of horror moves. We now own it. It's
Speaker 3: now US territory. It's an economic D Day. I mean,
Speaker 3: all of this is bs right. The administration has lost
Speaker 3: all credibility because they keep on talking about things being
Speaker 3: the biggest, the boldest, the most beautiful, the greatest ever seen.
Speaker 3: And we know better. America knows better. But we know
Speaker 3: that this is not a winning war. We see it,
Speaker 3: the world sees it. And what is stunning. I mean
Speaker 3: there's a lot of stunning things it's happening here, but
Speaker 3: one of them is I talk a lot with our
Speaker 3: allies with foreign leaders, with Warren military, they've actually stopped
Speaker 3: paying attention like they they've stopped caring, like they're just like, Okay, well,
Speaker 3: we're just going to go do our own thing, and
Speaker 3: we're going to move forward without America. And because nothing
Speaker 3: they say, they say or do holds any credibility, and
Speaker 3: if they say they're going to do something, they're going
Speaker 3: to change our mind in twenty four or forty eight
Speaker 3: hours later. So we're just going to go into a
Speaker 3: post American world. And that is not good for us.
Speaker 3: It doesn't serve our interests. They won't serve the American people.
Speaker 3: For the world to move on without us, it won't
Speaker 3: make us safer. It's actually make us a lot less safe.
Speaker 3: It's going to lead to less economic prosperity, and we're
Speaker 3: going to be marginalized in the eyes of the world.
Speaker 3: And that is the legacy that Donald Trump is building
Speaker 3: right now, and that is our work to try to
Speaker 3: stop that and to turn that around and to build
Speaker 3: something new. Look.
Speaker 1: France and Saudi Arabia needing today to be able to
Speaker 1: try to figure out their own way of trying to
Speaker 1: navigate this straight of her moves issue. Iran and Oman
Speaker 1: trying to deal with the straight of her moves clearly.
Speaker 2: And I'm including the United States and any of this.
Speaker 1: I want to actually say, this is a quote from
Speaker 1: Around's president just within the last few hours. He said
Speaker 1: Trump has thrust the United States into a full scale economic, military,
Speaker 1: and security war.
Speaker 2: I mean, not a fan, but of a rants president.
Speaker 2: But he speaks the truth, does he not.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're at this stage also where we not
Speaker 1: only can't we can't trust our own leadership in DC,
Speaker 1: not only from our Secretary of Defense, but from our
Speaker 1: commander in chief. We also don't have the right treatment
Speaker 1: of again the people that are doing one of the
Speaker 1: most incredible sacrifices they can do by serving in our
Speaker 1: armed forces. And then at the same time, you have
Speaker 1: Trump sitting there closing up to Kim Jong un in
Speaker 1: North Korea, who then launches ten ballistic missiles just a
Speaker 1: few days ago, and in curbing or limiting the joint
Speaker 1: military operations or practices and drills that we do with
Speaker 1: our South Korean You know, friends, is this is upside
Speaker 1: down world now?
Speaker 2: I think for the United.
Speaker 3: States, Yeah, absolutely, I mean, let's chalk up the list
Speaker 3: here of the things this administration has done just as
Speaker 3: a initial matter, right that we're not going to go
Speaker 3: into a comprehensive list because that would take us hours.
Speaker 3: But we are engaged now in a conflict in Iran,
Speaker 3: and we don't know how we're going to pull out
Speaker 3: of it. The Iranians now know how to control the
Speaker 3: strait of horror moves and how to use it as
Speaker 3: leverage geopolitically in a way that they didn't before. A
Speaker 3: more hard line leader than before, and more extreme leader
Speaker 3: is now in charge of Iran. Right, I was no
Speaker 3: fan of Iotola Komene, but a son by every measure,
Speaker 3: even by the admission of this administration, is a more
Speaker 3: hard line leader. The resistance, the opposition in Iran, which
Speaker 3: by the way, in January and February, this regime was
Speaker 3: up against the ropes, right, there were protests in the
Speaker 3: streets and they were pushing back on the Iranian regime.
Speaker 3: It was the closest this regime was coming to collapse
Speaker 3: in over fifteen years, and that's now all gone and dissipated.
Speaker 3: We have depleted our own munitions in stockpiles, spent one
Speaker 3: hundred billion dollars, pushed our allies away and that's just Iran, right.
