← The Beat with Ari Melber
The Beat with Ari Melber
Oregon Sues Trump Admin. Over Deployment of National Guard
00:41:39
MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports on President Trump using his executive authority to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, amid escalating ICE clashes in Democratic-led cities. Plus, Melber delivers a special report on the playbook and peril for multinational companies balancing free expression and autocratic pressure around the world.
Loading summary
Transcript57 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, this is Will Arnett, host of Smartless. Smartless is a podcast with myself and Sean Hayes and Jason Bateman, where each week one of us reveals a mystery guest to the other two. We dive deep with guests that you love like Bill Hader, Selena Gomez, Jennifer Aniston, David Beckham, Kristen Stewart, and tons more. So join us for a genuinely improvised and authentic conversation filled with laughter and newfound knowledge to feed the smartless mind. Listen to Smartless now on the SiriusXM app. Download it today.
- [00:36]
B
Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time, help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight Infinity@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [01:08]
A
Welcome to the beat everyone. I'm Ari Melbourne. Our top story is an alert that is not normal in the literal sense, that normally we don't see this in America. The president trying to abuse or widen what are traditional executive powers and doing it on a blatantly partisan basis. Take a look at the Democratic led cities that continuously face the threat or enactment of the deployment of troops. This week begins with the National Guard directed to Portland, Oregon, dealing with what Donald Trump says could be a full force effort to deal with protests against ice. Now the troops are not on the ground. This is a developing story and the city is pushing back swiftly, suing with the legal argument that Trump would not have the authority to call in the guard here, that that is a state power. And in a related skirmish, one where he already overstepped in California, Portlanders also turning out Sunday to protest this clash is escalating. Meanwhile in Chicago, ICE agents seen in tactical gear walking or sort of marching downtown. Lawmakers, who of course also locally have an obligation to deal with immigration insecurity, say they viewed this as more of an intimidation show than serious patrols. One ICE official saying agents are making arrests based on looks, something they feel empowered to do. The Democratic governor pushing back. If federal agents marched down busy streets harassing civilians and demanding their papers, what would we say? I don't think we'd have any trouble calling it what it is, authoritarianism. So let's not pretend. It's something else when it happens in our American cities. The governor trying to summon the way that we as Americans sometimes look abroad with a little more judgment than we might at home. And there is a wider context, the habitual threat and deployment of troops in America when there is not massive unrest, when there are not multi day riots or blackouts, or the type of things that used to justify what was then. State federal coordination is one sign of this kind of federal power grab. Another is a president making Watergate level confessions about wanting to indict his enemies, evidence or not, and getting away with it, at least getting the DOJ to start the process. That's what happened last week. And as I've told you in our reporting, you can't separate the efforts to go after Trump's enemies without evidence. Like former FBI Director Comey, lawmakers who've already been indicted and others. You can't separate that from the troop deployment because it's all part of this effort to see how much power he can abuse federally. And if you want to use a partisan lens, we start with the evidence. But if you look at how this is playing, there are even some Republicans and conservatives who agree with the overwhelming legal expert and nonpartisan consensus that the rushed, unusual process to indict Mr. Comey after the President's demands isn't on the level.
- [04:16]
C
I don't think there's a case.
- [04:17]
A
This is not a slam dunk. I don't see any way in the world that, you know, Comey would be convicted premised on something that's not true. The indictment itself is quite weak and.
- [04:29]
C
That it's unlikely to survive in court.
- [04:30]
D
It's been shot up with a zempic. That is how lean it is.
