Kevin O’Leary and Matt Taibbi on Power, Money, and What’s Breaking America

Summary

---

The Chris Cuomo Project

Episode: Kevin O’Leary and Matt Taibbi on Power, Money, and What’s Breaking America
Date: February 8, 2026
Host: Chris Cuomo
Guests: Kevin O’Leary (entrepreneur, investor), Matt Taibbi (independent journalist)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the forces shaping – and breaking – America: economic realities, political division, the fractured media landscape, and the erosion of public trust in power. Chris Cuomo leads candid conversations with Kevin O’Leary about the “K-shaped” economy, wealth dynamics, and policy versus politics. Later, Matt Taibbi joins to discuss the growing peril for American journalism, legal overreach, digital algorithms, and America’s political instability. The show is punctuated by impassioned listener calls, all in Cuomo's signature sharp, irreverent tone.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The “K-Shaped” Economy & Entrepreneurship in America

With Kevin O’Leary (00:52–13:33)

• Definition & Stakes of K-shaped Economy

  • Economy recovery is split: those at the top benefit (prong up), while the majority lag behind (prong down).
  • O’Leary credits entrepreneurship as America's engine:

    “The number one export of America is not energy or technology. It’s the American dream.” (02:35, Kevin O’Leary)

• Tariffs and Small Businesses

  • Tariffs intended for negotiation (reciprocal trade) devolved into punitive measures (“tariff warfare”), especially under the Trump administration.

    “When you tariff something you don’t have…you’ve just made the cost of food go up.” (05:22, O’Leary)

  • Small businesses, most vulnerable to tariffs, are getting “crushed,” contradicting pro-small business political rhetoric.

• Top Problems Facing Policy and Politics

  • O’Leary identifies affordability and healthcare as major obstacles for the administration:

    “The concept of affordability, number one… and the other 50% health care. These are the two issues [the President] faces.” (07:00, O’Leary)

• Stock Market vs. Real-World America

  • S&P 500 “all-time highs” mask deeper inequality, as only a minority of Americans benefit from investments and most returns are concentrated in a few AI-led companies.
  • O’Leary advocates for policy incentives for wealth and corporate behavior, not punitive taxes.

• Corporate Taxes and Worker Pay

  • Debate between taxing corporations vs. individuals; O’Leary claims:

    “We shouldn’t tax corporations at all. We should tax the people that work for them in a fair and graduated basis.” (12:20, O’Leary)

  • Cuomo pushes back: worker productivity gains aren’t matched by pay, changing the lived American experience.

---

2. Journalism, Free Speech & Government Overreach

With Matt Taibbi (16:45–30:00)

• Who Is a Journalist? Legal Lines Blur

  • Cuomo and Taibbi debate the arrest of Don Lemon under the FACE Act for following protesters into a church.

    “Journalists don’t have particularly special rights under the law. We all have First Amendment rights…It’s just that journalists practice them more.” (19:20, Taibbi)

  • Taibbi: “I don’t like the indictment… using the FACE Act. I think that’s heavy-handed.” (18:08)

• Precedent & Peril for Press Freedom

  • When the law is used aggressively against journalists, it signals wider erosion of free expression.
  • Taibbi, with experience in authoritarian states:

    “Having lived in a country under Putin and Yeltsin…once you start going down that road… it tends to accelerate quickly.” (23:09, Taibbi)

• America’s Political and Social Instability

  • Taibbi sees the country’s current tension as comparable only to the Civil War era:

    “I think this is as tense and unstable a moment as we’ve had… We’re heading toward a completely new paradigm in American history, and I worry about it.” (23:58, Taibbi)

• The Media Algorithm and Civic Discourse

  • Cuomo outlines how platform algorithms now prioritize content designed to provoke (“enragement is engagement”), fragmenting audiences and radicalizing society.
  • Taibbi:

    “The algorithm has essentially splintered the entire population into these little pockets of ever increasing radicalization, hostility, anger… It’s extremely dangerous.” (28:11, Taibbi)

  • Both agree: algorithmic design—not just content—should be questioned.

• Solutions?

  • Taibbi is skeptical of government fixes, emphasizing the need for quality journalism that can compete for attention and foster unity.

---

3. Listener Calls: The State of Democracy, Voting & Political Power

(33:03–45:00)

• “Great Replacement” Theory and Illegal Voting

  • Caller Sean repeats the myth that non-citizens vote illegally; Cuomo firmly rebuts:

    “Every time they review this…there are…de minimis [cases]; they would never swing an election… this is a boogeyman. It’s not a real thing.” (33:35, Cuomo)

• Voter ID and Participation

  • Cuomo acknowledges majority support for voter ID, but warns:

    “You’re going to have fewer people voting… the right is always in favor of what will make fewer people vote.” (34:54, Cuomo)

• Primary Reform and Ranked Choice Voting

  • Callers and Cuomo align in support of open primaries and ranked-choice, noting it would “get rid of the AOCs and MTGs” (35:36-35:44)—pushing back against party extremes.

• Media, Rhetoric & Political Escalation

  • Cuomo describes a headline accusing him of “threatening” Scott Jennings (conservative commentator):

    “What I said…was not a threat. It was a warning. You keep using this incendiary language, and you are asking for people to be violent.” (36:54, Cuomo)

  • Political and media players escalate for audience and leverage, not solutions.