Speaker 3: We've now marginalized ourselves and we're pushing South Korea away
Speaker 3: and emboldening North Korea. Our NATO allies can't trust us
Speaker 3: and are trying to figure out how to move forward
Speaker 3: without us. And Donald Trump is meanwhile sitting here trying
Speaker 3: to figure out how to rename ships after himself, how
Speaker 3: to create a battleship because he thinks they're big and cool,
Speaker 3: not to you know, let's not let's not even talk
Speaker 3: about the fact that nobody wants battleships because they're easy
Speaker 3: to destroy, an extremely expensive. It is. It is again incomprehensible,
Speaker 3: the damage that he is doing the national security and
Speaker 3: the silence, the silence and complicity of so many of
Speaker 3: my Republican colleagues. And I don't say that, I don't
Speaker 3: relish that, actually because I want bipartisanship. We need bipartisanship
Speaker 3: on this issue, not just to say we have it,
Speaker 3: but because it's the only way to build large and
Speaker 3: during policies that will serve the American people. And it
Speaker 3: is it is fading away.
Speaker 1: Okay, bit listen, I agree that my partisanship makes sense
Speaker 1: when you actually have where or not in the upside
Speaker 1: down world as I talked about, right because here, because
Speaker 1: here's the fundamental reality. You launched with some of your colleagues,
Speaker 1: Democratic colleagues, the End Corruption Caucus, because look, all of
Speaker 1: us deals with corruption.
Speaker 2: This is all corruption.
Speaker 1: This is you know, industrial military complex making more money
Speaker 1: off of us. This is Trump doing a stupid car race,
Speaker 1: Indy car race in the middle of DC.
Speaker 2: That's not making stuff cheaper for us.
Speaker 1: This is US spending one hundred billion dollars plus on
Speaker 1: this war, not to mention the fact to your point,
Speaker 1: you know, all of this, and then the beef drama
Speaker 1: that we're having.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just goes on and on.
Speaker 1: And yet what Republicans are trying to work with you
Speaker 1: on the End Corruption Caucus, What Republicans are trying to
Speaker 1: work with you on the end Dark.
Speaker 2: Money Act that you introduce.
Speaker 1: It's like, I don't really see them clamor to come
Speaker 1: work with you to be able to do any of this.
Speaker 3: No, they're not, they're not, you know, And I that's
Speaker 3: why right now, my main priority is just to beat
Speaker 3: them all at the ballot bucks. Yes, they have had
Speaker 3: a chance, they have had so many chances to do
Speaker 3: the right thing. And then there have been so many
Speaker 3: off ramps, you know, January sixth, the pandemic, so many
Speaker 3: off ramps in my time in Congress, and they have
Speaker 3: given up on it. So all right, where are we now?
Speaker 3: We need to beat them, We need to send them home.
Speaker 3: The only way to break the fever that has gripped
Speaker 3: this Republican Party, that has destroyed this Republican park, because
Speaker 3: it doesn't even exist anymore, even a party, right, it's
Speaker 3: just the it's just the mega movement and controlled by
Speaker 3: Donald Trump. It's not an ideological party. Is we have
Speaker 3: to we have to beat as many as possible, break
Speaker 3: the fever that's gripping them, and bring new people in. Right,
Speaker 3: And that's that's what I believe now, and I don't
Speaker 3: again relish saying that. But you know, let's harken back
Speaker 3: to February when actually November and then February when I
Speaker 3: filmed a video with several of my fellow veterans, including
Speaker 3: Mark Kelly, Yes, where we said that our military has
Speaker 3: an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. There's nothing sensational about that, right,
Speaker 3: that's military one oh one, that's the u CMJ. We're
Speaker 3: simply restating what military law states and what every service
Speaker 3: member knows. The President threatened to have us executed and
Speaker 3: then tried for treason in that order, by the way,
Speaker 3: he even messes up.
Speaker 2: That would be a little messy, yep, yep.
Speaker 3: And then in February he directs the DOJ to attempt
Speaker 3: to indict us, so several times it's the grand jury.
Speaker 3: So here you have us. They're trying to send me
Speaker 3: to prison for stating something basic about our military. Guess
Speaker 3: how many of my fellow veterans and Republicans reached out
Speaker 3: to me during that time?
Speaker 2: How many? How many? I mean, this is this is
Speaker 2: my bunny's.
