The Young Turks - Admitted Ignorance

Episode Date: March 23, 2023

New data shows that the soil of East Palestine contains dioxin levels hundreds of times greater than the exposure threshold that constitutes a serious cancer risk. SoFi CEO Anthony Noto on suing over student-loan payment pause: "I’m also protecting our shareholders." National Republicans are looking for Senate candidates who are filthy rich. Republican Congressman proudly admits he doesn't know the difference between abortion & plan B. Fox producer says she was set up in Dominion case: Abby Grossberg said in a pair of lawsuits that the effort to place blame on her and Maria Bartiromo, the Fox Business host, was rooted in rampant misogyny and discrimination at the company. HOSTS: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited.

Sorry. Smurfs. Only theaters July 18th. Woo! It's dumb. What's up, What's up, everyone to TY, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. We've got Marcus directing the show.

We've got DJ Bart Kyle with the audio and all the fun sound plays. Thank you very much here. There we go. We got Ashwara, producing. We've got John, not John Adirola, a different John, okay, stage manager. Just want to give a shout out to all the people that make the show happen behind the scenes. Now I just wanted to encourage you guys to like and share the stream if you're watching us live on YouTube. You can also become a member by going to TYT.com.

It's going to be a show. We're going to have a show today. show today. I got to say there really isn't much that's firing me up, but I will say that Bernie Sanders is following through on his promise to hold hearings of greedy corporate executive. So we have a story on that a little later. John Ida Rolla will be joining me for the second hour. But I actually wanted to start off with a story, an update, if you will, on East Palestine, Ohio. As we all know, there was a massive train derailment there just last month. And And we kept hearing over and over again that that derailment, you know, everything's okay.

There are no toxic chemicals in the environment. Everyone can go home, everyone's safe, except not really the case. So let's get into it. Newly released data shows that the soil in East Palestine, Ohio, where a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials derailed contains dioxin levels that is hundreds of times above levels that the EPA says causes cancer, okay. Now, there is an issue here because apparently when it comes to the threshold of what is deemed acceptable dioxin levels by the federal government is far higher than what it should be. And when you look at certain states, they actually

have much stronger regulations that ensure that the levels of dioxin are much lower. We're going to get into that, that disconnect between federal government regulations and what some states are doing. But it's important to understand that unfortunately, Ohio is going along with the ridiculously high threshold that was implemented by the federal government, which I'll tell you the details of in just a moment. But first, what is dioxin? Why are we talking about dioxin right now? Well, dioxins are a class of chemicals that are the byproduct produced when chlorine is burned, which is a common industrial process in making products like PVC. The chemicals are highly persistent and can accumulate and stay for years in the environment or human bodies. They cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease, nervous system disorders, among other serious health problems.

Now, the federal threshold for dioxins is just too high. In fact, other states have way better regulations with far lower limits. So the Guardian wrote a pretty good piece on this to give you a sense of what the disconnect is between the federal government and states. The levels found in two soil samples are also up to 14 times higher than dioxin soil limits in some states and the numbers point to wider contamination. Okay, so at first the EPA resisted calls to test for dioxins in East Palestine, which is insane, because considering the fact that they did a controlled burn of vinyl chloride, that does end

up releasing dioxins into the environment. So later, the EPA is like, okay, fine, they want us to test, we're going to have Norfolk Southern. Okay, the rail company that owns the train that derailed. We're going to have them do the testing, which is ridiculous. I wouldn't trust them to do their own testing on it. I don't care who they contract to do the testing. You really do want to have an independent body to do this. And since the state of Indiana has a landfill dedicated to toxic materials, they're the ones that are essentially storing the toxic materials from the derailed tray now, there was a second party doing testing as well, and we have some of the results of those tests, okay? So it was conducted by a laboratory that is deemed

reputable, and through that testing, we know this. Now first, regulators establish the toxicity of dioxins in a soil sample by calculating the toxicity equivalence of all dioxins in the soil, compared with called 2378 TCDD, okay? The East Palestine soil showed levels of that toxicity equivalence at 700 parts per trillion. The level at which the EPA will initiate cleanup action in residential areas is a thousand parts per trillion. So they're under that federal regulation threshold. But that federal regulation threshold is just too high.

