The Young Turks - Trouble For TikTok

Episode Date: March 14, 2024

The House overwhelmingly supports a bill to ban TikTok unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company. Georgia judge dismisses six charges in Trump election interference case. Boeing whistleblower found dead in US. Dolton mayor Tiffany Henyard appears at Thornton Township meeting amid allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Woo!

It's up. Ice cream. Welcome. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host Anna Casparian, and today's show is a bit of a mixed bag, I got to say, a lot of different stories, a lot of diversity and topics. So we're going to give you some updates on the efforts to ban TikTok. That's going to be our deep dive story of the day. We'll get to that in just a moment.

Later in the show, though, we're going to explain why the judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case has decided to drop some of the charges that former President Donald Trump is facing. That story is fascinating to say the least. We'll also get into some other stories, including an update on the mayor of the village of Dalton, that's a suburb of Chicago. She is accused of misusing public funds,

and man, it is hard. We could dedicate this show, the entirety of the show, to Tiffany Henyard, who's the mayor, right? She has been involved in so many scandals, it's really hard to keep up. But we're gonna give you that update later in the first hour. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me. Okay, we're gonna talk about bots on top and bots on bottom. Maybe, we'll see if you're a member, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

If you're not a member and you wanna be in the know, if you wanna join the cool kids club, you can do so by hitting that join button or going to t.yt.com slash join to become a member that way. All right, without further ado, let's get to our update on the efforts to ban TikTok. This is not an attempt to ban TikTok, it's attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-Tac-toe, a winner, a winner. Got it, all right. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't the only member of Congress who thinks a possible TikTok ban in the United States would actually make the social media platform better?

Now the House overwhelmingly passed legislation today that could eventually. lead to app stores banning TikTok, with 352 lawmakers voting in favor and only 65 voting against the bill. And while everyone loses their minds over this for various reasons, understand that the legislation will likely fail in the Senate. More on that later. But first, we should get into the details on what the House just passed and later get into the moneyed interest behind this agenda. Here's what lawmakers have been allegedly concerned about even before President Joe Biden came into office. Here's the crux of the debate. TikTok's U.S. headquarters is in California, but it is controlled by a larger company, Bight Dance, headquartered in Beijing. Bight Dance also

owns a separate but parallel Chinese version of TikTok called Doyne. The Communist Party has a small stake in that and a big voice with a Communist Party official sitting on the board. A bite dance whistleblower has charged that the Communist Party uses Doyin for spying on protesters and others. The concern is that there's a path for the Communist Party to access U.S. data. TikTok claims know that it has walled off U.S. data. So in response to those concerns, the House finally succeeded in passing a bill that would force bite dance to sell TikTok to a non-Chinese company. If they failed to do so, that's when a ban would theoretically kick in. Now, according to the Washington Post, the House measure explicitly targets TikTok and

its parent company while giving the federal government a new mechanism to ban apps with ties to nations viewed as foreign adversaries. If bite dance declined to spin off TikTok within six months, the bill would require app store providers to stop carrying the platform, which could effectively shudder its U.S. operations. By the way, does anyone else find it kind of hilarious that we're hyper-focused on banning this social media site or app when a lot of our businesses are still exploiting labor in China? Like, we're treating China as an adversary while still exploiting their labor. Just something to keep in mind. But anyway, there was a ton of trial and error on the path to where we are today. But a bipartisan group of politicians were apparently

reinvigorated by President Biden, never thought I'd say that, declaring that he would sign a TikTok ban into law if a bill ever made its way to his desk. So representatives, Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin, and Raja Krishna Morthy, who's a Democrat from Illinois. They're the leaders of the Select Committee on China. They previously introduced another bill targeting TikTok, which was stymied amid constitutional concerns, the commerce panel green lit the bill led by them 50 to zero just last week, advancing it just two days after its introduction, an unheard of pace for legislation targeting tech companies. Yeah, it's, I mean, an unheard of pace for legislation targeting any company, really, especially in the modern American era where legalized bribery is

just baked into our system. And by the way, prior to today's vote, TikTok engaged. in a serious pressure campaign that clearly failed to persuade lawmakers to back off. TikTok mounted an aggressive push to thwart the House's consideration of the measure over the past week, directly urging U.S. users to contact their representatives and oppose it in a pop-up message. The tactic inundated congressional offices with calls, at times forcing offices to shut off their phones. But it also riled up House leaders who accused the company of wielding its vast power in a bid to upend the congressional debate over its future. In addition, a spokesperson for China argued that the ban is really about American companies

rigging the market to their advantage because the chumps just can't compete. I don't think it'll be helpful with young voters. But, you know, my argument here, yes, it has to do with young people, but taking a step back, I just think it's a bad policy. Successful politics is addition and multiplication. Even though the U.S. has not found evidence on how TikTok endangers its national security, it has never stopped going after TikTok. Such practice of resorting to acts of bullying, when one could not succeed in fair competition, disrupts the normal operation of the market.