Speaker 3: So what am I to do? Right? Where do I
Speaker 3: go with that? Right? If when when they're literally trying
Speaker 3: to put me in prison for standing up and speaking
Speaker 3: out and the people that I've legislated and worked with
Speaker 3: can't even pick up the film be like, hey, are
Speaker 3: you okay? Is your family all right? I know you're
Speaker 3: getting death threats, I know that they're cert What am
Speaker 3: I to do? And the answer is very simple, fight
Speaker 3: my ass off, Yeah, punch back as hard as I
Speaker 3: possibly can and try to win. And that is my priority.
Speaker 3: That's why I took the job as the co chair
Speaker 3: of the battle Ground. I'm managing the battleground for House
Speaker 3: Democrats right now to win as many seats as possible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is perfect segue.
Speaker 1: Congressman, I'm so glad that you said this, because I
Speaker 1: really this is kind of also some of the meat
Speaker 1: on the bone I wanted to talk to you about.
Speaker 1: So you come from a working class family and you're
Speaker 1: the first in your family to go to college three tours,
Speaker 1: ron Star.
Speaker 2: I mean, you understand what.
Speaker 1: It's like to to You really understand the word affordability.
Speaker 1: It's been used a lot lately, right, Affordability is used
Speaker 1: a lot, but you really have an understanding. And I
Speaker 1: spend a lot of time here at this channel talking
Speaker 1: to candidates and talking to people about how important is
Speaker 1: that your lived experience informs who you are and as
Speaker 1: a candidate, what you're going to be able to bring
Speaker 1: to DC. You also are helping on the flip red
Speaker 1: to blue right the D Triple C, and that's a
Speaker 1: really important thing. We had a great conversation with Congressman
Speaker 1: Underwood about this. You just announced or the D Triple
Speaker 1: C excuse me, just announced that they added five new
Speaker 1: candidates to this cycle. So the red to blue candidates
Speaker 1: now are thirty seven. And you know, Congressman, what I
Speaker 1: noted about these five new candidates is something I'm sure
Speaker 1: you noted, which is there's a retired Army brigadier general.
Speaker 1: There's a former officer in Navy JAG. There is a
Speaker 1: thirty five year veteran from the Navy helicopter pilot, three star,
Speaker 1: amiable chief of the Navy Reserve, Nancy LeCour I mean, you.
Speaker 3: Go, by the way, Nancy was uh was fired by
Speaker 3: Pete heigsays she she was one of the admirals who
Speaker 3: was purged by Pete hegsaf because he didn't meet the
Speaker 3: loyalty and ideological litmus tests of this administration.
Speaker 1: And she also happened to be a woman too, by
Speaker 1: the way, which is I think a big, big problem
Speaker 1: for Pete. Exactly. Yeah. So but listen, it doesn't escape
Speaker 1: my notice that these are there are a lot of
Speaker 1: veterans here right that are a part of this flip
Speaker 1: red to blue. So I guess my question for you
Speaker 1: is this, Congressman, you you there's there's you that stands
Speaker 1: for I think kind of this big wave lately of
Speaker 1: super kind of assault of the earth. People that don't
Speaker 1: have like a background in politics, right, that that go
Speaker 1: because they believe in being the change.
Speaker 2: You don't take corporate money.
Speaker 1: You're coming salt of the earth, like I said, someone
Speaker 1: who wants to come and really make a difference in DC.
Speaker 2: And fight for the people.
Speaker 1: And then how does how does it work the way
Speaker 1: that you're looking at some of these people that are
Speaker 1: the red to blues, because I feel like they're also
Speaker 1: fitting that mold. A lot of these people are not
Speaker 1: career politicians. They're not people that woke up and they're like,
Speaker 1: you know what, I want to run for office. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of what we're seeing from these Democratic candidates,
Speaker 1: and because they are so competitive is because they look
Speaker 1: like you and me, right, They look like just people
Speaker 1: that care enough that give a shit about what happens
Speaker 1: to their fellow Americans in all ways, and that's the
Speaker 1: reason why they want to come over and be in Congress.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, you're you're totally right. And so I have
Speaker 3: two I have two side hustles, as I joke and
Speaker 3: they say, but they're really not really sid hustles. An
Speaker 3: unbelievable amount of my time and energy right now. And
Speaker 3: that is one is building a new progressive vision for
Speaker 3: foreign policy and national security.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 3: Well, one thing that's really important is that we don't
Speaker 3: say we're going to go back and when everyone says
Speaker 3: we're going to rebuild post something, yeah, we're not. We're
Speaker 3: not rebuilding anything. Right. People don't want to go back. Right.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump is elected president because people were fed up
Speaker 3: with the system that wasn't serving them, that they viewed
Speaker 3: as hypocritical. And Donald Trump even camp pained on a
Speaker 3: lot of these things. See, he actually campaigned on like
Speaker 3: government refum, he campaigned on ending the endless wars in
Speaker 3: the Middle East. He's obviously turned us back on all
Speaker 3: of those, but he knew where the public sentiment was.
