The Young Turks - Not Phelan Good

Episode Date: November 28, 2024

Dan Crenshaw delivers a fiery rant against a proposed ban on congressional stock trading. Elon Musk calls for the abolition of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. President-elect Trump selects a Republican megadonor with no military experience to lead the Navy. A Republican congressional candidate comes under fire for threatening a Muslim congresswoman with a bomb threat." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. Turkey. Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, on this Thanksgiving Eve. We will not be having a show on Thanksgiving Day.

or the Friday that follows. And you know what? We're excited about that. We about to get lit. So I hope you guys all enjoy your Thanksgiving, but we're not quite there yet. We've got a fantastic show ahead for you all today. Lots of updates on the upcoming incoming Trump administration. We're going to talk a little bit about some of the, in my opinion, critical and important government agencies that Elon Musk is unfortunately eyeing for significant cuts. So we're going to talk about that at the top of the show. Later, we're also going to discuss just how salty Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw is at the mere thought of banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks based on insider information. So I spent way too much time delving into that story and producing it for you all today because I care about it deeply and I think you guys are going to enjoy it.

But we have other news as well in the second hour, for instance, Waz is going to join in and talk to me a little bit about what's happening in terms of some rethinking from activist groups on the left. You know, maybe some of the strategies they've implemented or deployed haven't really been great for their movement. So we're going to talk about that with Waz. And as always, Waz is a good time. We're going to have so much fun.

So please help support the show. You can do so for free by liking and sharing the stream. You can also help us financially and help us stay independent from corporate influence by becoming a member at t-y-t.com slash join or just hit that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right. Well, without further ado, let's get into our first story. It is time to carve this government back in size and scope. And my favorite twist is we have this thing called independent federal agencies. So like, for example, with this thing called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, CFPB, which is the, it's sort of Elizabeth Warren's personal agency that she gets to control. And it's an independent agency that just gets to run and do whatever it wants, right? And if you read the Constitution, like, there is no such thing as an independent agency. And yet, there it is. What does her agency do?

Whatever she wants. What does it do, though? Basically, terrorize financial institutions prevent, fintech, prevent new competition, new startups that want to compete with the big banks. Really? Oh, yeah. How so? Just by terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services. terrorizing anyone in these industries, really? Now, who you just heard from is venture capitalist Mark Andresen, who is unfortunately falsely accusing the agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of terrorizing banks and forcing conservatives to lose their bank accounts. and I say falsely stating because everything he just said is false.

And terrorizing banks is a very generous way of putting it. I would have loved to see the CFPB terrorized banks that engage in predatory behavior against consumers. But what they do, what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does, and this is a government agency that was born out of the 2008 economic collapse, what they do is protect consumers from, predatory activity and behavior of major industries and financial institutions. Now, thanks in part to the lies you just heard from Andresen, unfortunately, Elon Musk is now threatening to shut down the CFPB, one of the country's most powerful watchdog agencies. I'm going to keep it real. I have really soured on government agencies in recent years because I don't see them carrying out the best interests of the American people. This Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau, though, is not an example of that. It's one of the few government agencies that is specifically tasked to look out for ordinary Americans. Now, we'll come back to Elon Musk and his threats, but first, here's more from Andresen. Debanking is when you're, you as either a person or your company are literally kicked out of the banking system. Like they did the Kanye. Exactly. Like they did to Kanye, my partner, Ben's father has been debanked. Really? We had an employee who, for what? For having the wrong politics. for saying unacceptable things. Under current banking regulations,

okay, here's a great thing. Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms the last 20 years, there's now a category called a politically exposed person, PEP. And if you are a PEP,

you are required by financial regulators to kick them off of your, to kick them out of your bank. What? But what if you're politically on the left? That's fine. No. Because they're not politically exposed.