In fact, back in 2010, the EPA under the Obama administration proposed lowering that threshold considerably because they argue the threshold not only is so high that even at lower levels, the existence of these dioxins have been linked to cancer. So we need to bring the threshold much, much lower. The Obama administration scrapped that. In fact, a common tool that was used by the Obama administration was the Office of Management and Budget. This was something that New Republic wrote about at the time. Essentially, what the Obama administration would do is they would have the Office of Management and Budget

calculate what the cost of certain environmental regulations would be. And if the costs were just too high, they would scrap the proposed regulations. And in this case, you had the EPA, again, back in 2010, saying we need to lower the threshold for dioxins. Obama administration scraps it. In fact, at some point, the head of the EPA under the Obama administration decided to step down because she's like, this administration promised that we were going to do something about climate change, promise that we would regulate the chemicals that are released into the environment by corporations. Obama administration is doing no such thing. I'm stepping down. So that happened under the Obama administration.

Now, fast forward to what we're experiencing today, the chickens have come home to roost, and the people of East Palestine need to know about the reality of the high levels of this toxin in their environment, because fact of the matter is, if they're just relying on what the federal government is saying, what the federal threshold is for these toxins, they would be making, or taking, I should say, a pretty big risk with their health. Now, let's get to what the EPA said specifically back in 2010. Actually, before we do, remember, the federal threshold is 1,000 parts per trillion. But other states have stricter regulation.

How strict? Well, the cleanup triggers are much lower in many states, 90 parts per trillion in Michigan, and 50 parts per trillion in California. Again, the current federal threshold is 1,000 parts per trillion. Now let's go to the EPA scientists in 2010 because they put the cancer risk threshold for dioxins in residential soil at 3.7 parts per trillion. And the agency recommended lowering the cleanup trigger to 72 parts per trillion. So just let that sink in. That is what the EPA said back in 2010. Obama administration scrapped that proposal. And now we're dealing with the situation

in which East Palestine soil samples show that there is as much as 700 parts per trillion in terms of dioxin levels in their soil. So Stephen or Stephen Lester, who's a toxicologist and who has research dioxins for 40 years said this. When you run the numbers and do your best state-of-the-art risk calculations, okay, that's the number you get for the the cancer risk. That's why dioxins are described as one of the most toxic chemicals ever created. Instead of making adjustments for the high risk of these chemicals, the federal government dropped it. They just walked away from it. And that's the crazy part of this story. Experts also cautioned that the levels may be safe for, may be safe for Indiana's purpose,

which is, again, they're storing the toxic waste in a landfill. But they also want to ensure that they are constantly testing the soil in nearby residential areas, any residential area near that landfill to ensure that these toxins aren't seeping into the soil, into the water in that area as well. And it's just incredible because we have no real oversight of our environment. When it comes to corporations who, of course, have the ability to provide limitless campaign donations, otherwise known as legalized bribes to our government officials, to our candidates, well, they have more of a say over our environment than we do. And so we have this gross situation in which the people of East Palestine are being told

by the federal government that everything's all fine and dandy because according to these EPA thresholds, they haven't, you know, gotten to a point where the situation is unsafe and there needs to be a cleanup effort. But again, according to the EPA back in 2010, if they had gotten their way, if they had passed the regulations that they were insisting on, and had the Obama administration allowed them to do that, there would absolutely be a need for a cleanup effort in East Palestine today, just based on dioxins alone. It's an incredible story. All right, we got to move on to our next story, which is quite a doozy because the student loan

forgiveness plan that the Biden administration was trying to carry out, of course, faces a lot a backlash, but we should talk about how banks are involved as well in that backlash. The need to protect shareholders is what the CEO of one bank known as so far, cited as his reasons for suing the Biden administration over its pause on student loan repayments. Now, the pause on student loan repayments began under the Trump administration. And of course, it was a response to the coronavirus pandemic. People were laid off. I mean, tens of millions of people were laid off through no fault of their own. And because of the financial hardship that Americans were facing, the federal government said, listen,

We're going to help you out. You don't have to worry about paying back your student loans. We're going to put a pause on that. And in fact, we're not going to allow for these federal student loans to continue accumulating interest during this time. Now, so far, again, a bank was not so happy about that because they happen to make, especially at that time, the bulk of their profits through refinancing federal student loans. So if you have a federal student loan and you happen to have excellent credit, so far would be able in some cases to refinance that loan for a lower interest rate. And that's how they were able to make their money.