Speaker 3: So we're going to build something new. It's going to
Speaker 3: be a progressive vision for national security that is going
Speaker 3: to acknowledge that we have fallen short, that we have
Speaker 3: failed in a lot of ways. That's number one. Number
Speaker 3: two is helping the Democratic Party re enter vast swaths
Speaker 3: of our country. Right. And you mentioned I'm a working
Speaker 3: class guy. I was raised in a very conservative, you know,
Speaker 3: Irish Catholic construction family in the Midwest. And what I
Speaker 3: know is that it has taken us twenty years to
Speaker 3: dig ourselves into this hole in working class rural America. Right,
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty four and fall of twenty four, we
Speaker 3: lost ninety percent of US counties.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: That is not a major already, that is not a coalition, right,
Speaker 3: And that didn't happen in one cycle. That happened over
Speaker 3: twenty years. There's a lot of reasons for that, but
Speaker 3: we have to understand those reasons and we have to
Speaker 3: do the honest accounting as Democrats where we have fallen short.
Speaker 3: I don't blame Donald Trump forgetting elected president. Actually I
Speaker 3: blame the Democrats for allowing him to get elected president twice. Right,
Speaker 3: the second time. How did we lose to this guy?
Speaker 3: It's insane, It's crazy. Why we lost to this guy?
Speaker 3: That's on us, right, So we have to acknowledge that
Speaker 3: we have to take responsibility for it, and we have
Speaker 3: to actually go back to these communities that we haven't
Speaker 3: showed up in in years. Actually, there are communities in
Speaker 3: this country that were now that I've now recruited and
Speaker 3: mentoring candidates and some of its you just mentioned, and
Speaker 3: those communities haven't heard from Democrats in six eight years. Right,
Speaker 3: how do you expect people to know what we stand
Speaker 3: for if we don't even show up in our case? Right,
Speaker 3: It's crazy. So we're doing it. We're being aggressive, We're
Speaker 3: going into deep territory. We're not leaving any stone unturned.
Speaker 3: We're going to make our case to everybody everywhere. And
Speaker 3: I am wildly passionate about that. And we have amazing
Speaker 3: candidates who are going to do it.
Speaker 2: I mean it sounds like it to me.
Speaker 1: And listen, I spend a lot of time looking at
Speaker 1: these candidates, and I spend a lot of time figuring
Speaker 1: out who I want to amplify and help because I
Speaker 1: do believe that we can't go in reverse. There's really
Speaker 1: nothing to redo. We have to figure out what was
Speaker 1: wrong and just make it right. I mean, you can't
Speaker 1: really rejigger it some way, right, It's got to be
Speaker 1: done clean, and part of that is bringing in the
Speaker 1: right people and the right energy. Congressman Jason Crow, anytime
Speaker 1: you want to come back, you are welcome to come
Speaker 1: here to Katie fang News. I loved hanging out with you,
Speaker 1: and again I started this out and the thank you
Speaker 1: sir for your service. It is not easy, as you know,
Speaker 1: and we are watching carefully because we are you know,
Speaker 1: we're asking a lot of our am Maya Can people
Speaker 1: right now domestically and internationally, and I feel like we
Speaker 1: got to take care of them. And you're definitely making
Speaker 1: that top of mind for the party and for yourself.
Speaker 2: So I really appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you well. Thanks for being the voice that you
Speaker 3: are a very important one right now, and thanks for
Speaker 3: having me on.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Katie Fang.
Speaker 1: Here, we launched the Katifang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the
Speaker 1: latest and legal and political news straight no chaser. So
Speaker 1: if you're a fellow truthteller, hit that subscribe button and
Speaker 1: share the word about this channel so we can build
Speaker 1: a high information America together.