So no one on the left gets debanked? I have not heard of a single instance of anyone in the left getting debanked. Can you tell me what the person that you know did what they said that got them debanked oh well i mean david harwitz is a right wing you know he's pro-trump i mean he said all kinds of things you know he's been very anti-islamic terrorism he's been very worried about immigration all these things and they debanked him for the yeah they debanked so you get kicked out you get kicked out of your bank account you get you get kicked out of the

you can't do credit card transactions by the way you can't run is that legal well exactly well it's not legal which is why it's not happening in fact the CFPB to their credit has actually been fighting against debanking efforts, especially when it's tied to political ideology. And I'm going to give you the examples in just a minute. But first, let's go to Lee Fang, who actually reported on this issue back in August. He wrote, in recent years, activists from both the right and left have been banned from bank accounts and digital financial platforms over political speech-related allegations with virtually no due process, a phenomenon informally known as debanking. So I read you that excerpt from his August

2024 piece because Li Fong obviously clearly notes that people from across the political spectrum have been victimized by debanking. Now, this happened, for instance, to pro-life organizations. This has happened to anti-vax groups. And it has also happened to pro-peace, pro-Palestinian protesters and activists. So it doesn't matter if you're on the right or left. There have been specific instances of people getting debanked based on their political views. But critically, critically, this is the really important part, guys. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has actually fought against that kind of censorious behavior from the banks. So let's go to reporter Jared Fekundo, who says, I have no

clue what Mark Andresen is referring to because literally just a few months ago, CFPB director Chopra warned the audience of Wall Street debanking conservatives without explanation. So let me reiterate, we are talking about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Joe Biden's administration, a Democratic administration, and the director of the CFPB during an event said publicly that he basically warned the audience about Wall Street debanking conservatives. Meaning CFPB is watching and the debanking efforts based on ideology is wrong and they're going to come for you. That's what the CFPB does. But you know what else the CFPB does? If the bank is ripping you off, they are, this is the government agency that looks to get your money back.

Now, Andresen's only response to that tweet from Jared Fekundo was absolutely incredible. And that was it. Okay, what's incredible? That he debunked what you were saying on Rogan Show? Is it incredible that you were wrong? I don't know. Now, according to Bloomberg, Roheet Chopra, that's the individual that we were talking about earlier, who's the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

has repeatedly raised concerns. about companies denying services and even pushing or punishing customers based on their politics or political beliefs. Literally the exact opposite of what Andresen claimed on Joe Rogan's show. And I really hope Joe Rogan looks into this for himself. You know, it's difficult to do fact checking in real time, especially if the guest is bringing up a government agency that you might not be so familiar with. But this is a government agency that's really important, guys. And I hope that he looks into it further and clarifies some of the deception that we heard in the video earlier. Now, the CFPB, I'm going to give you specific examples.

The CFPB even challenged a Texas federal judge's decision back in September of last year in 2023 to block an anti-discrimination update to the CFPB rules. So the judge's ruling, the decision the judge made would have prevented the consumer financial Protection Bureau from protecting customers who lose access to bank accounts for religious reasons or political reasons. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and the Consumer Bankers Association all lobbied in favor of blocking that anti-discrimination update. Because guess what? These financial institutions want to have the ability to debank anyone they want. So they liked the judge's ruling, but the CFPB didn't because the CFPB wants to protect consumers, regardless of their political views and ensure that they are not debanked based on their political

views. There is no dispute across the political spectrum that discrimination based on race, religious belief, or other factors is improper. Okay, the CFPB said in its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This is the argument that the CFPB made in court. There is a record of it. As a result, the agency said, The appeals court should restore a March 22 update to the CFPB's examination manual, allowing its supervisors to determine discrimination is an unfair practice under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Law. They argued that without that power, if the CFPB doesn't have the power, the CFPB would not be able to determine whether customers had been denied bank accounts or charged higher fees based on, you know, discriminatory activity or based on a dislike or censorious nature based on someone

else's political views. So the CFPB cited the potential debanking of Christians that could cause substantial injury to victims, but would be unknown without CFPB examiners discovering the conduct. Quote, under the district court's logic, the bureau could not even investigate this intentional religious discrimination to determine if it's unfair, the CFPB said in its brief. Again, there's a paper trail. And so it's really important for people to know what the facts are because the worst thing that could happen is that people take what Andresden is saying here at face value and egg someone like Elon Musk on in gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

So with that in mind, Mark Andreessen, you know, spreading lies. unfortunately seems to have inspired Elon Musk, who has been tasked with slashing government spending and regulations, to write this tweet last night. He writes, delete consumer financial protection bureau. There are too many duplicative regulatory agencies. I disagree with that because currently there is no dedicated agency for American consumers, ordinary Americans, other than the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That is literally a government agency that is dedicated to helping those who have been defrauded, helping those who have been debanked, helping those who have been victims of financial institutions

who are looking out for their bottom line, even if it means carrying out actions that are illegal or fraudulent. And so I would really love Elon Musk to look into that and understand how important the CFPB really is. And look, Director Rohit Chopra, who of course is the director of the CFPB, recently issued rules meant to shield people from medical debt, make it easier for them to switch banks, and limit the fees they face from overdrawing their checking accounts or falling behind on their credit card bills.