When you essentially set the student loan interest rate at zero and let students know that they do not have to repay their student loans for a limited period of time, well, then they're less likely to look for refinancing opportunities, and that's where SOFI has gotten incredibly salty about this. The pause on federal student loan payments, interest and collections, which began in March of 2020, has cost SOFI between $300 and $400 million in revenue and between $150 million and $200 million in profits, and that's according to the company's legal filings, it's according to their lawsuit. So how exactly did they lose money on student loans, federal student loans?

Well, the company, again, made most of their money at the time. This is before they had started giving out loans and making money in other ways. Now they have checkings accounts. Back then, it was mostly focused on refinancing. And that's how they made most of their money. During the payment pause, the rate on federal student loans has been set at zero percent. as a result, the moratorium has eliminated the primary benefits of student loan refinancing the company wrote in its complaint. Now, in other words, they preyed off of desperate students who are just dealing with, struggling with student loan debt, looking for lower interest rates. That is how they made their money. That is how their shareholders were rewarded. So that is what they're looking to

protect or at least go back to. Now, the idea that you can get a lower interest rate through refinancing with a private bank sounds laughable. But what SoFi would do is it would only focus on refinancing the loans of student borrowers who had excellent credit and weren't rich yet, per se, but were high enough earners to justify providing an interest rate that's lower than what federal student loans offer. And I want to also note, federal student loans typically come with a relatively low interest rate. But SOFI was able to beat the federal loan interest rate in some cases because they were only dealing with borrowers who had excellent credit and high income. Now, Anthony Noto, who is the head of SOFI Bank, he's the CEO, says that he doesn't

mind Joe Biden's student debt relief because it's means tested. Noto noted that the company's supports the forgiveness initiative, which is limited to borrowers earning less than $125,000. The income cap means that some potential SOFI customers may not even qualify for the plan, and for those that do, the forgiveness likely won't wipe out their whole loan balance. So understand the admission he's saying there, right? He's like, yeah, since it's so heavily means tested, we're actually not concerned with Biden's student loan debt forgiveness. plan, but we are concerned that the repayment pause continues, and we want to end it, which is why they did the lawsuit. Okay. So the thing that I want you guys to take away from

the story that's super relevant is that when it comes to student loan debt, there are so many entities, there are so many players that make money off of federal student loans. Okay, you have banks that make money off of it, right? In this case, banks looking at to refinance those loans and essentially make profits through the interest that they attach to those refinanced loans. You also have student debt servicers who make money off those loans. And you also have the federal government, by the way, which also charges interest and makes money off of federal student loans. In fact, Noto mentioned that during a recent interview with Yahoo finance. Let's watch. There's currently a debt ceiling issue that's coming. If they just eliminated

the moratorium on student loan payments, they recoup $5, sorry, $5 billion of tax revenue on a monthly basis, which could help fund some of that debt with better servicing. I mean, the federal government could be making so, I mean, that debt ceiling fight, it's coming up, it's coming up. I mean, if the Biden administration wants to provide an example of what they can do to generate revenue, force these students to repay their student loan debt. And when you have all of these different entities involved, when you have this profit motive attached to federal student loans, then of course there's going to be an orchestrated effort to block or reverse anything

that the Biden administration or anything any administration might want to do to provide relief to student borrowers. which is why, while I guess I commend the Biden administration for wanting to do something to help alleviate what student borrowers are going through, it was really a band-aid to a much larger problem. There needs to be a much larger solution, including providing education that is so attainable, so affordable, maybe even free, to the point where people don't have to dig themselves into massive debt in order to get an education, right? Now, higher education isn't for everyone. Some people might do better in a trade school, vocational school, I get that, okay?