- [04:33]
A
This case should be thrown out. There's a good chance because of, you know, the wholly unconstitutional authoritarian way that this was done, that the case may get tossed out well before trial. The last voice talking about the authoritarian framework for this Trump DOJ case is someone who was a Trump defense lawyer. These are not exactly big Trump critics. They're just saying what we know from the evidence, which is that there's no valid case there. We'll cover it. And if more evidence against Comey were to emerge, we'll cover that. But right now you have this rushed partisan indictment without evidence. When asked whether the DOJ should investigate a another former FBI director that Trump hired, he says, I'd imagine, I would think they're doing that. Last week, Trump also pushed for the firing in the free market private company Microsoft who employs someone who's well respected within that company and within government experience. Lisa Monaco. Her crime or sin in Trump's inverted view is that she served in a different party's administration. She was deputy Attorney General. That's not all. Trump also demanding investigations of groups that he considers contrary to his own political interests, including a not for profit foundation tied with money from George Soros. His executive order literally targets domestic opposition, which he calls the radical left. Jennifer Rubin, longtime writer, Washington Post veteran, warns we are not a functioning democracy bound by the rule of law. Against those infractions, I'm joined by the New York Times Magazine's Emily Bazelon and Christina Greer, political science professor at Fordham University. Emily, I quote Rubin there because she makes the point that any one of these things would have been a serious scandal. The call to indict people after the DOJ process finds they're not even eligible under probable cause to be pursued anymore in the Comey case is an impeachable offense if the facts don't change based on what we know. And, and Rubin argues there that these things are being stacked up against each other. And we also have the push for more troops in the streets tonight.
- [06:47]
C
Emily.
- [06:49]
D
Right. There are a lot of efforts here to expand executive power, you know, kind of on all fronts. And to go back to the indictment of James Comey, the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, who was a Trump appointee, reviewed the evidence after an investigation of his staff and decided there wasn't enough evidence to charge Comey. And so then you have Comey ordering Pam Bondi, the Attorney general, to take action now with lots of explanation, exclamation points from Trump. And then you see him install his insurance lawyer as the replacement for the U.S. attorney. And now these charges are being brought. So it's very rare for prosecutors to ever lose a case for what's called vindictive prosecution. But here, what you're seeing is this very public direct line from Trump's desire to take revenge on a perceived enemy to criminal charges that carry a prison sentence.
- [07:50]
A
Yeah. And Professor, I want to play what Andrew Weissman said about this. The strength of the case, having looked at what's now the reporting about what is actually the substance of the claim here. It seems unbelievably weak. If James Comey is going to say, I didn't do it, and the only other person who's part of that conversation said he didn't do it, you really have to wonder, where is the proof? And it starts looking like there's a Reason that the career prosecutors and former of the Eastern District of Virginia were saying that you should not bring this case because who are they going to rely on? That's one case. And Professor Greer, then when we put up the many other items, the talk about whether it's autocratic, whether it's potentially the musings of a wannabe dictator, those are words up on the screen. We have the facts. This is what's actually being done. And this is in a single week. How important is it, professor, that people understand that as we look for guardrails?
- [08:58]
E
Yeah, I mean, Ari, the swiftness of what's been happening these past few months, but especially this past month, have been quite intense. I mean, luckily we do still have respectable lawyers in the DOJ who say this is a bridge too far and actually this doesn't fall under the purview of the law and we can't bring a case. I mean, don't forget, I mean, you're a lawyer, you know better than most when the DOJ brings a case, I mean, there's a reason why they've got a 97% win rate because they don't just go into a courtroom willy nilly. This is what Trump promised, though, just for Republicans now saying that, you know, we should have some guardrails. This is what he campaigned on. He said he would go after his enemies or people he perceives as his enemies or whether they have evidence or not. And so the only thing right now, since the Supreme Court seems to be abdicating their power, since Republicans in Congress seem to be abdicating their power, we've got some lawyers in the DOJ who are actually doing the right thing. But I think the good saving grace is that those who are bringing these charges are grossly incompetent and they don't have a proper case. But we're seeing this all over Washington, D.C. with so many cases that are being brought where judges are saying, why are you even here? Either the paperwork isn't filed properly or there absolutely is no case here other than the fact that the President wants it in front of me. But this is not how the law works. And so we're obviously, we've been in dangerous territory. We've been in the territory that he promised. And so it's going to take a lot more than respectable lawyers standing up to the President. We need a lot more people leaning in to take some of these powers away from him finally.