So again, I mean, it really does bear repeating. This government agency is important. And the fact that it is drawing the ire of Mark Andry says more about Andresen than it does about this government agency. Now, those are protections that are, those are protections that are for real people who have suffered, you know, real predatory behavior in some cases by these financial institutions. And, well, unsurprisingly, looks like Andresen's firm has a personal history with the CFPB as well. So I want to give you the details on that.

So in a series of enforcement actions that predate Trump's first term, the agency and 2021, notably shuttered Lend Up, alleging it misled consumers about its short-term high-rate loans and overcharged military service members. At the time, the CFPB specifically highlighted that the company was backed by investors, including the Andresen Horowitz Venture Capital firm. Ah, so that's where the IRE comes from. Andresen is a Trump donor and is serving as an advisor to both Elon Musk and Ramoswami's Department of Government efficiency. So the threats to effectively shut down the CFPB could be taken seriously and they should be fought against. Okay, so Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the Trump transition team, did not respond to questions about the president-elect's views on the CFPB.

But he said in a statement that the Musk-led Doge would target waste and fraud throughout our massive federal bureaucracy. And even if Trump declines to shut it down entirely, here's what the Washington Post is claiming. Privately, Trump's top a roster of new candidates to lead the CFPB who are expected to soften its crackdown on the financial industry. Now, in Trump's first term, unfortunately, he did appoint shady figures to lead the CFPB and essentially attempt to dismantle it. I'm happy to report that they failed miserably in attempting to do that. And I say that I'm happy because it's about time we have government agencies that actually look out for us ordinary Americans who might end up getting screwed over by financial institutions and banks.

It's important to, you know, equip your mind with these details and with these facts because, you know, when you're listening to what seems like a super laid back great interview on Joe Rogan's podcast with a down-to-earth guy, if that's. individual is stinking rich and he's advocating for the dismantling of a government agency that's literally named the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, you should question why. And you should have the real information about what it is about this government agency that someone like Andresen would hate so much. All right. I went a little along with that story and the next story we have is going to take longer. So I'm going to go ahead and get our break out of the way

now. But when we come back, don't miss it. Dan Crenshaw goes on this epically pathetic rant about the possibility of members of Congress being banned from trading individual stocks. Can't wait to share the details of that with you, so stick around. Every once in a while I'll come across a story that I'm going to go ahead and guess my team doesn't expect is going to set me off as much as this story set me off. It's a small story. Most people probably didn't even notice it. But it's on a very important topic. Oftentimes we talk about money in politics and how it corrupts our political system. But there's another way that politicians get corrupted. And it's through trading individual. stocks. Obviously, they are privy to information through closed door briefings that we are not privy to. So it's important to have laws in place to prevent corruption through trading individual stocks. But some get real testy about that. So without further ado, let's watch. Would you vote for

a ban on Congress members trading stocks? This is one of those stupid things that I've been dragged through the mud on because Jesse Waters had basically insinuated that I was insider trading. What I vote for, Yeah, sure. Who cares? Who cares? It doesn't matter to me because I don't have any money to put in the stock market. Seems like you care. Seems like you care a lot. That was Republican congressman from Texas, Dan Crenshaw. Poor widow, baby, Congressman Dan Crenshaw.

He's worried lawmakers like him might be banned from trading individual stocks. Now, if you're hoping that such legislation passes, please don't hold your breath. But it doesn't matter. The mere mention of such legislation really did set Congressman Crenshaw off. So look, let me explain. Back in July, there was this bipartisan group of senators who had proposed legislation that would ban stock trading, individual stock trading among lawmakers, their spouses, and their dependent children. I mean, the idea of like a minor, you know, doing day trading or trading individual stocks, like amazes me, but I'm sure it happens.

Now, it was called the Ethics Act or ending trading and holdings in congressional stocks. And so the Democratic co-sponsors for this bill included senators like Jeff Merkley, Gary Peters, and John Ossoff. On the Republican side, you have Josh Hawley, who has really taken the mantle of economic populism on the right, specifically. And so when NPR asked about the bill, Senator Merckley said the following. Quote, if you want to serve in Congress, don't come here to serve your portfolio. Come here to serve the people.