Speaker 2: Some breaking news.
Speaker 1: That we are waking up to this morning on Monday,
Speaker 1: August twenty fourth, concerning that mega merger between Paramount's Guidance
Speaker 1: and Warner Brothers Discovery Now. Today was supposed to be
Speaker 1: a meeting to discuss possible settlement as a result of
Speaker 1: the powerful lawsuit that was brought by California Attorney General
Speaker 1: Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general to block this merger.
Speaker 1: This lawsuit was filed in July. It put that merger
Speaker 1: on hold. As we know, a federal judge has actually
Speaker 1: sent a trial to take place in March of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty seven.
Speaker 2: This is a one hundred and eleven billion.
Speaker 1: Dollar merger, and the reason why people are so up
Speaker 1: in arms about it is understandable. As the Attorney's General
Speaker 1: assert in their lawsuit, the merger between Paramount and Warner
Speaker 1: Brothers would put two major movie studios, multiple streaming services,
Speaker 1: and CNN and CBS News under one roof, and it
Speaker 1: would be controlled by the Ellisons. Specifically, at this point,
Speaker 1: David Ellison, who is one of the billionaire buddies of convicted,
Speaker 1: fellon Donald Trump and look, I don't have to tell you.
Speaker 1: We've already seen what has happened at CBS News when
Speaker 1: Ellison installed Bari Weiss to be the head of that place.
Speaker 1: We've seen what happened to sixty minutes. We've seen what's
Speaker 1: happened to CBS Evening News. I mean, it's not pretty.
Speaker 1: And so there is a very understandable concern about this
Speaker 1: being anti competition, this huge mega merger that would happen.
Speaker 1: So because of this lawsuit, a couple of things. One,
Speaker 1: Attorney General Rob Bonta and other stakeholders were supposed to
Speaker 1: sit down today with Ellison and other stakeholders from Paramount
Speaker 1: to see if they could hammer out a deal now
Speaker 1: as of Friday. Now I'm going to read this to
Speaker 1: you because this is reporting as of Friday. As of Friday,
Speaker 1: Attorney General Bonta said this, this was Friday night. Generally,
Speaker 1: for all of my cases, I prefer to resolve disputes
Speaker 1: in the boardroom, not the courtroom. As I've also said,
Speaker 1: if the opposing party in litigation wants to meet in
Speaker 1: good faith to make a sincere effort to resolve the case,
Speaker 1: will meet. And as I have further said, any potential
Speaker 1: discussions about the Paramount Warner Brothers merger will be unproductive
Speaker 1: absent robust structural remedies on the table that address our concerns.
Speaker 1: The proposed Warner Brothers Paramount merger, according to Attorney General
Speaker 1: Rob Bonta, will mean higher costs, less competition, lower wages,
Speaker 1: job cuts, and fewer movies and TV shows. This merger
Speaker 1: violates long standing federal antitrust law, and we are committed
Speaker 1: to enforcing the law. Now it's twelve state attorneys general
Speaker 1: who have sued. There's an independent lawsuit that was brought
Speaker 1: by the WGA, the Writer's Guild of America. That lawsuit
Speaker 1: has been consolidated for purposes of being tried together in
Speaker 1: March of twenty twenty seven, and the federal judge in
Speaker 1: that case stating, I'm not going to have an earlier
Speaker 1: trial date at this point. That's when you guys are
Speaker 1: going to go to trial. Now, in the federal rules
Speaker 1: of civil procedure, you are required in the course of
Speaker 1: litigation to sit down and go to a mediation. Now,
Speaker 1: this was going to be a separate thing, the meeting
Speaker 1: that was supposed to happen today until Bonta canceled it
Speaker 1: as a result of bad faith conduct on the part
Speaker 1: of Paramount. That was going to be a kind of
Speaker 1: good faith or supposed to be good faith effort for
Speaker 1: them to see if they could work something out, or
Speaker 1: at least start to hammer out the beginning of a
Speaker 1: framework to be able to work something out. But the
Speaker 1: federal rules of civil procedure will require both sides to
Speaker 1: sit down and meet no matter what, for purposes of
Speaker 1: a court ordered mediation. And let's talk about that for
Speaker 1: a second, a magistrate judge would be sitting down at
Speaker 1: some point to be able to try to negotiate a
Speaker 1: sentiment on behalf of the parties. At a hearing last week,
Speaker 1: the presiding Federal Court Judge Adresselli Martinez Auguin said the
Speaker 1: parties had to identify two perspective people to serve for
Speaker 1: purposes of this now look, Paramount has been trying to
Speaker 1: fend off the continued blocking of this mega merger by
Speaker 1: making a promise that it would produce at least thirty
Speaker 1: films a year for the next three years and to
Speaker 1: keep them exclusively available for viewing in theaters for at
Speaker 1: least forty five days. But Rob Bonta has said historically
Speaker 1: that's very hard to enforce. So promises made, promises broken
Speaker 1: and never kept.