But at the same time, for people who want to go to college, they shouldn't have to be drowning in debt in order to get a degree. And if you just decide that you'll deal with the debt issue with, you know, some Band-Aid policy after the fact, it's not really going to solve the problem because you have all these moneyed interests that are preying on these student borrowers, making money off of these student borrowers. So you could just deal with the root of the problem, which is students having to be borrowers in the first place. That doesn't mean you get rid of tuition at private colleges and universities. But shouldn't public colleges and universities be, you know, open and free to the

public? Shouldn't they be funded to the point where people don't have to take out student loans in order to get an education? I mean, there was a time in America when community colleges were free, when public universities were incredibly affordable. But we have moved further and further away from that. And as higher education becomes less attainable, more expensive, all we hear from the party that's supposed to represent the average American, the average worker, is, hey, we got a band-aid for you, but it's going to be so means tested that the CEO of a bank is okay with it. He's okay with it. Because God forbid we upset bank CEOs. So that's the situation that we're dealing with. If you're wondering why it is that it's so difficult to cancel

student loan debt, it's because the vultures are praying on those borrowers. They're making money off of them. And we got to root that part of this system out entirely in order to actually fix the student loan issue. Otherwise, we're just kicking the can down the road with more band-aids. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including Republicans panicking over Democrats outraising them financially in elections. They have a solution. Is it going to work? We've got that and more coming right up. Welcome back to the show, everyone, special thanks to Darth Hollister for gifting five tier one subs to the TYT community. Also, you've gifted a total of 67 subs to the channel.

Just want to share a gratitude. Thank you so much for supporting the show. All right, let's get back to the show. because I wanted to talk a little bit about this race among both parties in terms of fundraising. And apparently Democrats have been out fundraising the Republican Party and they're freaking out about it. The Democratic Party has been raising more in campaign funding than Republicans in federal races. And now Senate Republicans have decided maybe we should just find candidates who are independently wealthy on their own, that way the competition between which party can raise the most won't matter as

much. Now, let me just say, there are no winners in this story. Okay, it is not a good thing that the Democratic Party is raising more money from Republicans, because understand what that means. That means they're taking more money in legal bribes. So when you're wondering why it is that Democrats only seem to engage in performative nonsense or political theater without actually fighting for the policies they claim they want to fight for, without actually passing economic policies that look out for ordinary Americans or ordinary workers. This is why, because they're taking bribes from the same people Republicans historically have taken bribes from. Of course, they're legalized bribes because that bribery has been

baked into our system thanks to the Supreme Court rulings that made it so. So this is not a win for Democrats, and it's certainly not a win for Democratic voters, because it means that your voice means very little in comparison to the corporate donors that shell out unlimited campaign funds for the Democratic Party. With that said, though, let's go to what Republicans are up to, because they're like, I don't know, man, I don't know. instead of like having some, you know, proxy, some politician who is essentially the puppet of corporate interest.

Why don't we just have corporate interest run? Why don't we just do that? It's amazing. At least 10 candidates with sizable net worth are seriously considering self-funded Senate campaigns in more than a half dozen swing states, many of them at the behest of the national Republican senatorial committee. Now, this piece in Politico doesn't really explain why the Republican Party is having more and more difficulty in raising money from donors.

But I do find it interesting that they're like, let's just cut the middlemen out. Like, let's just have the corporations run. Let's have a representative from the corporations run for political office. Now, there have been some specific names laid out here. before I get to them, how much money are we talking about when it comes to the Democratic fundraising versus Republicans? Well, in 2022 alone, Democratic nominees outraised Republicans by $288 million in the six closest Senate races. Democratic candidates' financial advantage ballooned in 2022, ranging from $110.8 million in Georgia to $7,000.7,000.

77.8 million in Arizona. We're just talking about specific races here. It is, it's unbelievable how much money is traded during the election cycle. Now potential self-funders for this cycle include Tim Sheehe, the Montana founder of the aerospace company, of an aerospace company. Eric Hoved, who is a real estate executive in Wisconsin. Also, in West Virginia, Governor Jim, and West, I'm sorry, and West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, a coal mining magnate. So in Wisconsin, Hoved, for example, is a businessman with experience

in property development and banking. He's seriously considering taking on incumbent Democrat Senator Tammy Baldwin. He could inject an eight figure sum into his bid against Baldwin, who raised some $33 million for her 2018 re-election. Other self-funders who are lining up to take on Democrats are the following individuals. So there are two self-funders specifically lining up to take on Democrat Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio. There's Bernie Moreno, who is a car dealer turned tech executive who reported household assets worth tens of millions of dollars. and Matt Dolan, a state senator and a member of the family that owns the Cleveland Guardians. So again, this is not a good development, right? So if you're a Republican voter and you think,