- [10:33]
A
And that takes us exactly to what I wanted to ask you about, Emily, which is Jimmy Kimmel and James Comey have very little in common. And the efforts to go after them for exercising their free speech rights in America were very different. I mean, Comey faces in this environment the very real long term personal efforts against him. So it's costly, it affects you and your family, it affects your financing. It's multi million dollars if he uses private law firms to defend this case and it carries the threat of jail. With Kimmel, it was the job. And yet I'm going to put up the chart here we have of the Trump probes and Dafoes. They have different measures for different people. And you can see here we don't have Kimmel on this list because we're sticking to the formal legal ones. But we've updated it. You have Bolton search lower right. Ms. Willis has now been subpoenaed. That's new. This list keeps growing. And this is Emily, as the lawyers would say, an under inclusive list. What does it show about what works? And also perhaps the limits of the public imagination that the Kimmel case, which was crisp and clear, not legal, but about a star, somehow galvanized a quicker broader pushback than all those other ones were being picked at in different ways.
- [11:55]
D
Right. Well, I think what you see with Kimmel is Americans saying, wait a second, you can't tell me who to watch on television. There was such a clear free speech problem there. And people could see that the Trump head of the fcc, Brendan Carr, had created this bullying that led to Kimmel's suspension and there was this immediate backlash. I think with criminal charges against individuals, it's harder, it seems, for the public to mobilize and to figure out how to make its disapproval heard. And one thing that's important right now is that for a lot of presidents, when you see your approval ratings go down on a particular issue, that is enough to change your behavior. That has not been consistently true for Donald Trump. And so the difference between Kimball and Comey is about mobilization. Right. It's not that Americans probably think this is a good idea to indict James Comey, but they haven't mobilized. There isn't a company to boycott. There aren't subscriptions to cancel in the same way. And I think that's a challenge for the people who are trying to be in opposition. And an important distinction. You know, another thing I know I'll know. I'm watching very careful to see when Republicans in Congress are willing to distance themselves from President Trump. They've been quite unwilling to do that. But you did see a few people speak out on Kimmel's behalf, and also against the connection that Trump drew between Tylenol and autism, that he drew falsely. But I have not seen Republicans speaking out about James Comey or these other misuses of prosecutorial power.
- [13:33]
A
Right? Not in Congress yet. And you're right, sometimes the answer isn't all that logical. But it has other particulars, right? The fact that people had some leverage, if you want to call it that, at a consumer boycott level with Disney, is different than how they feel with their government. You can't boycott your government on the tax side, that's for sure. And a lot of people feel that the elections are pretty spaced out. So which issue will they'll be thinking about in November as anyone's guess. Emily also reminds us people don't want to be told what TV to watch any more than Christina Greer wants to be told which color glass frames to wear. Beat viewers know sometimes it's black, sometimes it's red. Sometimes. Sometimes you just have to tune in to find out. I want to ask both of you to stay. And Christina, I want to ask you about these mass movements right after our shortest break. We'll see you in 90 seconds.
- [14:26]
F
Hey everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name and we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms, and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to Everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes, wherever you get your podcasts, sometimes.
- [14:56]
A
An identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.
- [15:04]
E
I need a coffee and you need.
- [15:06]
A
Lifelock because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year@lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.
- [15:25]
B
Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with greenlight. Infinity's driving reports Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time, help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast.
- [16:01]
A
We're back with Emily and Christina. Another headline, professor, that I wanted to ask you about is where we are in this autocratic slide we went through at the top of the program, many of the facts that show it. You have lawmakers openly discussing that there could be other sham indictments. Axios, which calls itself a pretty nonpartisan outlet, says this is the first domino based on their report in Comey. Indictment sets MAGA retribution in Motion. Michael Flynn, who's been all over these issues since the first term, says Comey's the first domino. Others must fall faster. Could embolden prosecutors to press ahead. Professor We've seen this pattern before. Things that are initially fought and that are seen as unthinkable in our government get breached. And if there is an immediate backlash, if there's an immediate correction, then other government officials say, well, I guess that's how it is now. And so I'm curious what you think about any ways to address that dynamic. And when you look at the history in the United States, the civil rights struggle, other activists, even some of the socialists who identified as peaceful, not the, not the ones making bombs in the 30s, saw a government that tried to criminalize the pushback to the government. What have we learned from all that? And is it still worth fighting when, when for some, the threats get pretty serious?