Speaker 2: It's hard to sue to enforce that.
Speaker 1: Number one and number two, we know that there have
Speaker 1: been threats by Paramount to actually pull its entire base
Speaker 1: of operations out of Hollywood, out of California and to
Speaker 1: move them to a quote friendlier state.
Speaker 2: But let's get into the specifics of.
Speaker 1: Why Rob Bonta canceled this settlement meeting that was supposed
Speaker 1: to happen today. According to his office late last night,
Speaker 1: Paramount was accused of acting in bad faith. Quote, not
Speaker 1: only did Paramount leak the alleged substance of settlement discussions,
Speaker 1: but they misrepresented these discussions, demonstrating a lack of good faith.
Speaker 1: As soon as Paramount stops playing games and engages, sincerely,
Speaker 1: my office is happy to meet again.
Speaker 2: So what was leaked?
Speaker 1: Well, you're not supposed to leak or disclose settlement communications.
Speaker 1: There is a presumption they are to remain confidential. Why
Speaker 1: because ay, that's the law and the rule. And b
Speaker 1: why would anybody want to have good faith settlement negotiations
Speaker 1: and conversations if they knew that they were going.
Speaker 2: To be exposed.
Speaker 1: Because you may make admissions during the course of your
Speaker 1: settlement conversations of potential weaknesses. A lot of it is posturing, yes,
Speaker 1: a lot of his grandstanding.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: But you may say, look, I admit that maybe this
Speaker 1: is an issue, but this is where you know blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. The bottom line is this, nobody would Gauge,
Speaker 1: would engage in good faith and trying to reach a
Speaker 1: settlement if they thought everything was going to be exposed.
Speaker 1: And again, the law protects it. The rules protect it.
Speaker 1: You're not supposed to disclose it. So what is rob
Speaker 1: Banta talking about?
Speaker 2: Will check this out.
Speaker 1: Apparently there were communications between the attorneys general that are
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. They're outside Council, Millbank and
Speaker 1: Paramount on August twenty first. Now that was just last week, right,
Speaker 1: that was just last week Friday. Those communications disclosed, and
Speaker 1: that is a problem because Paramount is leaking this. It
Speaker 1: wasn't the Attorney's General and it wasn't their council. According
Speaker 1: to Robonta, it was Paramount.
Speaker 2: Now what was leaked?
Speaker 1: Well, Paramount is sitting there stating that Robonta. Robonta is
Speaker 1: trying to ask for things like David Ellison not having
Speaker 1: day to day oversight or control of Warner Brothers, which
Speaker 1: Ellison would never agree to do. Quote, Ellison needs those
Speaker 1: cable channels. That's still where some of the money is.
Speaker 1: And it is no secret that Robanta's office apparently has
Speaker 1: asked that Paramount sell off several of Warner Brothers cable channels.
Speaker 1: So it's like all of this that is maybe going
Speaker 1: back and forth in terms of possible settlement negotiations, is
Speaker 1: all being leaked.
Speaker 2: According to Raw Banta. And here's the thing.
Speaker 1: Paramount was forced to be able to make some minor
Speaker 1: concessions in order to get regulatory approval outside of.
Speaker 2: The United States in the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: We've covered that here, but this is the big one,
Speaker 1: right because for every time that they're not able to close,
Speaker 1: this is costing Paramount a whole lot of money. And
Speaker 1: that's important because this is costing Paramount a ship pot
Speaker 1: of money. While this case doesn't settle now. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: David Ellison, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, has
Speaker 1: been threatening to leave the state of California, to take
Speaker 1: the company of Paramount out of California by October first
Speaker 1: if there is no progress made to resolving this lawsuit
Speaker 1: that's been brought by Bonta and other ages.