• Journalists and Standards

  • Caller Phil questions if journalists should be in risky situations; Cuomo responds:

    “Of course journalists go into places where illegal activity is happening… This context we’ve never seen before.” (39:11, Cuomo)

  • Distinctions between Don Lemon and Georgia Ford cases: Ford “was doing the job a different way… she made better choices inside and was punished for them anyway.” (41:49, Cuomo)

• Government Power and the Cycle of Coercion

  • Caller Alec:

    “Every problem…comes back to… the coercive behavior of government.” (42:27, Alec)

  • Cuomo: The binary, zero-sum, “trip not run faster” approach dominates politics. Both parties leverage the system for confrontation, not consensus.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

(All timestamps in MM:SS format)

• “The American dream is our number one export.”
  — Kevin O’Leary (02:35)

• “When you tariff something you don’t have…you’ve just made the cost of food go up.”
  — Kevin O’Leary (05:22)

• “The concept of affordability, number one… and the other 50% healthcare. These are the two issues [the President] faces.”
  — Kevin O’Leary (07:00)

• “We shouldn’t tax corporations at all. We should tax the people that work for them in a fair and graduated basis.”
  — Kevin O’Leary (12:20)

• “Journalists don’t have particularly special rights under the law. We all have First Amendment rights…It’s just that journalists practice them more.”
  — Matt Taibbi (19:20)

• “It’s a very steep, slippery slope…once you start going down that road… it tends to accelerate quickly.”
  — Matt Taibbi (23:09)

• “I think this is as tense and unstable a moment as we’ve had… We’re heading toward a completely new paradigm in American history, and I worry about it.”
  — Matt Taibbi (23:58)

• “Enragement is engagement, and that’s where people want their ads.”
  — Chris Cuomo (27:00)

• “The algorithm has essentially splintered the entire population into these little pockets of ever increasing radicalization, hostility, anger… It’s extremely dangerous.”
  — Matt Taibbi (28:11)

• “Every time they review this… there are… de minimis [cases]; they would never swing an election… this is a boogeyman. It’s not a real thing.”
  — Chris Cuomo (33:35)

• “It’s not about provocation. It’s about conversation.”
  — Chris Cuomo (45:00 closing comments)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:52–13:33 Kevin O’Leary: The K-shaped economy, tariffs, policy vs. politics, and the American dream
• 16:45–30:00 Matt Taibbi: Free speech, journalism on trial, algorithmic media, risk of political fracture
• 33:03–45:00 Listener calls: Voting myths, primary reform, journalistic standards, government coercion
• 36:54–38:37 Cuomo rebuts claims of threatening language and outlines dangers of media escalation

---

Tone and Style

• Direct, irreverent, occasionally combative, intellectually rigorous.
• Clear distinction between opinion and fact, with emphasis on open conversation and the responsibility of both power and the press.

---

Summary Conclusion

This episode offers a raw and illuminating look at America’s divides—economic, political, and informational. O’Leary and Cuomo confront the hard data on economic disparity and the policies behind them. Taibbi takes the gloves off about state power against journalists and the existential threat posed by algorithmic radicalization. Listener interaction hammers home the lingering distrust, belief in myths, and yearning for reforms. Throughout, Cuomo steers the dialogue with passion for rigor, fairness, and genuine debate—not performative polemic.

“It’s not about provocation. It’s about conversation. That’s what we’re getting after here.” (45:00, Cuomo)

---

Transcript

[A]

Ever feel like your brain just won't click? Onnit Alpha Brain is a daily supplement engineered to support memory, focus and mental speed. Made with science backed ingredients, Onnit Alpha Brain helps you lock in, tune out distractions and stay sharp. See what your brain can really do. Visit onnit.com and shop Alpha Brain to unlock your next level. That's O N N I T.com Talking about the economic realities here in America, what matters and why people should believe that the Trump administration may be doing the right things for the many instead of the few. Which I don't agree with. But it's not about what I think, it's about what we know. Kevin o' Leary joins me. You know him, one of Dusty's favorite people, Mr. Wonderful from Shark Tank. It's good to have you friend.

[B]

Great to be here.

[A]

Thank you very much for taking the time and the opportunity. How do you see I was making the case before you came on that all of this division and clickbait is distracting us from economic data that just came out again to reinforce the idea that America is struggling against a K shaped economy, which you of course know what that is. But for the folks getting where they got to be this morning, just a quick reminder, K shaped looks like the letter K. One prong going up is the few, the top doing better on the curve and the many lagging behind. How do you see it?

[B]

Well, we've always had economic disparity for 200 years in America as a democracy because the economy is built on the fundamental engine of entrepreneurship. The idea that one third of the population creates the jobs for the other two thirds is a proven model. Not everybody can be an entrepreneur, not everybody should try and become one. But the ones that do create companies, some of them become behemoths. You know, talk about SpaceX merger with XAI. That's a big deal. That's an entrepreneur named Elon Musk. Everybody knows who he is. But the majority of jobs in America are created by companies between 5 and 500 employees. And so that is 64% of job creation when you add in the use of supply chains because they work with giant companies like Amazon to move their packages around. It accounts for 72% of jobs. And so America is really fueled by men and women that have the, you know, what's to get out there and risk everything to start a business. Now you're talking about a theory that would have people hold that against them. And this is where I come out and say this has nothing to do with politics. The fundamental engine of success of the entire most successful economy on earth is that man or woman that creates something from nothing to ever touch that, to ever mess with it, to ever try and change it, is a huge mistake. Because the number one export of America is not energy or technology. It's the American dream. I don't see people drowning themselves trying to get into North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China. They all want to come to America where you balance entrepreneurship with freedom. That's it, my friend. That's the best speech you've heard all morning.