I just want my team to win, okay, but at what cost? And what does your team consist of? Because if I recall correctly, the Republican electorate got real excited when Donald Trump claimed that was going to drain the swamp. But the Republican Party is making it very clear. No, no, no, we're inviting the biggest swamp monsters to run for public office. And these are corporate interests that would typically bribe us. But we don't have to worry about bribe her anymore because they'll just get elected. They'll self-fund their campaigns. And then our government will be completely filled to the brim with corporate interests rather than proxies for corporate interest. It doesn't make the situation any better.

There's more. Dolan, for instance, injected more than 10.5 million into his 22 bid for an open Senate seat in the state and finished third in the primary. Dolan has declared a bid while Moreno is considering one. So you might look at Dolan's history and say, well, I mean, he had all that money and he's still lost. But oftentimes what happens with candidates with no name recognition is they run multiple times. They run over and over again until they build up the name recognition. to win. That's the reason why Dolan after losing is planning on running again. And apparently he's got money to burn because he had injected $10.5 million in his previous campaign lost and is ready and willing to do it all over again. And why do they want to run in the first place? Because they love being able to game the system to their advantage. It's worked out real well for them so far. Now, Karen Taylor Robson, an Arizona land use attorney and developer

is also considering a run for the seat currently held by Senator Kirsten Cinema. So for those of you who are excited about a challenger to cinema, definitely don't go with the millionaire attorney and developer. You also have David McCormick, a former hedge fund CEO. Great. Weighing another run against Senator Bob Casey, and then in Michigan, the Detroit area businessman by the name of Kevin Rinky is considering a run for the state's open Senate seat after investing $10 million in a losing governor run back in 2022. So imagine having that much money to burn. Just throw $10 million at an election, lose, and then just be ready and willing to do it all over again. Because that power, should they achieve it, will pay some pretty significant dividends. And that's what they're

looking forward to. The problem is we have bribery baked into the system. Nothing will get better in the country, regardless of what your most important issue is, whether it be health care, whether it be a social issue, it doesn't matter. None of those issues are going to matter to the representatives that we elect, as long as those same representatives, as long as those same senators, as long as those same congressional lawmakers, are bribed by corporate interests who persuade them to ignore us. Doesn't matter if you have a third party that you can vote for. What's going to stop the third party from getting corrupted by the same moneyed interests?

When you have a system that's set up to fail the average voter, it will fail the average voter again and again and again. You have two parties, and we keep hearing about how, oh, well, we get to choose between two different parties, except are they really that different when they're taking bribes from moneyed interests? You get the same results. Policies that usually lead to deregulation, policies that usually lead to maximize profits for corporate interests, to the detriment of ordinary Americans and workers. It happens again and again, and it's part of the reason why, whether you're dealing with the Trump administration or the Biden administration, you're feeling it in your pocketbook and you're feeling it significantly. So it's the system itself that needs to be reformed. We've got to get the money out. We've got to ban individual members of Congress from being able to invest in individual stocks. Unless we root out that corruption, any issue that you care about is honestly irrelevant. You're not going to get it accomplished.

You're just not because money is more important to these lawmakers than anything else. All right. We have other news today, including the fact that the people who make decisions about our health and our bodies know nothing about our bodies or the issues that they legislate on. An anti-choice Republican by the name of Matt Rosendale just exposed that he does not have a basic understanding of how abortion works. In fact, why don't we take a look at this video, and I'll explain more. I want to start by talking about the issue of chemical abortion. Now, Walgreens, after being put on notice by 20 state attorneys general, has decided to roll back the distribution of abortion pails through the mail and in pharmacies, including in Montana. What's your reaction to this?