Speaker 2: Jeez.
Speaker 1: Now this is according to the New York Times back
Speaker 1: on August eleven. So now this is even a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago. Ellison is sitting there thinking that he
Speaker 1: can intimidate and coerce Bonta into settling on unfavorable terms
Speaker 1: for the people. Because remember this lawson isn't for raw Bonta.
Speaker 1: He's not representing a private client. He represents the people.
Speaker 1: In the state of California, as do these other attorneys general.
Speaker 1: They're representing the people of those states, and ultimately we'll
Speaker 1: all benefit if there is a good deal made with
Speaker 1: structural remedies baked into the deal that will protect us
Speaker 1: from the not good side of this mega merger, so
Speaker 1: Bonta said back on August eleven, with this threat, these
Speaker 1: leaked threats, right to move the company out of California.
Speaker 2: Quote, it's an attempt.
Speaker 1: To blackmail regulators who are daring to enforce the law.
Speaker 1: Because here's the thing. Starting in October. Why October, you
Speaker 1: may ask, Katie, Because starting in October, Warner Brothers will
Speaker 1: owe their shareholders excuse me, Paramount will owe the Warner
Speaker 1: Brothers shareholders six hundred and fifty million dollars each quarter
Speaker 1: until the deal closes. Or remember this thing's not going
Speaker 1: to trial until March of twenty twenty seven, so you've
Speaker 1: got at least Q four twenty twenty six, Q one
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven, and until this thing is done. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of money, right, So that's what one point
Speaker 1: three billion, and so because of that, that's part of
Speaker 1: the reason why there's been this idea that Allison's threatening
Speaker 1: to move Paramount out of California.
Speaker 2: And here's what somebody said. I thought this was really interesting.
Speaker 1: At least one emerging entertainment hub, Tennessee, has made direct
Speaker 1: overtures to Ellison. In a letter, Stuart mcwardur, the head
Speaker 1: of the state's Economic and Community Development Agency, wrote to
Speaker 1: Ellison encouraging him to consider Tennessee and join other bluestate
Speaker 1: companies implanting roots in a more business friendly conservative state. Oracle,
Speaker 1: for example, owned by Ellison's father, has been expanding its
Speaker 1: presence in Nashville.
Speaker 2: But I want to sit on this for just a second.
Speaker 2: This is nothing against Nashville and nothing against Tennessee.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, maybe something against Tennessee, or more appropriately, it's
Speaker 1: Republican leaders. Think about what is happening here. You have
Speaker 1: overtures being made by red state Tennessee to come to
Speaker 1: a quote more conservative place, come and bring your entertainment
Speaker 1: and media company here. You don't think that we're already
Speaker 1: dealing with the threat of having Ellison in his outsized
Speaker 1: influence on content. Again, we've already seen what happened at CBS, right,
Speaker 1: you don't think actually relocating to a states that you
Speaker 1: want to be in that's more conservative. You don't think
Speaker 1: that's also going to have an influence on what happens
Speaker 1: to content. You'd have to be a fool to think
Speaker 1: that that's not the case. And it's not a surprise, right,
Speaker 1: because then you're going to say, well, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for letting us come to your state, and then
Speaker 1: you're trying to sit there and negotiate tax deals, benefits
Speaker 1: for the work that you're bringing to that state.
Speaker 2: But listen to this.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty one, Walt Disney announced plans to relocate
Speaker 1: roughly two thousand employees from LA to Orlando.
Speaker 2: Workers push back so much so and a.
Speaker 1: Significant number quit rather than move that Disney ultimately canceled
Speaker 1: their plans and missed that employee resistance. And of course,
Speaker 1: as you're recall that nasty, stupid Ron DeSantis war on Disney.