[A]

It's also the only one. But let me ask you this, Kev. How do you square what you're saying or reconcile it with what I keep saying, seeing in the data, unless you can tell me I'm seeing it wrong, that the tariffs have been crushing exactly what you're talking about. Small businesses, the heart, the dream in America, that they are not as resilient cuz they don't have the pockets of the big shots. And the data keeps showing that small businesses have been getting crushed by these tariffs. And isn't that the group that Trump said he was gonna help?

[B]

Yeah, you're bringing up a good point. So let's drill down on that. You know, I don't shill for politicians, I shill for policy. Politicians come and go. Policy has a lingering effect, either good or bad. And so let's talk about this tariff policy. The initial concept of tariffs originally back 50, 60, 80, 90 years ago, when they first put in place after the Second World War was reciprocal tariffs. In other words, if you're selling an American tire for a car in Switzerland, they whack it with a VAT tax, a value added tax of 8.3%. The Swiss government keeps that 8.3% that they added onto the American tire. And so back in those days, what would happen is the government here would say, well, if the Swiss are charging us 8.3, we'll just whack on a reciprocal tariff 8.3 and the entire economy's work just fine. Same with Australia, England, Canada, you name it. The those countries have value added taxes, VAT taxes. We don't have that here. We don't like value added taxes, consumption taxes. We do something called a tariff. Now when things went a little wonky is when this administration decided to use tariffs, as, let's call it tariff warfare, punitive tariffs, when they slammed on 50% tariffs onto Canada and Mexico for, remember that one? So right now those tariffs are sitting at 25% because there's a little bit of a poo poo match going on between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President United States. And that's just what I call negotiations. Same with Mexico. But here's the problem. When you tariff something you don't have, let's take potash fertilizer, it just happens for geological reasons. It's all sitting up in Canadian province called Saskatchewan. Now you don't have it and you're a farmer in North Dakota and you put a 25% tariff on potash. You've just made the cost of food go up that you're referencing, Chris. So what has to be done is a little fine tuning. Pineapples, bananas, we don't grow them. Why? Why? To put a tariff on them. Anything. Bauxite for aluminum. We don't have it, so why would we tariff it? That's the fine tuning that has to happen before midterms if you want to see all this inflated cost go down at the kitchen table. And I think that will happen because the administration has figured out just like you have that it is killing and hurting and putting the squeeze on small business.

[A]

If you could tell the president midterms are coming, this is what you need to do because the economy is going to be the narrative no matter how much you're trying to distract us from it. And he's done a pretty good job, to be honest. And of course we're helping him distract because the media jumps at every instigation. But what do you think the biggest problem is that he is going to own in the midterms?

[B]

The concept of affordability, number one, that's going to be about 50%. And the other 50% health care. These are the two issues he faces.

[A]

Role related.

[B]

Yeah, I mean they are related, there's no question about it. But pretty well he's got everything else under control. He can boast and the administration does it every day that they have created a remarkable market. It's near its all time highs, it's only 2% off the S&P 500 is a measure of the American economy. The engine of success, if you want to call it that, is at all time highs. And so, and that's multi sector, that's 11 sectors, so you can't criticize that. But affordability and healthcare interrelated, as you pointed out, are the big issues. So he knows that his whole administration knows that they're going to have to get to work on it or they'll lose the House. It's that simple. And they're not stupid. Everybody that's counted out, Trump Listen, I'm not an advocate, you know, for people say, oh, you're Maga. I'm not Maga. I'm Policy Guy. I'm a Policy Guy, 100%. I'm very fortunate, policy guy because I get to walk on the Hill, go to Washington. Everybody takes my meeting because they want a picture for their kids with the Shark Tank guy. And they know I create jobs. I create blue jobs, red jobs, I create jobs. I got 52 investments in small entrepreneurial companies that create jobs. I do set aside to wireless charging to greeting cards. You name it, I do it all. So the point is, for me, what's going to happen next is this administration is going to focus on affordability and health care. Watch it happen.

[A]

Well, I hope so. Of course, it gets really tricky because it doesn't get tricky, it gets tricky because they're gonna have to use tricks. Because to do it right means to take on the people that have the most power and get dictated to the least, which is the healthcare companies. Nobody has more money in the economy domestically, more jobs to provide more lobbying dollars. You know, so the, this is why they were able to get Congress to pass a law that they're not allowed to negotiate with them on drug prices, because that's what kind of sway they have. The only thing I want you to clarify for us, Kevin, I appreciate you being with us this morning on Sirius 124, the Potish Channel. You say the S&P 500. Can't argue with that. Well, here's the argument. It ain't 500. You are almost umbilically tied to AI now in the form of about seven companies that are almost, almost half of the S P return.

[B]

You're right. We have concentration in tech, but that's always been the case. They're the fastest growing companies, the fastest growing earnings with the most potential. So you have big swings in what is valued at any one time in the s and P500. But here's why I'm right. If you took $10,000 25 years ago and you just stuck it into the s and P500 and you never touched.