And that's absolutely right. Now, here's why it's an issue when people are trading individual stocks in Congress. Remember, these are people who make decisions about regulations. And if they are heavily invested in an industry or in a company that could see their profits impacted through the regulations that, that Congress is considering, it's less likely that that Congress member is going to support the regulations or the policy. There's also the issue of insider trading. Because remember, members of Congress have all sorts of closed door briefings where information that we are not privy to is shared with them. And so with that information, they could very easily trade individual

stocks knowing that, you know, the value of the shares for one company might go up or down. And so, Merkley also said that the public is absolutely united in saying stock trading is wrong, Merkley said, pointing to a University of Maryland poll indicating 85% of the public backed banning trading by members of Congress. So I want to be specific because legislation wasn't about, oh, you're not allowed to invest in the stock market at all. It's just that, hey, trading individual stocks, like stocks belonging to a specific company or companies, that's the issue here. So, you know, maybe a mutual fund, you know, maybe an ETF, that's fine. But we really do want to stop the practice of trading individual stocks in Congress. So in 2012, the so-called

stock act was implemented, which basically requires lawmakers and their spouses to just simply disclose when they trade individual stocks over $1,000 within 45 days. And it's not about banning members of Congress from engaging in any corruption or conflicts of interest. It's not about that. It was simply about being more transparent with the American people in regard to what these politicians are actually financially invested in. But the problem with this law is the fact that it's not really enforced. And the enforcement mechanisms really have no teeth. So even though this was a law that was passed and implemented in 2012, we have seen the stock portfolios of members of Congress really explode. I mean, I think

Nancy Pelosi gets a lot of heat for this because she tends to outperform the S&P 500. She, I wonder why. How could that happen? So several lawmakers made large profits. After trading financial services stock before major banks began to fold. Those trades raised questions about whether they were profiting from information they learn on congressional committees. I am going to go ahead and speculate that, yeah, seems like that's been happening. In fact, there was a big story during the coronavirus pandemic where senators who had a closed door briefing on the severity of coronavirus, immediately went and started like buying stock for things like Zoom, you know, video conferencing companies, things like that. And they did this before the general public was made aware

of how severe the pandemic was going to be. They did this before the lockdowns and the shutdowns happened. So, I mean, I'm not an idiot, right? Like that looks super fishy, that looks suspicious. And so I think that instance is what really turned people on to the fact. that there's more corruption going on in Congress than we previously thought, that these conflicts of interest run deep. And so Senator Merkley says the fact that members of Congress do better than a generalized portfolio suggests that there's privileged information that folks hear about may not be inside information. Maybe it's early information.

Maybe it's an insight that comes from working on a sector through your committee work or so on and so forth. But that's an issue. And I'm going to go ahead and agree with him. So with all of that in mind, I think we should now jump to the rest of what Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw was saying during this interview on the free press. Let's take a look. Would you vote for a ban on Congress members trading stocks? Yeah, I mean, this is like number 1,000 on my priority list of things to care about.

This is one of those stupid things that I've been dragged through the mud on. money, how much money I've ever had in the stock market, about $20,000. And I've been dragged through the mud on this as if, like, there's some insider trading. I sent a, I just sent a letter to Fox News, you know, a threatening letter from my lawyers, threatening them with defamation because they, because Jesse Waters had basically insinuated that I was insider trading. Of course, it's not true. You'd be more surprised how much little information we have. how much little information you have?

Like, you know, they have closed door briefings and committee meetings where they share information all the time. I mean, at least when they do show up to work. I say that because Congress isn't really in session much of the year. But, okay, so is he also suggesting that members of Congress pass bills with little information? I mean, I'm not buying it at all. Also, according to capital trades, which tracks members of Congress based on their legally mandated stock disclosures and filings, Dan Crenshaw does, in fact, have more than $20,000 in the stock market. So as you see from this graphic, he has about $161,000 invested. That's a lot of money for ordinary Americans, so I'm not trying to minimize that amount of money.