It undermines the confidence of international investors and sabotages the global economic and trade order. This will eventually backfire on the U.S. itself. Look, the reality is that both things could be true. By-Dance is in fact based in Beijing, and it is not far-fetched for the Chinese government to demand access to the data of American TikTok users. I also have a problem with US-based companies collecting our data and selling it to third parties, which includes advertisers and data brokers. This is part of the reason why everyone's personal information, including phone numbers and

addresses is, you know, relatively easy to find. It's also true that money to interests and TikTok's competitors, like Meta, we're lobbying hard for the ban. So back in March of 2022, the Washington Post published an exclusive piece titled, Facebook paid GOP firm to Malign TikTok. The firm targeted victory pushed local operatives across the country to boost messages calling TikTok a threat to American children. So fascinating piece, you should totally read it. And in the piece, why don't we read a few excerpts for you, In the piece, readers learn that Meta Paid targeted victory to launch an anti-Tick-Tac campaign that included, and get a load of this, placing op-eds and letters to the editor in major

regional news outlets, promoting dubious stories about alleged TikTok trends that actually originated on Facebook, and pushing to draw political reporters and local politicians into helping take down its biggest competitor. Dirty dirty. Employees with targeted victory work to undermine TikTok through a nationwide media and lobbying campaign portraying the fast growing app as a danger to American children and society, according to internal emails shared with the Washington Post. One of the directors of this firm that Facebook had hired or Meta had hired wrote in an email in February of 2022 saying that targeted victory needs to get the message out that while meta is the current punching

bag, TikTok is the real threat, especially as a foreign-owned app, is number one in sharing data that young teens are using. When asked about, you know, their decision to pay a right-wing firm to attack its competitor, a spokesperson for meta didn't even deny it, saying, quote, We believe all platforms, including TikTok, should face a level of scrutiny consistent with their growing success. With a meta-backed firm planting stories about the national security threat TikTok poses to the U.S., it's way harder to determine whether a TikTok ban has any real merit. But there's money working on the other side of this debate too.

We learned earlier that former president, Donald Trump, who once tried to ban TikTok through executive order before getting blocked by the courts is now suddenly against the ban. Looks like the former president took a dip in the swamp. A lobbyist, Trump is extremely familiar with is Kelly Ann Conway. Turns out that the former senior Trump aide is being paid by the conservative club for growth to advocate for TikTok in Congress. In fact, she met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to chat about the app at least 10 times in recent months. But that's likely not the only reason Trump had a change of heart on this TikTok ban. Political reports that billionaire investor and Club for Growth donor Jeff Yaz holds a 15% stake

in TikTok's parent company, Bite Dance. Club for growth leaders have been vocal opponents of moves to ban TikTok. Club for Growth President David McIntosh has been in meetings on the hill with Conway about the issue. According to one of the people familiar with the meetings. Former President Donald Trump praised YAS as fantastic when they were both at a Club for Growth retreat as the presumptive Republican nominee courts Yass to help his presidential campaign with that cold hard cash, of course. Shortly after the meeting, Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday, quote, if you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zucker Schmuck will double their business. It's all about the money. And even Steve Bannon,

is saying so. The connection between Yass and TikTok did not go unnoticed by former Trump campaign manager and White House advisor Steve Bannon, who suggested in a social media post of his own that Yass's deep pockets was behind Trump's newfound appreciation for TikTok. Bannon shared an axiose article titled Inside Trump's TikTok flip-flop and added simple Yass coin. Look, I tell you all of this, so you don't forget. what politicians really fight for themselves and their legalized bribes. Look, this isn't about protecting American consumers or children or national security. That's a laughable assertion when you consider that the president himself is currently on TikTok.

The real battle playing out in Congress is about power, money, and which business interests get to accumulate more of it. Though, if the ban succeeds, it could politically harm one person in particular. I don't think it'll be helpful with young voters, but you know, my argument here, yes, it has to do with young people, but taking a step back, I just think it's bad policy. Successful politics is addition, multiplication, and cutting out a large group of young voters is not the best known strategy for re-election. Now President Joe Biden has said that he plans to sign this bill. Okay, I mean look, to be fair to Joe Biden, I guess, young voters had already soured on him for a whole host of other reasons, including his handling of the war in Gaza. But it's true that signing a TikTok man into law wouldn't help him with his reelection efforts.