[A]

It, I got it.

[B]

You could retire now. You don't care which companies in any one.

[A]

No, I agree, I agree. I mean, I'm just doing it in terms of policy emphasis. It's very hard with you.

[B]

Yeah. So I mean, you know, I look at it and say that's what I do. You know, I don't pick individual, individual stocks. I, I own the indices and, you know, I learned my lesson. A long time ago. Stock picking is very hard.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Everybody tries it, everybody gets slaughtered. And then you figure it out. Just stick it in the S and P, don't worry about it. And that's how it works. And I'm very happy with the outcome. I'm very happy.

[A]

Yeah, no, no, I get it, I get it. It's just, you know, the investor economy is very selective. Right. You only have about 40% of the Americans that are in it. And even that's a generous number.

[B]

Give Trump some credit on that thousand dollar birth kid deal he just put out the Trump account. Everybody was poo pooing on it. I love that idea. And I, Michael Dell, I sat beside him, he put in 6.2.

[A]

I know, I like that part. I like that part.

[B]

Criticism where these rich guys don't give back is complete bs. Look at what Warren Buffett did and look at what Dell is doing. You know, these people out of California, we chase them out of the United States with these crazy taxes. They create all the wealth and they give it all back. What are we stupid?

[A]

Well, I don't know that they give it all back, but those two guys have done a very nice thing and so have other guys. And I do think that should be encouraged. I think most of how we treat the wealthy should be an incentive structure. And by that I mean on the corporate side, as you know, Kev. But as most of you should know, also the biggest tax break that corporations get under domestic law is on health benefits. They get a dollar for dollar deduction. You know, you want to deal with health care costs, put a cap on there, on what gets deducted for the corporation that, you know, you're going to get your deduction dollar for dollar up to this. And it's going to be a formula based on how many people you have working for you. And then they'll start negotiating differently. If you were to say to them, if your workers make a certain percentage of your productivity, this is your tax rate. If they make less than this percentage, this is your tax rate. That's just a choice. And you can say, yeah, but that would slow down the corporations. Well, you know, corporations are doing great. The people who work for them are not doing anywhere nearly as well. Something that's got to be addressed how, Chris? Hold on.

[B]

The corporations hire all the people they provide the incomes for the, for them to raise their family.

[A]

I know.

[B]

My view is we shouldn't tax corporations at all. We should tax the people that work for them in a fair and graduated basis. You know, it's ridiculous.

[A]

You don't pay them enough.

[B]

Well, I'm happy to pay them more. I let the market be the market. You know, I have all these companies that are trying to figure out how to make a profit for their shareholders and take care of their customers and take care of their employees. And it all works together in a wonderful economy, an entrepreneurial economy that's worked for 200 years. Anytime people criticize the American dream, I go out of my mind. And I always say, show me where you want to live.

[A]

Well, that's different. That's. Well, I lot of this world is broke because it's basically an extension of a feudal system. What I'm saying is the American experience is. Has changed for the many. And the reason for that is the difference in pay and productivity. And it was a choice structure, and it's still a choice structure. I got to go. I got to go. I got to go to a break. But Kevin, you've been really generous with your time, and I appreciate your arguments and your intelligence and your acumen and your flair. So thank you for bringing it to us here this anytime.

[B]

Chris enjoyed it immensely. Thank you.

[A]

You like that? Taste of Cuomo Mornings. That's my new show on Sirius XM, the Potish Channel 124 every weekday morning, 7 to 9 Eastern. But if you want to just join here on my YouTube channel, you'll be getting a steady diet of selects. And depending on your subscription level, you can have priority call in on that show. You can have more access to me to ask questions, smaller groups, individual conversations about what matters to you. It's all about your level of subscriber. So on the regular basis, we'll be putting excerpts of the show that resonate right here. And how much access you get is up to you. So check out the menu and make the choice that works best for your appetite. Support comes from Select Quote. Look, if you're going to be responsible, you got to see it all the way through. And once you've got responsibilities, once you're in the family way, once you're in the kiddie game, you gotta take care of people beyond yourself. And what does that mean? It means you gotta get insurance for yourself. Oh, what a bear. Don't know how to do it. So expensive. Don't need it now. Well, I'll tell you why. You get it now. You get it now because it's never gonna be cheaper than it is right now. Select Quote has been one of the most trusted brokers in insurance, helped over 2 million Americans been doing it 40 years. The mission is simple. Just find you the right insurance policy for your unique needs. They shop, you save. All right, how's that different? Because a lot of people use one size fit. All right life insurance companies where you just got to fit into what it is that they have. Select quote has licensed agents that work only for you. They can do it fast. They get it down to about 15 minutes to figure out what works for you with your health, your budget and they work for you for free. Remember that they're not paid on the come, they're paid a salary and like hey, I don't want to do the medical exam. I'm young, I'm strong. Great. They have providers that offer the same day coverage up to $2 million without needing a doctor's visit. I'm on the opposite end. I got the high blood pressure, I got diabetes, I got heart disease. Selectquote has partners that works with all of those pre existing health conditions. So go to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent is going to call you right away with with the right policy for your life and your budget. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50%. Just go to selectquote.com Chris C. Yeah, that's right. I said save more than 50% on term life [e-mail] Chris C. Today. SelectQuote.com Chris C. One word.