But I will be fair to Dan Crenshaw and note that compared to the literal millionaires who have tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the stock market, yeah. I mean, he's on the lower end of the scale. Okay. So he probably didn't take kindly to being targeted by anybody when it comes to this particular issue. But the fact remains that the issue is a problem. And I personally don't appreciate the fact that he downplayed how much money he has invested. It's not 20,000. it's 161,000. Now, here's more of what he had to say. Take a look. So sure. Yeah, why not? Don't let us trade stocks. How about, how about, we'll just keep whipping ourselves.

How about we don't make any money either? How about like, just cut our paychecks. We haven't gotten a pay raise since 2008. It's always some member, right, who like, who senses the populist energy and then, and then mirrors it, believing that this is what's going to help me connect with the people. Because what do the people want? Well, I mean, they want an easy button. All my problems will be solved if there's, if there's no stock trading. All my problems will be solved if there's term limits.

Yeah. But if you think about any of these things for five whole minutes, you know, you might quickly come to a different conclusion. Now, again, what I vote for? Yeah, sure. Who cares? Who cares? It doesn't matter to me because I don't have any money to put in the stock market. It seems like you care. It matters to you a lot. You're very annoyed by this. And by the way, like, members of Congress make $174,000 a year, assuming they're not in a leadership position. So I know that. the Speaker of the House makes over $200,000 a year, but ordinary rank and file members of Congress, $174,000 a year. Okay. He complains about not getting a raise since 2008. Well, you know, congressional lawmakers haven't passed a minimum wage increase for the American people, for American workers, since 2008 either. So spare me your tears about how you haven't gotten a raise since 2008, all right? Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25.

Okay, so like, the median income for an average American is just $59,000 a year. This guy is sitting there, like collecting $174,000 a year while simultaneously whining to people who, you know, make around $59,000, or if you're a minimum wage worker, you're literally making in some cases in states that don't have a higher minimum wage law. $7.25 an hour. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. And let's also just talk about the perks that members of Congress get, right? Perks that ordinary Americans would have to pay for, perks that the American taxpayer funds on behalf of these lawmakers who do little for us, who consistently have insanely low approval ratings because of the dog and pony show that we all

have to deal with. There are BS congressional hearings that aren't really put on in order to do like a fact-finding mission to pass good legislation. It's all about theater. People hate Congress because they don't work for us. Yet they collect six-figure salaries and get these massive, these massive benefits. So what am I talking about when I talk about these massive benefits? Okay. So although pensions, as we all know, are increasingly uncommon for ordinary hardworking Americans,

they're really not a thing of the past when it comes to lawmakers. In fact, their pensions are real generous. So since 1946, members of Congress with at least five years of service or federal employment are eligible for a generous pension that pays two to three times more than pensions offered to similarly salaried workers in the private sector. And that's according to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Now, a lesser known congressional benefit, a little perk they get, is the practice of leaving death gratuity payments to their heirs or members who die while serving

in office. Equal to the member's yearly congressional salary, the payments are provided regardless of how wealthy the deceased lawmaker was. From 2000 to 2021, in just that one year period, the payments have cost American taxpayers $5 million. But wait, there's more. What other perks? What other benefits do these members of Congress get? Well, the majority of their flights are free, along with free airport parking, free on-site gym, good health benefits, paid for by us taxpayers, of course, and an excellent retirement plan. Members of Congress each receive a quarter million dollars annually for travel and office expenses. There's $900,000 for each representative to hire staff and $3.5 million for each senator per year. Okay. So,

The best perk, in my opinion, for members of Congress, is the fact that they don't really need to work. I'm not even kidding. Compared to an ordinary American worker, members of Congress do very little. Now, what do I mean by that? Let's take a look at how much time they get off every year. So I looked at the yearly calendar. I looked at every day Congress was in session for every month. And here's what I found.

And this is on Congress.gov. You guys can check it for yourselves. House lawmakers worked a whopping 13 days this month. Nine days in October, 15 days in September, nine days in August, although I should say that these sessions are super limited because they're not even supposed to work in August at all. They usually get August off. 14 days in July, 14 days in June.

16 days in May. Look at these workhorses go. 16 days in April, 15 days in March, 14 days in February, 14 days in January. I'd like to ask the viewers, please write in, share your comment below. How many days did you work? No, more importantly, how many paid days off did you get this year? So they're scheduled to get all of December off, by the way. So that's another thing. They make $174,000 to work a total of 149 days out of the year. Out of the year.