But there are massive hurdles before a final bill even makes its way to Biden's desk. Now the fate of the bill rests with the Senate, where the effort to ban TikTok will likely fail. Remember, there's that pesky legislative filibuster in the Senate where rather than a simple majority, 60 lawmakers would have to vote in favor of a bill in order for it to even pass. But there are other challenges before the Senate even votes on the issue. For one, the Senate doesn't even have its own version of the bill, and efforts to draft one earlier had failed and had fallen short. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says that he'll review the House bill and maybe consider

holding a Senate vote on that. But there are other issues, too, like, you know, the Constitution and our rights to freedom of expression. Congressman Rokana elaborated on these concerns this morning. You actually voted against this bill. Why? On free speech grounds of the First Amendment, there are two key principles why the courts would strike this down if the Senate took it up.

It's not the least restrictive measure of protecting people's data and privacy. You could pass an internet bill of rights. You could do things like a financial penalty. A ban is extreme and you have to have the least restrictive means. Secondly, you need under the Supreme Court an alternative means of communication. And it is very hard to reach TikTok's almost billion users, particularly international users for Americans. And I don't think the court would think that they're alternative means of communication here. I do have concerns, which is why I would have been fine with a forced sale.

but the ban, if the sale doesn't happen, goes too far. My concerns are protecting Americans' data and privacy and making sure that doesn't get into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. But we can do that by passing an Internet Bill of Rights. I mean, when TikTok was initially established, it had to go through the same controls of foreign direct investment. And if there were actually evidence that there was huge propaganda coming out of these, the platform, then that would be one thing.

And then you may be able to restrict it, given the First Amendment concerns. Let me just elaborate a little more on what Congressman Kana said in that interview. I love that he also wants to focus on some of the behavior of U.S.-based social media platforms and what they do with our data, how they collect our data, and how opaque their algorithms tend to be. So I think that's the right focus. And look, I'm not a constitutional expert or legal expert. I can only go based off of what the chatter is among other legal experts. And they say that the government is not only infringing on the free expression of American consumers with this potential TikTok ban,

but that lawmakers are also violating the constitution by specifically targeting a business that's operating in the United States. Democratic Senator Mark Warner echoed Kana's statement saying that he has concerns about the constitutionality of an approach that named specific companies. So look, I don't know if there's merit behind that constitutionality argument, and I guess we'll wait and see what happens. But considering these structural challenges within the Senate, the competing money to interests at play, and how lawmakers often prove how little they care about their own constituents, I can promise one thing that the outcome ain't about making things better for you. So just keep that in mind and we'll see how it plays out. For now, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we've got some updates on the Georgia election interference case.

Good day for Donald Trump because some of the charges he's been facing have been dropped. I'll tell you what the charges are and more when we come back. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size? Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it.

Shop now at IKEA.ca. What's up everyone? Welcome back to the show. Just want to read a quick comment from Peter Hamby who asks, is it just me or is POTUS candidate Robert Kennedy's VP pick of Jets quarterback Aaron Rogers just flying under the radar with the other news today? It's sort of flying under the radar. It broke yesterday. I got to be. be honest with you, I find RFK junior related stories deeply, deeply boring. I know that's not the case for everyone. I just think he's irrelevant, he's not going to win, not even close.

The reason why Democrats don't mind that he's running third party is because he's skimming votes from Trump. And so they're perfectly happy to have RFK run as a third party candidate. I'm actually shocked that Trump hasn't directed his ire toward RFK Jr. yet. But I think that's probably coming. But overall, Aaron Rogers is never gonna be our VP. That's why I'm not worried about it. I think that's the reason why I didn't really choose to cover it on the show today.

But since you care about it, I felt the need to at least mention it. So there you go. All right, well, I wanted to get into what the judge overseeing the election interference case in Georgia has decided to do. It's been a good day for Trump, but not really a bad day for prosecutors. So I want to explain why, let's get into it. This morning the judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case dismissed six charges against Donald Trump and some of his co-conspirators who have been named in this case. Now, while this is a little bit of a setback for the prosecution, Trump is in fact still facing serious charges in Georgia over his role or his participation in the faux electors scheme and the capital rights.

that took place on January 6th. Now here's what happened. According to CNN, Georgia Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled that six charges in the 41 count indictment related to Trump and some co-defendants, allegedly soliciting the violation of oath by a public officer, lacked the required detail about what underlying crime the defendants were soliciting. So it all seems like it should be self-explanatory, but you've got to be super detailed in explaining what crime was broken and how that crime was broken.