- [17:26]
E
Right. I mean, it's always worth fighting. And I think this is why, you know, banning books is so detrimental to the future of our democracy. You know, so many people want to recreate the wheel or they don't even know what was done. I mean, there's so many aspects of the civil rights movement, so many different prongs. There were young people, activists, there were poor people, there were people who were moved from the south to the North. I mean, there were so many different organizations, sncc, sclc, you know, naacp, the Black Panther Party. I mean, the different tactics that were used, the various coalitions that were built, say the Young Lords and the Black Panther Party know across Puerto Rican and black communities. And so to not understand or even know that these, these actions and these coalitions took place sort of ties people in the present moment and they don't really have a beacon. And so it's imperative that we actually go back and read what Angela Davis or Martin Luther King. I mean, he wrote several books. Most people just know about the I have a Dream speech. And that is just one small speech, small pebble, that very vast history where he talks to us about looks at, you know, countries abroad. But he knew that it could happen, and it was happening to black Americans in this country for several generations. So I'm always hopeful, Ari. You know, I'm an educator. I get to spend time with the future leaders of America every, you know, every week when I teach. But I do think that, unfortunately, so many people aren't looking to some of the strategies of the past to help them come together in the future. We've seen with, say, Jamal Bryant and the target boycotts, I mean, that has been exponentially successful, and we've seen economic boycotts have been successful in the past. So there are ways, you know, as we were saying in the previous break, you know, Jimmy Kimmel and the backlash, the economic backlash helps get him back on the air. It's much harder when we're thinking about, you know, law firms or educational institutions or individuals who are being targeted. But there are ways that, you know, not all coalitions have to last forever. They might need to just be short term, sometimes strange bedfellows. But we must also put pressure. There's a reason why members of Congress are elected every two years. We can actually remove all 435 if we want to. And we have to remember that and not just so take it for the incumbency advantage that it is.
- [19:49]
A
Emily, your thoughts?
- [19:52]
D
You know, one thing that jumps out at me when you look at these historical examples is that lots of people are chilled in their speech and in their actions against the government. When the government tries to intimidate people, you can have a relatively small number of targets. And when you have a lot of power and a ton of leverage, you can still have an effect on many, many people. And it's really important for people to remember that and to think about the levers that are available to them for continuing to speak up and trying to ensure that we don't have that same kind of dynamic. But I think you can already see the effect on large corporations, on some of the law firms that struck deals with the Trump administration. And the federal government has a lot of power, which the Supreme Court seems intent on adding to. And that's creating this dynamic that we're seeing unfold where, you know, we still have our free speech rights. We're still talking about this on television, but it feels like some events are taking place that when you talk to experts, historians like Christina, these are not things that are the run of the mill way that the United States is supposed to operate.
- [21:01]
A
Yeah. Emily and Christina, thanks to both of you. Coming up, conservatives actually losing another new culture clash. We'll explain. And why. Trump's free speech crackdown has some lessons for how we view these companies, multinationals that seem to be giving in a lot that also deals with Jimmy Kim. We have all of that next. We turn now to a slightly wider look at this censorship agenda under the Trump administration and the pressure on companies. Kimmel won this battle. We've all seen that now. There are still some problems in the wider war. Activists do view the huge American pressure on Disney as a playbook for a range of future Trump clashes which can go beyond free speech. But to begin our special report right now, remember, here's how it went down.
- [21:57]
E
ABC has just announced that they are pulling late night host Jimmy Kimmel's show off the air indefinitely.
- [22:02]
C
These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel.
- [22:09]
A
Or, you know, there's going to be.
- [22:10]
C
Additional work for the fcc.
- [22:12]
A
All they do is hit Trump. They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that. The recent increase in searches for the.
- [22:20]
C
Phrase cancel Disney since ABC suspended Kimmel's.
- [22:23]
E
Show, people spoke with their pocketbooks.
- [22:25]
D
They canceled Disney plus and their Hulu subscriptions. All of it contributed to the fact.
- [22:29]
E
That after only six days after being suspended, Jimmy Kimmel is returning to the airwaves.