I'm really glad that they have. There's a lot of risk that's involved with Plan B, abortifacians, and not everyone recognizes the danger that it poses to the health of the woman that has taken. these things and the reactions that might take place thereafter and if she's at home by herself with no one there to supervise what is even going on. This could turn into a very tragic situation rapidly. Now a lot of words there, plan B, abortifacients, dangerous. So let's actually get to what's going on here. Okay, here's what Walgreen says it will not dispense. The two abortion drugs currently approved by the FDA are Mithopristone and Misoprostol, a drug that can be used alone to induce an abortion. Walgreens confirmed early March that it would not distribute

Mipipristone the first pill in a two drug medication abortion regimen. But Rosendale was talking about plan B. This is the thing that drives me crazy because he has no idea what plan B really is. because he thinks plan B is the same thing as the abortion pill. It's not. This is a common misconception. This is a common area of confusion, particularly for Republican men who legislate our bodies. Okay? So plan B is the morning after pill, okay?

And that has nothing to do with abortions. It does not cause an abortion. It does not induce an abortion. In fact, if you're already pregnant and you take plan B, it will not end the pregnancy. Plan B is the brand name for, or the brand name for plan B is something that I'm not even going to try to pronounce here, but it's designed to prevent pregnancy by delaying or stopping the egg from leaving the ovary, according to the FDA's handy timeline of the drug. Now, an abortifacian, or what he referred to, is any substance that's used to terminate a pregnancy.

Plan B, again, let me just repeat myself, does not terminate pregnancies. And in fact, if the right wing is so against abortion and wants to minimize the occurrence of abortions, one of the best ways they can do that is by making birth control readily available to women and by making things like Plan B readily available for women. But they won't do that because they actually don't care at all. And in fact, more importantly, as we can see from that ridiculously ignorant statement coming from this lawmaker, they don't even understand how the female anatomy works or how these various drugs impact a pregnancy or the ability to get pregnant. So Rosenthal's an idiot. Then he called oral abortions and plan B dangerous. So this is also a right wing tactic to fear monger and spread all sorts of doubt about medical abortions, meaning, you know, abortion through a pill. The right wing group aligns defending freedom is also amplifying

this myth in its lawsuit to rescind the FDA approval for Mithapristone. So here's how dangerous it is compared to other easily available drugs Republicans apparently have zero, zero issues with. So in this graph, you'll see Mithopristone at the top, which shows five deaths per million users. You have penicillin. The number jumps to 20. Obviously, we shouldn't ban penicillin. But wow, would you look at that? Okay, according to data, Viagra actually is far more dangerous than the abortion pill is. You have 49 deaths per one million users. But I don't, I don't hear a single Republican lawmaker advocating for the banning of Viagra. Not a single thing I wonder why. I wonder, can we look into your medicine cabinet? I'm just curious what's going on

in there, Matt Rosendale, you know? Maybe you have a little bit of a bias in this situation. Nonetheless, Rosendale is exposing his own drawbacks, his own ignorance when it comes to understanding abortion, and he has zero reservations about the fact that he's ignorant and continues to be one of these warriors against women's reproductive rights. Here's his record on abortion over the last three years. So as you can tell, he voted yes on the so-called born alive abortion survivors protection act, which is, let me just stop and say, was a ridiculous bill to begin with because the idea that abortions happen after the baby is born, it's just not a thing. There are laws for that. It's called murder. Once a baby is born and is an independent

life, you can't abort it. It's called murder. But they know that. They know that. It's just the same garbage that they engage in, the theater, the performative nonsense, and it's meant to so fear and division in the country. In January of this year, he was actually the co-sponsor of that Born Alive, Abortion Survivors Protection Act bill. He also voted no on Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, no on ensuring access to abortion, and also no on women's Health Protection Act of 2021. He's anti-abortion. And it is amazing to me that the right wing is still going with this big government control women's body avenue, knowing full well that it hurt them in the midterm elections. So by all means, if you want to keep signaling

and messaging to the American people, then you don't believe that women should have agency or autonomy over their own bodies, go ahead and do it. But you should know, people are paying attention, they don't like it, they don't want weirdos like Rosendale between themselves and their doctors. This is an intimate decision that women should be able to make without the interference of any government official or any congressional lawmaker. And the fact that they're still hyper-focused on this nonsense gives you a sense of how they have nothing else to offer, nothing else to offer. Fear, hatred, control over people's

intimate lives. Because God forbid, they do anything that actually materially improves the lives of their constituents. They can't do that. Their corporate donors would be very, very upset. When we come back from the break, we'll talk about a new lawsuit that's been filed against Fox News by one of their producers. I'll give you the details on that and more. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show Anna Casparian with you. Let's talk a little bit about yet another lawsuit that Fox News is facing this time from someone who was a producer over at the network. One of Fox News' producers has filed a lawsuit against the network, claiming that she and