That means that they make $1,167 each day Congress is in session. Do you make that much money? So please explain to me why we should sit here and listen to a congressman like Dan Crenshaw, cry about how he hasn't gotten erased since 2008. Okay, assuming that they work eight hours a day on the days they actually do work, well, their hourly wage turns out to be $145, while minimum wage for Americans is $7.25 if they're not living in a state that has managed to increase their state minimum wage. Now, maybe Crenshaw is bad with money because as he cries and cries about how broke he is,

making nearly $200,000 a year, you know, there are other members of Congress. who make the same amount of money, come into Congress as middle class people, but then leave tremendously wealthy. How does that happen? Well, the truth is that many congressional lawmakers get super rich working in Congress despite their salaries.

So members of Congress are not allowed to continue in their prior jobs while working on Capitol Hill, although their net worth continues to increase through investments. In 2020, more than half of the 535 lawmakers in Congress were listed as millionaires. And the average increase in the net worth of lawmakers after entering

office is 114%. I leave you with this. Back in July, Republican Senator Josh Hawley, the Republican who co-sponsored the bill to ban individual stock trading by lawmakers, was asked if Republicans would make good on their promise to block a floor vote of the Ethics Act. And here's his response. It was telling, quote, GOP colleagues don't want to vote against it. What they don't want to do is to have to vote at all. I'm going to go ahead and guess that Representative Dan Crenshaw falls into that camp, into that category. Something to think about, something to chew on as we take a break. And when we come back, we've got more news for you, including a curious and potentially disastrous appointment by Donald Trump to serve as the head of the Navy. We'll give you the

details on that and more. Don't miss it. Welcome back, everyone. Our viewer box has just informed us of a very, very special announcement. Can we get a belated B-Day shout-out for Screet? Screet, happy birthday. Thank you at a box for letting us all know about it. I love that it's your birthday today. Tomorrow's Thanksgiving. Hopefully you'll be surrounded by loved ones and friends, and I hope you have a great time. And I hope you have a great time. I hope you're not watching the show right now. I hope you're doing something else and really enjoying yourself. But if you are watching the show, Screet, thank you for watching. Thank you for your support. Rage Rock for now says, wow, Dan Crenshaw, that was, that was convincing. Not.

And Tora Williams says, Congress should absolutely not be allowed to buy stocks. It's obvious corruption. Poor baby Crenshaw, no money in the stock market. I feel so bad for you. I mean, he's got $161,000 in the stock market based on his own disclosures. So he's doing okay. All right, a lot of Americans aren't making $174,000 a year with all of these benefits attached. to their pay package. So I just, I find it unbelievable that he would think it would be a good idea, especially right now, after Americans have been crushed by inflation, you know, to do this interview and whine about his own financial situation.

It's insane. Anyway, with that in mind, let's get to our next story. President-elect Donald Trump has chosen John Phelan, a mega-donor, to his campaign, of course, to lead the military as the secretary of the Navy. Now, you might be unfamiliar with him. I was unfamiliar with him. And look, on the face of it, corruption, bad. It seems like a favor to a mega donor.

But it's only made worse by the fact that Trump's pick is a businessman and an art collector with literally zero military experience. So he would be the Navy secretary when he hasn't, served in the military at all and has no experience. Now, even Donald Trump supporters are pissed about this. And I can't wait to get to some of their comments, which we will do a little later. But first, some more details. So look, he's, it's not just that he's a businessman. He's a freaking private equity guy, okay? Which Trump mentioned in his truth social post announcing Phelan as his appointee. He wrote that John has excelled in every,

endeavor from founding and leading Ruger Management LLC to co-founding MSD Capital LP, the private investment firm for Michael Dell, CEO of Dell Technologies. His record of success speaks for itself, a true champion of American enterprise and ingenuity. So why is he your pick for the Navy? Anyway, well, look, while not all Navy secretaries previously served in the Navy, many of them actually have. And so of the 26 men to be confirmed as Navy Secretary over the past 70 years, all of them, except for six, have been veterans. And Phelan has no military credentials at all. He's literally just a financier and an art collector. The only thing anyone can point to, according to the New Republic, is that Phelan is on the board of a non-profit

dedicated to supporting troops and diplomats worldwide. That's it. That's not military experience. That's not experience in managing an arm of our military. And according to the Navy Times, if confirmed, Phelan would be the first permanent Navy secretary without military experience since 2009. Oh, so this has happened before. Oh, when Donald Winter finished. up his three-year term in the role. So this was during the Bush administration. That was the last time the president had appointed a Navy secretary who had absolutely no military experience whatsoever. And if you guys are old enough to remember, the Bush administration was complete nut or garbage. It totally discredited the neocons, much to my amusement and pleasure.