- [22:35]
A
This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this. Many agreed Kimmel is back because people stood up and that made Disney respond. Of course, this began with Disney as a company that was clearly most worried about the U.S. government hurting its bottom line. And then because of you and the people, Disney quickly found it was actually even more worried about its customers. Now, remember, the richest, most powerful companies in the US Usually are quite rich and powerful because they operate in many different places. And those different countries have different laws and different systems of government. So when we hear that term multinational companies, it's not just a description of where they operate. It's also a description of the different ways they have to operate. Because a company that wants to operate in China and the US And Canada is going to have to have some different policies on the business side. They tend to defend that. But what we just lived through in America shows the sad limits of that kind of capitalist approach. Now, Americans may not see this very much when it happens abroad. But many of these companies already have long histories of accommodating all kinds of autocratic leaders who have very different demands than, say, going to Canada and just running a theme park and paying your taxes. Russia and China are a little different. And that means we already know that these companies in the US that are now facing more free speech and autocratic pressure under Trump than they did previously already know how and sometimes do undercut the values of free expression and the rule of law. They claim to follow them, of course, and some of them do more than others. But when you go abroad, it's pretty clear Disney was not new to the process of quickly bending to a government demand if they thought that the leader was quite serious about making them do it or paying for it. Indeed, for the powerful government of China, it has previously altered and censored films to ensure its position there. It's also made deals under duress. It had the blockbuster Mulan, which led to a deal with the autocratic no democracy Chinese government, where Disney took the government's push to also get the rights to two Chinese films and open a theme park as part of the deal to stream that movie at all. Other companies have changed or censored references to Taiwan because the Chinese government wants to exert control over what people in and near China think and hear about Taiwan and its quest for more autonomy. Take Apple. Just last year, it pulled WhatsApp and threads from the China App Store that was under a government order. Apple would say they have to follow law in China just like they have to follow law in the U.S. but that certainly is different from supporting free expression or Putin plays tough. Google and Apple also removed a voting app that was associated with the opposition against Putin in 2021. These are companies that want to operate everywhere. And again, to be clear and fair, some of them say they would argue it's better in many of these countries to have some tech and some Western media than none. But the point is, as we become more like a country that wants to censor or have the government decide what you can see on tv. As a guest put it tonight, these companies have some experience doing this. For years, companies fear there is a lot of money left to lose when it comes to China. Marriott hotels firing an hourly employee just for liking a tweet about free Tibet.
- [26:24]
D
Google and Apple blocked Russians from downloading the main opposition party's app, a voting.
- [26:30]
A
App that's linked to Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.
- [26:33]
B
Really big, rich, powerful American companies.
- [26:36]
E
But in this case, they are doing the work of the Putin government to.
- [26:39]
B
Shut down the political opposition in Russia.
- [26:44]
A
That is how it has worked. And so for people inside the US who were somewhat surprised, angry, outraged, that Disney, a company that says it is about free expression, that owns a big news organization that does fund and release a lot of art and expression and comedy and criticism, people were surprised to see Disney do it. And that may be because they were thinking of US Disney or US Disney pre Maga, but Disney abroad, Disney in China, Disney in Russia, tech companies in Russia that might feel a little different. And for those following, it's not new. And there are artists who work with these companies, but have also spoken out because they've been concerned about the global effect on human rights and free expression. Take the famed director, writer Judd Apatow, who told us this. What I perceive as more chilling is a corporate type of censorship that people don't really notice, which is a lot of these giant corporate entities have business with, you know, countries around the world, Saudi Arabia or China, and they're just not going to criticize them, and they're not going to let their shows criticize them or they're not going to air documentaries that go deep into truthful areas because they just make so much money. Facts. Judd Apatow was saying that while working with some of those companies that, like Kimmel, is a type of intellectual fortitude to call it out. And his point there was subtle and had nothing to do with the current issues around