[B]

Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.

[C]

What do you have to lose?

[B]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time.

[A]

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms. Let's talk to somebody who understands this so well because he is an independent journalist and this is what independent journalism is supposed to be. And this is why I'm a Matt Taibbi fan. Because he's got his team, he's got money, he's got resources and you need them. You can't be a one man band who just gives hot takes. Okay, that's not enough. But if you are doing that. Are you a journalist? Yeah. Why? Because we don't have a Litmus test. We don't have a standard, we don't have a license. If someone says they're a journalist and they're putting out information, and the counter argument that, okay, I'm gonna rob a bank and then say I'm a journalist. What the. Who taught you logic? That's not what this is. This is that Don Lemon was in there. He said he's a reporter. He was doing reporting. Everybody sees what he does. This is a pattern of conduct. You may not like it. It may be bad practice. I would not have made the same choices. It does not mean he's not a journalist. It could mean he's a bad journalist in this instance. Matt Taibbi, do you agree or disagree? And why? My brother.

[D]

I think it's irrelevant whether or not he's. First of all, hi, Chris, how's it going?

[A]

How are you doing?

[D]

I don't think. I don't think it matters whether or not he's a journalist in this instance. But I don't like the indictment of him on the Using the Face Act. I think that's heavy handed. And he probably, for the reasons that you pointed out, doesn't qualify, or his actions shouldn't have triggered the law for the reasons that you cited. You know, on the other hand, it's not good practice, as you point out.

[C]

Right.

[D]

Like when people wouldn't have done an exercise of free speech. Yeah. I mean, like I couldn't barge into private property and stick a microphone in someone's face and call that journalism. No matter whether I was following the crowd of people or not, it's still not typical practice. Right. But arresting is too much and it sends a signal that journalists are at risk. And I'm not a fan of that action.

[A]

When you say, matt, I don't think it matters if he's a journalist, what distinction are you making?

[D]

Well, the fact is, in the law, the law doesn't really make a distinction about whether or not you're a journalist. Journalists don't have particularly special rights under the law. We all have First Amendment rights. Journalists just happen to be the ones who practice them more than other people. And when there is state action against journalists, it's usually an indicator that.

[C]

First.

[D]

Amendment rights in particular are under siege. The one thing that the law does speak about with the press is the freedom of the press. And that just involves the question of whether or not the government has the right to restrict or establish a state organ. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not he violated this Law, which I can't stand anyway. But, you know, it's a hard question, right? Because on the one hand, we don't like to think of journalists going into a church service and bothering people. And it's the kind of thing that has made us unpopular in the last 20 years or so. But it's also not the kind of thing you should go to jail for 11 years for.

[A]

Right. Listen, I'm with you on it. And again, the reason I keep bringing up Georgia Ford is that, you know, the indictment is so thin and I think, you know, by design, to be honest. But. And also I believe that, you know, I, I did. Somebody checked me on something and they were right to do it once I took time to think about it, which is I say, wow, man, I do not want the federal government coming after me. They got like a 93 conviction conviction rate. And 90 plus percent of those convictions come because people plead guilty. Yeah. That was true before this administration and frankly before the Biden administration, because they are now politicizing their. This lawfare thing is real and it cheapens cases. And that's why cases like the one against Comey are going to go away. Because it's not a typical federal prosecution. They're not coming at people with the certitude and the depth that they usually do. And Don Lemon is confusing what I think should be a really basic analysis. And Matt Taibbi just dropped a truth bomb on you guys, which is journalists don't have special free speech. It we are just manifestations of free speech. We just do it a lot more. But it is the same right that every US citizen has. And that's why it's so scary when they mess with it and don't is masking the issue. Why? Because he's easy to hate. For a lot of people in politics, you don't like that he makes it about himself. You don't like that he says the news is not the information, it's the person giving it to you. They are the news. I get that. That can you off. It doesn't mean that you want to see him punished for being for exercising his free speech. That's why I focus on Georgia Ford. You don't even know what she did there. And the more you look into it, the more frightening it is because she did nothing, even compared to Don. What do you think of that, Matt?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, again, the face act, even if we recognize the face act as something legitimate that could be used against, you know, reporters or people who are not actively protesting it has a lot of pretty specific requirements. Right. That don't come into play with most of the people who went in there. Now, when somebody asks you to leave private property and you don't leave, then, you know, that triggers it. Right.

[C]

But that.

[D]

But as I understand, it wasn't the situation with either Don or Georgia, and. Yeah. So the whole thing makes me uncomfortable. And again, and having lived in a, you know, a country under Putin and Yeltsin where, you know, they were steadily finding ways to imprison or even institutionalized journalists, it's a. It's a very steep, slippery slope. Like, once you start going down that road, and we started doing it before the Trump administration, it's. It tends to accelerate, and it tends to accelerate quickly.

[A]

You know, I haven't checked in with you in a minute. How do you think we're doing in the country right now? What are you thinking about the political state of play?

[D]

I think it's horrible. I think this is as. As tense and unstable a moment as we've had, certainly in my lifetime. You know, and just going by the history books, I. I can't think of a moment other than, you know, the Lincoln presidency and the years of years leading up to it, where there's been this much ongoing tension and dispute about the legitimacy of governments. We don't know whether the federal government has authority in certain parts of the country, and we don't know whether state governments have authority in certain parts of the country.