But that's really what happened. Really smart for Kamala Harris to go around campus. painting with neocons, right? Anyway, unlike Winter, who previously had worked with in the Pentagon and on Navy contracts at major defense firms, Phelan has little public connection to the sea service. So that was more from the Navy times. And so why picking an experienced private equity guide to serve in such an important role, you know, an important role like Navy secretary? Well, Phelan, an avid art collector, was a major donor to the president-elect, this election cycle, and reportedly hosted Trump at his $38 million, Aspen Home, $38 million, Aspen home during the campaign.

Couples paid upward of $500,000 to attend that fundraiser. But Phelan himself also donated heavily to Donald Trump, reportedly donated more than $800,000, to Trump's joint fundraising committee in April. So look, this is a note that I wish Trump got prior to appointing all these people that he clearly has appointed for transactional reasons, right? This is a person who held a fundraiser for Trump. This is a person who donated $800,000 to Trump's campaign. And so Trump's looking to do a favor for a favor.

You know how we do. You know how we do. Everyone, every president does it, okay? But you should have appointed him for like ambassador of Zimbabwe. I don't know. Like one of those BS ambassador roles, it doesn't matter. Sorry to all the ambassadors out there who want to pretend like their roles are super important. In the grand scheme of things, when you compare Navy secretary to ambassador of an ally of ours that we get along with and never have issues with, I mean, let's keep it real.

Those roles, ambassadorships are totally fine. I don't care. But I do care when it comes to core positions within his administration that could have a real impact on this country, on national security, on the Navy. And I'm really happy to say that there has been some pushback already from avid Trump supporters. So I want to give you just a few examples. One person wrote, this makes zero sense. None.

How is Trump naming a hedge fund guy as secretary of the Navy? What the hell? I'm a huge Trump supporter, but we need military commanders running military branches. Writer Janine, and by the way, I double checked to make sure these people all voted for Trump, supported Trump. They're very vocal about it on their accounts. Questioning the John Phelan pick feels like rewarding a crony as he has no military experience, but if his focus is going to be on making sure that the supply chain is up to stuff so that the Navy can build the ships it needs, it may be okay. I mean, Janine, I love that you're trying

to keep your mind open, but the Navy ain't building the ships. We have contractors that we pay huge sums of money to to build equipment, weapons, all that stuff that the Navy ends up using. No, this, you're, you hit the nail on the head in the beginning of your tweet. Feels like rewarding a crony as he has no military experience. And look, this is what Trump does. He is very transactional, but appoint him to a role that isn't as important. Let's keep going. I do have a few more examples. I like this one because of the tweet and then some of the responses. So let's go to the last graphic here from Boris, who says, weird choice to nominate a person with no military experience to lead a branch of the military.

And I was happy to see that others who are Trump supporters responded with, yep, just what I was thinking another person, conservative 86 is their handle. I agree. One more. This is from another Trump supporter on X. As a Navy veteran, don't understand this appointment, at least have military service. John Phelan appointment seems like a gift. And it is a gift. It is a gift. It is a favor for a favor. And look, the one thing that I do appreciate about some Trump supporters is that they are vocal about how disgusting they find corruption to be, which is why they've been supporting Trump, the guy who says that he wants to drain the swamp. But the fact of the matter is, he has engaged in very similar practices as other politicians in both the Democratic Party

and the Republican Party. He has taken massive campaign contributions and has carried out favors for these donors. Miriam Adelson, the Adelson's in general, is a great example. And so I don't think that these positions should be on sale or for sale, and it's become more and more jarring with some of Trump's appointments, that that's what's going on here. And so hopefully, I don't think he should get confirmed. I have a real problem with someone like feeling serving as the Secretary of the Navy. But we'll see what happens. I just wanted to give you guys the details on this pick and how problematic I find it to be. Finally, one more story before we go to the second hour with Wasney-Lambre. I want to talk about, well, someone who has made some overt threats to members of Congress as a Republican candidate. Let's watch. I believe that when President Trump was saved in Butler, he was saved so that he could save

the world. And when he said he thought I could help him, I knew I didn't have a choice. So I'm proud to announce that I'm going to be running for the sixth congressional district of the state of Florida. Whether it's fighting inflation to make America affordable again, closing the border to make America safe again, or standing up for Israel and standing up to China, I'm ready to go. Yesterday, the Trump endorsed candidate that you just heard from, who is running to fill a Florida house seat, decided it was a great idea to issue a heinous, disgusting threat to Muslim lawmakers who are currently serving in Congress. So the person you heard from is Randy Fine, and he is a Republican hoping to take the seat of Mike Walls, I'm sorry, Waltz, Mike Waltz, who Trump actually selected. as his national security advisor.