MAGA. He was speaking back then 2020, about what he called that insidious type of expression corruption that you don't see the documentary, that it doesn't get made or it doesn't get streamed. And so the agenda of Saudi Arabia and China doesn't just work over there. We don't control and they have country autonomy, but that it affects us here as well, affects all of us. Now, Hollywood still talks a lot about free expression, artistic expression. The Motion Picture association Leader wrote in 2016, the First Amendment right to free speech undergirds all other right, whether it's confronting tyrants abroad, which is the subject right now that we're discussing, quote, or pushing the limits and buttons of our society's cultural understanding. Motion pictures and TV often dare to say the unspeakable. Hear, hear. That's Chris Dodd, the former senator, and he was representing Hollywood's interests. But Hollywood's interests morph depending on where they are, as I'm telling you. And so abroad, not so much. China is also now the largest movie market in the world. So a lot of films need to do some business there if they want to be global blockbusters. One producer saying studios might not even pursue an idea if they think it will make the Chinese government mad. That's that preemptive chilling effect inhibiting filmmakers from using any storyline that might offend Chinese officials. Number one, that's a problem. Number two, if Trump's FCC gets its way, the problem over there will be more of a problem here. Here's how one Disney executive put it. We're in the movie business and we're making movies that are designed to be seen by an appreciative, hopefully audience that will enjoy our movie. We're not, we don't wish to be political. And to get dragged into a political discussion, I would argue is sort of inherently unfair. It's not what we do. We're not politicians. It's not what we do. We're not a governmental organization. We're making movies. It is unfair. But that dragging that China is doing and that other American politicians may want to do. Brendan Carr certainly sees his role in the government as deciding what's on your tv, even though he had a big loss. That dragging may be unavoidable if you are in a country where the government wants to control free expression in the companies, wants to grind down the opposition, not just the people who self identify as the opposition, but others who might just make art or even jokes that the government decides are over their line. And so some of these companies are understandably on the defense. Some, and I say this with all seriousness, are dealing with international law. And so when you operate over there, you generally have to comply with those laws. But there are still lines and tough questions because Disney could have said, well, we think this is what we got to do under what the FCC's current view of the law is. That was kind of where they started. But very quickly they found a different energy, which is maybe we could win this fight in court and it's not the law yet. Now, Netflix, widely respected companies, support a lot of arts, a lot of documentaries. They did pull one episode of Hasan Minaj's comedy show in 2019 under threat from Saudi Arabia, again, a legal threat, which said, well, they'd have to deal with that in that country. The comedian had raised questions about the infamous killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Now Disney is concerned about the government above. It was also concerned about some companies below, although it won that fight with the affiliates late last week. Legal consequences, though, from fighting with Donald Trump, from backing Kimmel's rights, this could play out further Here was what Kimmel said. I've had the opportunity to meet and spend time with comedians and talk show hosts from countries like Russia, countries in the Middle east who tell me they would get thrown in prison for making fun of those in power. And worse than being thrown in prison, they know how lucky we are here. Our freedom to speak is what they admire most about this country. The government threat to silence a comedian the president doesn't like is anti American. That's anti American. And I am so glad we have have some solidarity on that. There's plenty of talk about what is wrong with America. A lot of our politics, which have a negative, divisive hue, are about that and flying accusations. Let me tell you something positive to echo Jimmy Kimmel. We saw a lot of people agree on something that is right about America, free speech and free expression. But when they went to the multinationals, they didn't have 100% agreement. They had to rise up and fight to vindicate that First Amendment right which so many Americans across time, space and ideology have come to agree is the better way to do it. So as we think about what we learn from that playbook and what comes next at the intersection of constitutional law and culture, our nation turns again to Che Komondoori after this break. We're back with Che Komindoori, a political strategist, Obama veteran and noted film buff. Welcome. We walked through this history because the way that companies have cast these compromises, some would say surrenders abroad, is instructive. There are times where pressure domestically can work, other times where it seems they really do fold. How does that lens apply increasingly in America?