[C]

It's.

[D]

That's unprecedented in my lifetime. I don't know about your experience, but I think this is. We're heading toward a completely new paradigm in American history, and I worry about it. You know, I think Americans are just. Aren't experienced in the area of political instability and don't know how horrible it can be and don't value it enough. And that. That worries me quite a lot.

[A]

What is your biggest boogeyman right now? What are you worried about most happening?

[D]

Well, I mean, the Trump administration is determined to execute this ICE policy, and they have an opposition that I think is heavily incentivized to create these sort of episodes where there are clashes between protesters and the administration. And what I'm not seeing anywhere is any effort by any politician to sit down and kind of negotiate a, you know, a more peaceful resolution to the situation. It seems like everybody's incentivized to make things more radicalized and unstable and worse. And that's what worries me the most, is just the complete absence of leadership in the direction of normalizing and stabilizing the country. I don't see that anywhere.

[A]

Look, to me, we are in a phase, okay, of where the influences on us are out of control. And I believe that there are. Obviously, it's always multifactor, but the algorithms have changed the game. The game has always been it bleeds, it leads. Headlines are provocative. Negativity is a proxy for insight. The media news business is a contradiction in terms, but now a necessity. And there are compromises, et cetera, et cetera, which is why guys like you have always distinguished yourselves so. Quality over quantity. But we've never dealt with anything like the algorithm, which is where the most powerful media platforms, by design, which they put right in your face, they tell you, we design it to deliver you the worst version of yourselves. To provoke, to enrage. Enragement is engagement. And that's where people want their ads. So even if they're not doing the enraging, they want the enraging because that gives them the reach. And I do not believe in censorship, obviously. I believe in the marketplace of ideas to a fault, obviously. But. But. But I do believe that the design of the algorithms should be in question for regulation. And that's what we're seeing in France, by the way, they just raided those Twitter offices. Not just about Grok with the nudies, but abuse of the algorithms. Now, I get that that is scary on a level of messing with media, but I don't think these guys should be getting the pass they're getting because of section 230 in the Internet Act. What do you think?

[D]

Yeah, I'm not. I'm not a fan of government solutions to those things. I just don't think that we've come up with. We've found a way to make a better form of media profitable and desirable. And I, you know, that's a failure on the part of people like me, like, you know, independent journalists. I think we. We've got to come up with something that delivers higher quality investigative reporting and journalism and does it faster and does it in a way that. That engages, or tries to engage the whole audience. Because what. What's going on now? You're exactly right. The algorithm has essentially splintered the entire population and atomized it into these little pockets of ever increasing radicalization, hostility, anger, and it's telling people to view people who live in other worlds as not entirely human. And that is extremely dangerous. Yeah.

[A]

Hey, Matt, you know what? I've decided I gotta spend more time with you, man. I gotta talk to you more. I gotta have you on more. I mean, because you know what? I'm not doing what I say is the solution, which is to reward people who do it right. I'm not doing it enough. So I apologize for the past and in advance for not sticking to my word because I'm a hypocrite. But I appreciate you. I love your work. People should go to your sub stack, Matt. Remind people where do they get what you do?

[D]

Racket News is where you can find us.

[C]

But thanks.

[D]

Thank you so much, Chris. That's very kind of you to say. I'm always happy to come on and, you know, keep it, keep it up. You're doing God's work.

[A]

Listen, I am just trying to help. This is your world. You are going to be part of the influence that matters. And I am just here to support people who are doing it right. And you are do it right. Thank you for joining us on serious 124. You're always welcome wherever I am. Appreciate you. Matt Taibbi, ladies and gentlemen, Racket News. Check it out. Why? There's rigor. He does not have an agenda other than exposing agendas. And he does it really well. Support comes from Quince. Quince is a fruit and it's also a pretty cool jelly that sometimes people serve with cheese. But here's what you need to know. Quince is how you get your wardrobe game up. It's all about pieces that work well together, right? Things that are made with quality, that hold up over time. That's what Quince does best. Premium materials, thoughtful design and everyday staples that feel easy to wear, easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. Okay. Quince works directly with top factory. So they cut out the middlemen. So you're just paying, you know, you're not paying for that brand markup, just quality clothing. Everything's built to hold up. You can wear it every day, still look good season after season. Plus, they only partner with factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. I think that's really important. You know, the clothes they make, it's high quality stuff and they keep the cost down by doing it direct. And that is very cool to me. I like businesses that figure out a better way to get you what you know you can get otherwise. So refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com cuomo and you'll get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. You can also get it in Canada now as well. That's quince.com Cuomo you'll get free shipping. You'll get 365 day returns. Quince.com Cuomo you'll get quality clothes for less. Why wouldn't you do it? Let's get after it. Time is valuable. That's why Lowes blueprint takeoffs turn blueprints into quotes faster. Bring us your plans and we'll generate itemized material lists to make quoting easier so you can get back to Building Plus. At the Lowes Pro desk, you get access to thousands of building materials not sold in stores. And when your order is ready, we'll deliver everything to the job site. Improving is easy at Lowe's. 866-967-6887 I said the idea that the president wants to review Georgia because the illegals voted and swung the election and that's why the left wants them here is known as the Great Replacement Theory. And I believe it to be bullshit. Sean from Florida does not. What do you got, brother?