Speaker 1: I mean, the deadline is August twenty sixth, what is
Speaker 1: that two days from now for the parties to select
Speaker 1: a mat judge to do this mediation. So there will
Speaker 1: be a court ordered mediation happening here. But I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting that Rob Bonta said, uh, oh, we're not
Speaker 1: doing this if paramount doesn't come to the table in
Speaker 1: good faith. Bonta says, I will only accept structural remedies
Speaker 1: to resolve this lawsuit, which means you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: sell off parts of this combined business, and Allison says,
Speaker 1: ain't gonna do it. So, I mean, it kind of
Speaker 1: sounds like it's a, you know, a standoff. But look,
Speaker 1: it was Banta's choice to do this, and I'm glad
Speaker 1: because you can't bully people into submission. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of these billionaire oligarchs, these corporate oligarchs, think that
Speaker 1: you can just bully people and you can play this
Speaker 1: game of dropping things in the public, leaking settlement communications
Speaker 1: that are supposed to remain confidential, threatening to move your
Speaker 1: base of operations, even though it would really be a
Speaker 1: big middle finger fuck you to California, which I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: This is really what I wanted to also emphasize to you.
Speaker 1: Check this out, because I think this kind of summarizes
Speaker 1: it really astutely. Joseph Singer, a veteran film financier and
Speaker 1: former studio executive, said about this threat of Ellison to
Speaker 1: move Paramount out of California. Many of the top Paramount
Speaker 1: executives I've spoken with are extremely unhappy with the idea.
Speaker 1: Their lives, their families, and their kids' lives and schools
Speaker 1: are in LA. Either the merger is good for California,
Speaker 1: as its supporters have insisted, or those same jobs are
Speaker 1: a chip to be moved out of state when the
Speaker 1: state's law enforcer declines to fold. A threat to relocate
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense and just hurts the very people he
Speaker 1: says he wants to protect. He being Allison, and that's
Speaker 1: just so on point, right people, If you think about it,
Speaker 1: If Ellison is claiming that this mega merger is so
Speaker 1: great and it's such a benefit, and it's going to
Speaker 1: be such a boon to the people of California, you're
Speaker 1: now threatening to pull your company. You're now threatening to
Speaker 1: take it somewhere else. By the way, just if you
Speaker 1: do that, the lossing doesn't go away. The lawsuit is
Speaker 1: to block the merger in and of it self. There's
Speaker 1: a lot here, but it is breaking news. I wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure that we covered it here and like
Speaker 1: and subscribe, share this so people understand what's going on.
Speaker 1: There is a lot at stake here about the defense
Speaker 1: of democracy. You cannot consolidate this amount of power and
Speaker 1: expect that it's not going to be abused.
Speaker 2: You also want to be able to.
Speaker 1: Understand here that from the very top, from these you
Speaker 1: know A level actors, actresses, down all the way to
Speaker 1: the people that are providing craft services.
Speaker 2: I like to say, as an example.
Speaker 1: To the writers, to the people that are on the
Speaker 1: tech side of it, to the producers, to the hair
Speaker 1: makeup artists, to the I mean, you name it, they
Speaker 1: all will have their jobs on the chopping block because
Speaker 1: of this merger. Consolidation is not going to benefit consumers either.
Speaker 1: This is a one hundred and eleven billion dollar deal.
Speaker 1: The debt load on this is freaking huge. Putting aside
Speaker 1: my concerns about foreign equity being pushed into this to
Speaker 1: finance this deal, from places like Saudi Arabia, Cutter and others,
Speaker 1: I have a serious concern about the fact that where
Speaker 1: are you going to pass down the costs to have
Speaker 1: to carry this debt.
Speaker 2: You're going to fire people.
Speaker 1: You're going to limit production, especially kind of on the
Speaker 1: big blockbuster Hollywood side, and you're going to pass down
Speaker 1: the cost to me as a consumer. Your streaming services
Speaker 1: are going to get more expensive. Why because it's all
Speaker 1: been consolidated. All these streaming services are going to be
Speaker 1: coming together, and so that package is really not a package.
Speaker 2: It's going to be an access fee that's going to
Speaker 2: be exorb in it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we can exercise our right not to do it,
Speaker 1: but why be forced to do that if you have
Speaker 1: people like Attorney General Bonta, Letitia James and the others
Speaker 1: that are saying, look, this is anti competitive, it's going
Speaker 1: to hurt consumers. We don't do this. This is America.
Speaker 1: Be mad, be outrage, demand accountability like Rob Bonta does.
Speaker 2: I'm off to rellicages.
Speaker 1: Katie Fang here, we launched the Katifang News channel in
Speaker 1: partnership with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring
Speaker 1: you the latest and legal and political news straight no chaser.
Speaker 1: So if you're a fellow truthteller, hit that subscribe button
Speaker 1: and share the word about this channel so we can
Speaker 1: build a high information America together