- [34:14]
C
Yeah, it should be a reminder to us that, you know, that capitalism doesn't really need democracy. It's probably a more profound question whether democracy needs capitalism. But historically, if you look at, like Singapore, if you look at Pinochet's regime in Chile, you have capitalist economies that did not require democracy. So it should come as no surprise to us that so many of our corporate CEOs have decided to kiss the ring and bend the knee at Mar a Lago. Now, one thing that people talk about when they talk about why so many of our elites are capitulating is they paint them like the cowardly lion from the wizard of Oz, where they are worried about their own bank accounts, their own corporate profits. They feel this is where the country is going, so they need to go in that direction. I would argue they're more like the flying monkeys that serve the wicked witch. I think a lot of these corporate CEOs are rather eager to serve Trump because they actually agree with him on a lot of these issues.
- [35:16]
A
Right up to a point. I mean, they wouldn't agree if Pinochet had soccer stadiums with all kinds of folks in there. It wasn't just political dissidents. There were some others. So they would agree up to the point that it hit them. A common theme in history. But your point is that when it comes to some of these issues, including how rowdy people might get on tv, full disclosure or not, we're on tv, but or how much tax and diversity policies are sort of curbed, that some of these folks are already closer in line to the edicts. Yeah.
- [35:51]
C
I mean, if you remember, there was a article in the Financial Times after Trump won where they interviewed a Wall street trader who said, now because Trump won, we all get to use the R word. And he cited some other profanities that were now he was being given permission to use. You saw the minute Trump won, Amazon rolled back. DEI Target did the same thing. And now, of course, as Christina Greer pointed out, they're facing this terrible boycott as a result of it. But all too much, these corporate CEOs were very eager to accept Trump, to accept Trump's edicts and to follow a lot of what he says. And I'm not saying Bob Iger was necessarily in this case, but I do believe there has to be some people on the Disney board who bought into that whole idea that Disney had gone too far left. A lot of those arguments were made. And I think there are a lot of people in our corporate class who agreed with them.
- [36:47]
A
Right. And you're, you're raising the hard, a hard question, as you often do, of what if that's the problem? And then even if you stipulate that they have editorial control without government pressure they can tack this way or that that premise that you're describing may be a little naive if they think it's going to stop after removing a couple people. There's not a lot of signs that the MAGA agenda, as described by Mr. Carr, Project 2025, which has a communication section, that it stops there. But we did want to kind of look at this and the multinational piece of it while they still are, as of now, subject to pressure inside the U.S. interesting stuff, Che. Thank you, sir. I'm going to fit in a break. When we come back, I have a special breakdown on why conservatives are losing another culture clash leading to sour MAGA grapes.
- [37:37]
F
Hey, everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called Where Everybody Knows your Name and we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms, and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to Where Everybody Knows yous Name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson. Sometimes, wherever you get your podcasts, you.
- [38:07]
A
Know who's surprisingly good with money. Greenlight Kids the other day, mine stopped to think about the ROI on a bag of chips. Seriously. From getting paid for doing chores around the house to saving up for concerts, Greenlight's teaching my kids how to handle their money.
- [38:22]
D
Greenlight your kids financial future with the number one family finance and safety app. Try Greenlight risk free@greenlight.com podcast.
- [38:32]
B
Ever felt defeated by cravings? You're not alone. Henry Meds is here to help support your weight management journey.
- [38:37]
E
Since I joined four months ago, I've lost 25 pounds and it has changed my life.
- [38:43]
B
Henry Med's personalized compounded GLP1 meds shipped to your door. Take back control with treatments designed to reduce appetite. Schedule a free online evaluation with a licensed provider@henrymeds.com audio and get $100 off your first month. Results may vary. Not all patients are eligible. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Consult a healthcare provider to determine if treatment is right for you.
- [39:06]
A
For all the ways people see sometimes different realities these days, there's a trend we know from politics to social media. Once a year, there's still a thing that more people share than any other viewing experience or event. That's the Super Bowl. It draws over 100 million viewers worldwide, and its pivotal halftime show is the most watched musical cultural experience that's shared by all of us here across the US and the world. Past iconic performances include Beyonce, Katy Perry, Prince, and these have kind of taken on a life of their own. So the announcement of the halftime performer becomes an event in itself. And for the coming 2026 show, many have been eyeing some of the big stars right now. Taylor, Ariana and Bad Bunny. Now, nobody knows who will play in the game next year, but now the news is in on who will play the halftime show. The NFL Going with a pretty obvious choice in terms of current popularity, the star Bad Bunny will headline NFL announcing that Sunday night.