[C]

All right, so I really wanted this T shirt, so I wanted to make sure I called and everything ready for you. You ever watch Key and Peel?

[A]

Yep.

[C]

Okay, so best way for an illegal to be able to vote, they get their green card, wait approximately five years, go through the naturalization form, the N400 form, get their naturalization for it takes about another eight months. And then after they finish their naturalization process and get their certificate, apply for the ability to vote. It's foolproof.

[A]

First of all, I've heard this many times. Very, very few people go through this process. Second, they have done a specific review of those present in the country that way, and they don't vote. So every time they review this, are there cases? You'll absolutely find me cases. I'm not saying you won't find cases, but they are de minimis, which means they would never swing an election. The only thing that clouds this analysis is not national, is not federal, is not even state. Some localities allow people who aren't here as residents legally to vote. But that is not what we're talking about. And what you're talking about is is a can, but is not a do, meaning it's not a real thing in terms of there being a lot of people now, the pushback on your side. And again, this argument I'm very familiar with is, well, you don't know. We don't look. Yes, they do, which is why I knew what you were talking about. And you do not have an estimable number, you know, a significant number of people who are doing that. This is a boogeyman. It's not a real thing. A real Thing is, what happens when you do voter id, which I think people are going to want. I think the majority wants it. I think it's going to happen. I get the policy arguments against it. Why? Because there is no chance that it doesn't benefit the right. And not because. Yeah, because if you only have legal people voting, they win. No, because you're going to have fewer people voting. And it is no coincidence that the right is always in favor. What will make of what will make fewer people vote? I don't think it's a coincidence. James, in Georgia, your state, man, your state is under the microscope again. What do you got?

[D]

Well, there's two things we need to go to. Open, open primaries where it's the top four advanced to the general for ranked choice.

[A]

Agreed. Agreed. Next.

[C]

AOCs.

[D]

That gets rid of the AOCs and the MGT MTGs.

[A]

Yep.

[D]

Because you win a primary in a safe soil.

[A]

Yep. Yep. Ranked choice. I'm with you.

[C]

Next shoot in and. And you need to bring them in and you can bring in Catherine Gale to talk about it.

[A]

Okay. I'm good with it. I like it. I dig it. I'm about it. I've been talking about it. Andrew Yang, also big proponent of it. Another example in real time of the manipulation of the algorithm that distracts, that divides and provokes. Okay. Ex CNN anchor, which although already is a to me is a triggering mechanism. Okay. Because I've been at News Nation for several years. How am I still ex cnn? You see what I'm saying? It's pejorative. Anyway. X CNN anchor Chris Cuomo threatens conservative commentator Scott Jennings with FAFO and street violence over use of illegal aliens on live tv. One, it wasn't illegal aliens. It was illegals. And second, I didn't threaten him. A threaten is where you suggest action against another that is used to intimidate. Okay, That's a threat. I didn't do that. I would not do that. I don't want to hurt Scott Jennings. What I said to Scott Jennings was not a threat. It was a warning. You keep using this incendiary language and you are asking for people to be violent. You are provoking. You are escalating with extremism. And he's. Because what did he do? So he's with this punk kid there who's kind of eating his lunch, right? Smart young Democrat. And the kid says, will you stop using the word illegal? You can't say that anymore. And so Jennings starts bullying him. What are you gonna do about it? What are you gonna do about it? How Are you gonna make me stop? How are you gonna enforce that? I don't even know you, brother. What are you gonna do? He was being, you know, he was punking the kid. Why? Because he's a little young guy and Jennings thinks that he has some kind of advantage. It wasn't about semantics. It wasn't about rhetoric. It wasn't about language. It wasn't about speech. It was about power. It was about bullying. And I said to him, hey, brother, you ain't a tough guy, okay? Scott Jennings is not a tough guy, all right? What he is is an opportunist. I remember this guy killing Trump. Now, he defends everything about him. Why? Opportunity. And it's working for him. Fine. That's how you get paid. But you keep escalating this way, there's going to be problems, and you're going to own some of the responsibility. What happened several days later, all these ICE protests are blowing up. I'm not blaming Scott Jennings, but this is what I was afraid of, and I'm still afraid of it. And I think it's still going to escalate and get worse. Okay, Alex Preddy is not the last one, and I don't like that. And I don't want to be right? So that's not a threat. See, but that's the way this bullshit item from a bullshit outlet called Purple Room Politics twists it to trigger the algorithm, because that's how you get paid. Phil in Pennsylvania, what do you got?

[C]

Good morning. Great show today. But I'm a little concerned. You seem to think that sort of journalists or independent journalists shouldn't put themselves sort of in media harm way. But how do you rectify that? For years, I've been hearing about, you know, oh, our news station goes where the story is. We're on the inside. I look at people embedded in a military situation so that we can see what's happening. Imagine if there was a journalist that was in Jonestown. You know, we just say, well, that person shouldn't have been there.