Maria Bartaromo, of all people, were forced to lie in, lie about the Dominion voting systems, which has led to a $1.6 billion lawsuit against the network. So she filed the suits in the Southern District of New York and in Superior Court in Delaware, where Fox's Dominion hearing is scheduled. Now, Abby Grossberg is the producer here, and she was also a senior booker and producer for Maria Bartaromo. And recently, she was also the head of booking for Tucker Carlson's show. And what she's essentially arguing, like the heart of her complaint here, is that the network

essentially threw her and Barteromo under the bus and placed the blame on them when it came to the big election lies that led to the Dominion lawsuit. Now, if you are familiar with Barteromo's programming, it didn't seem like anyone was forcing her to say some of the insane things that she was saying, which we'll get to in just a moment. But Grossberg said that the Fox lawyers had tried to position her and Barteromo to take the blame for Fox's repeated airing of conspiracy theories about Dominion voting systems and its supposed role in manipulating the results of the 2020 presidential election. She says the network decided to have them take the fall because they're women. I'm just going to come out and say

I'm skeptical of the claims here only because, I mean, there have been so many other Fox hosts that have been implicated in this Dominion lawsuit. We've been talking about it quite a bit at TYT's, I did not at any point get the feeling that Fox has been blaming this all on a producer whose name I didn't even know until today, or Bartaromo, who didn't really seem like she needed any pressure to air election lies and conspiracy theories. Now, the network's disregard for women, Grossberg alleged, left her and Barteromo understaffed, stretched too thin to properly vet the truthfulness of claims made against Dominion on the air. At times, Grossberg said, she was the only full-time employee dedicated solely to

Barter Romo's Sunday morning show. Oh, you were understaffed? Wouldn't know what that's like. I mean, we're understaffed all day, every day. Welcome to T.YT. Okay. I mean, the idea that like, I mean, look, Maria Barteromo couldn't help but air election lies because we just, we just didn't have enough producers, we didn't have enough workers,

so she couldn't do the proper vetting. It didn't take much work to do the vetting for that story. Okay, let's just, didn't take much work to like just for a minute, look at how Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell are conducting themselves and say, you know, maybe not the most credible people. Maybe we shouldn't take what they're saying at face value. But nonetheless, according to the lawsuits, Fox Superior is called Barteromo a crazy bitch, who was menopausal and asked Grossberg to cut the host out of coverage discussions.

So that part, I don't know whether it's true or untrue, right? I don't know what the executives at Fox had to say about Barterromo specifically. And to be quite honest with you, given the network's history, I would not be surprised if some of the executives there were saying terrible, misogynistic things. Now in regard to the Dominion case, Grossberg alleges that Fox lawyers forced her to lie to protect male executives. She accuses lawyers for Fox News of coaching her in a coercive and intimidating manner before her September deposition in the Dominion case. The lawyers, she said, gave her the impression that she had to avoid mentioning prominent

male executives and on-air talent to protect them from any blame while putting her own reputation at risk. But we didn't, gross per, like, we didn't know who you were. What do you mean putting your own reputation at risk? Also, when you're dealing with the lawsuit, this is common practice. Anyone who has been named in the lawsuit is advised by lawyers to not publicly discuss it. because anything that you might publicly say can and very likely will be used against you. So for instance, this is a common thing that happens.