- [40:12]
E
It's official, Puerto Rico's finest Bad Bunny will be the Apple music Super Bowl 60 halftime show in February on NBC. And Peacock Bad Bunny, he's a three.
- [40:21]
A
Time Grammy winner and the most streamed.
- [40:24]
E
Artist in the world.
- [40:27]
A
You heard it there, the most streamed artist in the world because in popularity, this is a no brainer. Bad Bunny's catalog is a hit for the US and global audience. One of the highest chart toppers alongside Taylor Swift. And in 2023 he even beat her with the most played album on Spotify. Worldwide, he has over 100 billion streams overall in reach. That's Beatles level and quality and taste. Well, we can't argue on that. That's up to everybody's decision. The music he makes is ripe for the dance floor kind of Latin themed reggae tone. It usually focuses on fun and emotion more than overtly partisan statements. But he has advocated for human rights and solidarity for Puerto Rico. He's addressed issues of exploitation and gentrification in his native island. And when a comic infamously called that island a floating island of garbage. At Trump's MSG rally last fall, you might remember Bad Bunny used his rather large platform to speak out. I was angry at the time because I was here in New York because yeah, I know he was a comedian, blah, blah, blah, blah. But that wasn't a stand up comedy show. It was supposed to be a political rally. I can understand that it's a joke, but there's people that doesn't understand that it's a joke. People that gonna feel disrespect and, and hurt. Like what people are going to feel hurt. A lot of people can relate to defending your own neighborhood island country, in his case Puerto Rico. But anything like that from blatant disrespect. Since Trump's victory, the singer also has said he would skip the US among the countries on his world tour to protest the ICE raids and mistreatment of people. So that's the person you're dealing with here. If you happen to know his music, you know that it's very popular and makes sense for the show. And if you happen to know him speaking out well, that's how he chose to use his voice. But some MAGA fans are still big mad reports of a right wing backlash greeting this news since it broke last night and a MAGA meltdown. And that could be a mostly kind of partisan online matter. We know there's a heck of a lot of fans of Bad Bunny way more than people posting protests. So this could be something for the right wingers who view things in a partisan lens. Prominent MAGA podcaster Benny Johnson says this is platforming a massive Trump hater, an anti ICE activist. And then he says the NFL is destructing year after year. Now, that's notable because Johnson is basically saying if he doesn't like something, it shouldn't necessarily be on air or be the super bowl choice. He was also the one who famously hosted the FCC chair with the same standard, wanting the government to move Kimmel off air. You can see the pattern here. They won the election, but in the areas where they may not be winning, if you want to call the free market pop culture space, that kind of competition, you get this kind of cancel vibe. MAGA outrage against cultural figures who use their free speech. I just made it this album with love and passion. Anything else? Love and passion. And when you do things with love and passion, everything is easier. Gracia. That is the actual spirit that is so popular. A little more words there for Bad Bunny. Just like the spirit on the dance floor that's ignited so much streaming and listening to his music around the world, which is not about division. A lot of it's about unity and fun and caring for each other. And the final piece that he stood up for his community against blatant disrespect. That doesn't make him a partisan warrior either. It seems that these people who are so political and so sensitive and so obsessed with canceling are often also the ones projecting when it comes to the super bowl and the halftime show. They may not have a safe space, but the culture is safe. They lost this one. We'll be right back. Bruce Springsteen just spoke at a premiere of a film about his life. After the movie, he took the stage and in our current climate, spoke about how he views America right now under Trump. We're living through these particularly dangerous times, seeing that America as battered as she feels right now, but for a lot of folks out there, she continues to be a land of hope and dreams, not of fear or divisiveness or government censorship or hatred that America is worth fighting for. Springsteen speaking about what's worth fighting for. And after he finished those remarks, he played his song Land of Hope and Dreams. That sentiment gets our final word tonight.
- [45:42]
G
Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three, and if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx, nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest, and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Ripa now. Wherever you get your podcasts.