[A]

No, no, no. See, this is the interesting thing about it. This is the interesting thing, Phil. And I mean this even though, look, the situation bothers me, and I believe that what makes it interesting has made it confusing. We don't have any other example of this because it doesn't fit any of the other things you just said. Of course, journalists go into places where illegal activity is happening. Of course, of course. That's about access. That's about exposure. There's always been standards and practices. And you have, believe me, I'VE done it. I've embedded many different ways. I remember 25 years ago making the decision to show kids on the run doing heroin. And it was, well, do you really want to show them doing the drug? Are you encouraging it? Are you participating in a crime? And we think about this, we wrestle with it, we struggle with it as an industry. And that's why standards matter, and that's why being independent isn't necessarily better. But. But. But this context we've never seen before, for two reasons. One, Don Lemon made choices that most journalists wouldn't, which is to follow people who are going into a protected space to do something illegal because most organizations would say no. Talk to them about why they're doing it, cover it afterwards. Do not get mixed up in being perceived as someone making it happen. Don is okay with that. Why? One, I don't think he has the head for the analysis of what the law is and what the line is, and that's why he should benefit from a boss, but also because he loves to make himself the story. And in that motivation wound up being his mistake, in my opinion, because he made bad choices. I just don't think they're illegal choices. Okay. However, the Face act puts into conflict the two. Two of the different protections in the same amendment. Right freedom of worship and freedom of speech, which, of course, are interrelated not just in the amendment, but conceptually, and we've. We're not used to that. So the reason they were able to jam him up at all is because where he was doing this is also protected, and their speech in there is protected. So it's protection versus protection. So it's a little. It's a little confusing, and we're not used to that. And that's one reason that, uh, we've never seen this before. The other reason, as I said, is because Don made choices that most wouldn't make. And. Well, what about Georgia Ford? She made the same choices. No, she didn't. Um, she was in that place, but she was doing the job a different way than he was. And I think that's really important. And that's why I say Georgia Ford married matters more. Two reasons. One, Don Lemon is. Is absorbing all the energy. And look, we. Oh, yes, he loves it. Yes. Trump did him a huge favor. Yes, this is a big boost to his career. Yes. He's going to milk it. He doesn't even mention Georgia for it, which should tell you something. And she matters more than Don also, because she made better choices inside and was punished for them anyway. And that goes to this administration, deciding who's a journalist, and I think that's really, really dangerous. Alec in New Jersey, what do you got?

[C]

Don't hang up on me a third time, okay?

[A]

I'll hang up on your ass.

[C]

What'd you say that?

[A]

Go ahead.

[C]

What. What I will say is this. Every single problem that we are having and that you're discussing in great detail ultimately comes back to one thing that very few people if. If any really discuss, and it is the coercion, the coercive behavior of government. Government in general behaves through coercion. We don't have a legal recourse to get out from under their actions. Right. We have to pay taxes or we go to jail. They can decide what we pay taxes on. It could be something that you're morally incredibly opposed to and you're still legally forced to pay for it. That doesn't make it moral. And to quickly finish the thought, when one group coerces in one direction and then the other group comes into political power and they coerce in the opposite and equal direction, it starts to get out of control. And I'll tell you, I am a Trump voter because I can't stand the status quo and the establishment. But there are things right from the beginning that I haven't been on par with with him, and I continue to not be on par with. But, you know, and I see it, he's going equal and opposite. He's very. He's got a lot of bravado. He doesn't give up. If he had had a primetime national address when Renee Goode was shot and called out the fact that Walls and Frey are refusing to cooperate, which I think is a big part of the problem, this may have gone very differently.

[A]

But he didn't want it to go differently. See, the reason he sent ICE in there wasn't fraud. And look, people got to get their hands around this. Nick Shirley did not expose new fraud. Okay? And here's why I say that the state investigated the places he went to. Oh, the state's lying. Okay? The feds are investigating them. They have come up with nothing. Okay, so is there fraud there? Yes, there's fraud everywhere. But is there fraud specifically in the places he went to? Yes, but not of a criminal nature. It's not me saying that. It's the state saying it. And if you find out differently, that's great. Oh, but what do you mean? It was the biggest ever. You're talking about the COVID era scams, and there was a huge one in Minnesota. Shame on walls, shame on Minnesota, shame on everybody who was part of it. And it was prosecuted by the feds in 2022. Now, you are correct. Fry the mayor, Walls the governor are enforcing the sanctuary city, overextending it and pushing back to Trump in rhetoric and in, in my opinion, unreasonable restriction. However, Trump didn't want to negotiate it before. He wanted the smoke. He wanted the conflict because it works for him. Because of exactly what you said. The binary nature of the other side is worse. Zero sum means I only win by making you lose. If you and I are going to run a race, what is the easiest way for me to win? Not to run faster than you, to trip you is the easiest way for me to win. And that sums up our politics. Which and what and who is are worse. And that's what Trump is doing. Is he doing other things, too? Yes, but that's what got us into this ice situation and that's what is getting us out of the ice situation. Is it getting too hot? Trump having to own it, not liking it, and now backing off? And now the mistake is for the left to see that as surrender and call it that because you're just going to repeat the cycle. The best measure of where we are as a society is hearing from other members of that society in conversation. That has some cogency to it, some intelligence, not just, what do you think about Greenland? It's not about provocation. Okay. It's about conversation. That's what we're getting after here on the YouTube channel for the Chris Cuomo project on News Nation, where I'm doing my cable show and. And SiriusXM Potish Channel 124 for Cuomo in the mornings. Bon appetit.