If someone files a lawsuit against you and you come out and say that the accusations are untrue, they can then also sue you for defamation. They'll add on an extra accusation to it. That happens all the time. So you're advised to not talk about it at all. So I don't really blame Fox for doing something that I think happens quite often with every other lawsuit. But I will say this idea that Fox is doing this specifically to like tarnish Grossberg's reputation and have her take the fall. So far, I haven't seen anything that would

convince me that that's happening. Now, in the lawsuit, Grossberg details her time working for Tucker Carlson's show. On her first full day, according to her suit, Grossberg discovered that the show's Manhattan workspace was decorated with large pictures of Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House Speaker, wearing a plunging swimsuit. The next day, Justin Wells, Carlson's top producer, called Grossberg into his office to ask whether Bartaromo was having a sexual relationship with the House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy. So this is the stuff that I can't really comment on. And is, do I think it could happen? Absolutely. Again, given the history of Fox News, the history with sexual assault there, sexual misconduct,

misogyny, we all know about those stories. So is it possible that this happened? Sure, it's possible. It's the Dominion lawsuit-related stuff that I'm not buying, because again, there's so many different hosts that have been implicated in that. The idea that it's just Maria Bardo that's taking the fall is ridiculous. But obviously, Maria Barteromo did repeat election lies and should be held responsible for it. The network should be held responsible for furthering these defamatory claims about Dominion voting systems. Now, other instances that were mentioned in the lawsuit, the complaint also alleges that Carlson's staff joked about Jewish people and freely deployed a vulgar term for women when Grossberg complained

about harassment from two male producers. She was told, she was told that she was not performing her duties. The Fox response so far has been this. Fox, for its part, filed a lawsuit against Grossberg, accusing her of revealing conversations with company lawyers. She has also been put on administrative leave. I got to say, it takes balls to sue the company when you're still working there. So she went in that direction and we'll see how it plays out for her. But Daily Beast, which of course reported this story, says Fox News tries to silence a Tucker Carlson producer threatening to reveal internal conversations. Now, while Grossberg's accusations against the network are in some cases believable. The sexism, misogynistic

accusations, I can totally get behind. Let's not forget that she was also part of this tribe, right? She made the decision to work at Fox News. She knew what Fox News was all about. Didn't really seem to have a problem until suddenly she's deposed in connection to the defamation lawsuit. Now, because of the lawsuits, some of the text messages between her and Barterromo were revealed that show that she was really no different from her colleagues at Fox, and I think that's relevant to this story. In one instance, for instance, in one instance, for example, Bartaromo asked Grossberg if she should have pushed Trump in an interview on whether he would peacefully transition from the presidency. Grossberg replied, to be honest, our audience doesn't want to hear about a peaceful transition.

So it sounds like you made a calculated decision there, Grossberg. That's not going to bode well for you in this lawsuit against Fox. During her deposition, Grossberg was asked if she cared whether claims made on Barteromo's show were Turo. false. She answered, no, because we didn't know if they were true or false at the time. Why did you air it then? When asked if she felt it was important to correct a false claim made on air, she answered, no. And you know what? It showed. It showed in the broadcasts of Barter Romo show. Let's give you guys a little taste. Breaking news this morning on the software that President Trump says was weaponized against him. Coming up, President Trump's legal team with new evidence this morning of back doors on voting machines, ballot tampering and election interference.

Dominion voting machines were used in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And I have a graphic showing the states where they stopped counting. An intel source telling me that President Trump did, in fact, win the election. Look, I want to show this graphic of the swing states that we're using Dominion and this software, the smartmatic software. I mean, you just said it all. This is a smartmatic, a Delaware entity registered in Boca Raton, Florida, activities in Caracas, Venezuela. We will continue following this until we have answers, and we want the answers.

We deserve it. I mean, Barteromo loved airing the election lies. It was so clear. There were so many examples. Look at how long that compilation video was. So we'll see how this works out for Grossberg. But if she thinks that this is her out, if this is her way of doing away with any responsibility for her role in perpetuating

lies about the 2020 election, I just don't think it's going to work out for her. We'll see, we'll see. But do I think that there are sexist and misogynistic actions taken within that network? I do. Do I think the sexism and the misogyny led to Maria Bartaromo and her producers airing the garbage that they did? I do not. You got to take responsibility for your actions. All right, we got to take a break.

When we come back, John Ida Rola will be joining me right in. I'll read your comments during the break. and really looking forward to some of these stories, including the Moderna hearing featuring Bernie Sanders. That and more coming right up. Ice cream. members only bonus content and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.