So that seat is empty. Now there's going to be a special election to fill that seat. And in response to an endorsement tweet from the Republican Jewish coalition, Randy Fine wrote this. The Hebrew hammer is coming. Rashida Talib and Ilhan Omar might consider leaving before I get there. And then critically, this is the important part. Hashtag bombs away.

Now, Congresswoman Talib is the only Palestinian-American in Congress. Both women have, in fact, been highly critical of how Israel has been prosecuting the war in Gaza. And they should be, especially because of the absolute carnage that's been taking place in Gaza. 45,000 people have been killed. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for members of the Israeli government, including their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. They have been using starvation as a tool of war in Gaza. And so I commend any lawmaker, whether they're on the right or the left, for calling out what our ally, Israel, is doing.

The fact that they keep committing war crimes, the fact that they do not respect international laws whatsoever. these are things that are easy to look into, easy to find evidence of. And for the mere fact that these two women happen to be Muslim, for the mere fact that they have the audacity to call out the brutality of the current Israeli government, that's led to a lot of targeting, a lot of harassment. And in this case, a threat from someone who's hoping to be a sitting member of Congress. And look, he's made a slew of offensive remarks. He wrote, here's an example.

So when a Turkish-American activist was killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank earlier this year, Fine wrote in a post on X, throw rocks get shot. One less Muslim terrorist fire away. She was an American citizen. She was an American citizen. In 2019, Fine referred to a Jewish constituent who, defended a forum titled Palestine slash Israel opening the dialogue as a Judean rant, a term referring to Jews who collaborated with Nazis during the Holocaust.

So look, neither Rashida Talib nor Ilhan Omar have responded to the threats or the taunts. Unsurprisingly, this isn't the first time. Fine has made subtly violent threats. I give you an example from 2022 when he posted, I have news for the embassies. that claims to be our president, try to take our guns, and you'll learn why the Second Amendment was written in the first place, essentially threatening to shoot the president. And nonetheless, he already has the backing of tons of congressional Republicans, including Rick Scott, Byron Donald, and Mike Johnson. So after Trump urged fine to run for this congressional seat, he responded with this kiss assery. Mr. President,

God saved you on that day in Butler so that you could save the world. It would be the honor of my life to be one of your foot soldiers. Look, that comment is fine. You know, he's honored by Trump endorsing him. And I'm not surprised that he would feel that way. But, you know, part of the reason why our country has felt so dysfunctional over the last few decades is because we have members of Congress who aren't really interested in serving the people and are more interested in carrying out their hateful thoughts, airing out their hateful thoughts. In this case, their bigotry, you know, toward

Muslim members of Congress like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib. They care about that way more than serving the people, serving the American people. Because if you notice from the statements that we've read from him so far, there's been nothing about what he intends to do to better to better the lives of the Americans in the district that he is running to serve. And I think that's a huge problem. It's very likely that a Republican is going to get elected into that seat. My problem isn't that it's going to be a Republican. My problem is that this is a Republican who has no interest in working with members of Congress to pass important legislation to improve everyone's lives. He is so consumed and overwhelmed by his own hatred of Muslims in this case that that's

what he's campaigning on. And I think that's pathetic. I think it's so incredibly lame. This is not a person who's serious about looking out for us, not serious about looking out for his own potential constituents in the district that he's running in. And I hope that the voters in that district think long and hard about what they want out of their representative. Do they want this? Like, does it make their lives better to see a guy rolling around in mud saying disgusting hateful things? Or do they want someone who's actually serious about the job, a nuanced thinker who wants to carry out good policies? Just something to think about. Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll lighten things up a little bit with Wazni Lombre, our good friend,

really excited to do the second hour with him. So stick around. I'm gonna be Buhn't know Bhop Buhn't Bhop I don't know.