And so apparently the prosecutors didn't do their due diligence in that area as it pertained to some of the charges, the charges that have been dropped by the judge. Prosecutors had alleged that Trump and some of his co-defendants had basically broken the law by passing or pressuring members of the Georgia legislature to break their oath and unlawfully appoint an alternate slate of presidential electors that would certify the election in Trump's favor, even though Biden won the election. He won not only the popular vote, but the electoral college, which is what matters the most. And so one count stems from the phone call that that Donald Trump had made to the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffersberger on January

2nd of 2021. This is a video that we've shown you multiple times, but here it is again. The ballots are corrupt, and you're gonna find that they are, and which is totally illegal. It's more illegal for you than it is for them, because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. All I want to do is this, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state. So Trump and the co-defendants had basically filed motions called demurs to have the charges tossed, dropped. And they succeeded to some extent.

So McAfee argued that their legal teams, with their legal teams, as written, the allegations that Trump and allies solicited Georgia officials to violate their oaths of office were too generic. That's the argument here. Too generic, too broad, not specific enough, you need more specificity in explaining why the prosecutors believe that these charges are just and why Donald Trump and his co-conspirators broke the law, how they broke the law. law and why these charges have been brought up. But it's important to also keep in mind that the judge is not saying that the prosecutors lack sufficient evidence of the crime.

In fact, in the decision to drop these specific charges, it appears that the judge feels that there is adequate evidence, it's just that the prosecutors haven't been specific enough. So the court's concern is less that the state has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the defendants. In fact, it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is in the undersigned's opinion fatal. Look, I'm going to go off on a little bit of a tangent here and speculate on something. And I could be completely wrong. So just keep that in mind and take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. Look, I'm concerned that the lead prosecutor in this case, you know, that the

The guy that was previously dating the DA in Fulton County, Georgia, and was named the lead attorney in this case, an incredibly important case. Nathan Wade, remember, did not have expertise in prosecuting RICO cases. His expertise was in like personal injury law. And then he gets named as a lead prosecutor in this case, I'm wondering if these charges is being dropped or the failure of the prosecutors to meet their requirements when it comes to these charges has more to do with the lack of experience demonstrated by Nathan Wade. Is that a possibility?

And that's the reason why guys, you should be really upset with the DA in Fulton County. Because this isn't a joke, this is an incredibly important case. And if she decided to pick someone that she was dating to be the lead prosecutor, in this incredibly important case, despite the fact that he might not have the appropriate expertise to try the case, you're gonna run into all sorts of issues, and you should be mad at the DA, not mad at the press for reporting about what the DA did. You get what I'm saying? Anyway, but let me continue, let me continue.

Because if you're confused about what this all means, I don't blame you, it is very confusing. So as written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes, but failed to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited. They do not give the defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the defendants could have violated the constitution, and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds of distinct ways. So that was a direct statement from the judge himself. And if you're still confused, I found this video to be super helpful.

Here is CNN's legal analyst, Ellie Honig, breaking down further why these specific charges were dismissed. Georgia state law has this sort of unusual law that says it's a crime to solicit to ask a public official to violate his official oath of office. And as Nick just laid out, there are six counts in this indictment that say Donald Trump and other defendants asked various members of the Georgia Senate and the Georgia legislature and the Georgia Secretary of State, other public officials to violate their oaths to the Constitution by essentially swinging the election. But what the judge says here is, you prosecutors,

you have to say what part of the Constitution. The judge says there are hundreds of provisions in the U.S. Constitution and in the Georgia State Constitution. And the purpose of an indictment is to give defendants notice so they know what they're defending against. And you can't just say Well, you tried to violate the Constitution, the judge says, what you have to say is what specific provisions of the Constitution, what specific sections of the Constitution. That's not in the indictment. Therefore, the judge says those charges are legally unfounded and now they're dismissed. So the charges could be refiled with the necessary specificity that the judge is looking for. That's another thing to keep in mind. But now let's get into how. many of the charges the relevant defendants have had dropped and what remains in this case.

So of the 13 counts that Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani faced, three of them were tossed out by the judge's order, meaning that they now both face 10 counts each in this case. The order also quashes one of the two counts against Mark Meadows, who now only faces one count for racketeering that all 19 of the defendants in this case are charged with. But the judge also said that prosecutors could seek a new indictment to try to reinstate the ones that he dismissed if they made the language more specific. And keep in mind that the call that the call Trump made to Raffensberger can still be used as evidence in the case.

It's not like that phone call is now null and void, totally irrelevant to the case, it could still be used. So the case will continue, but the scope of the indictment has been narrowed for now. And look, Trump and his co-conspirators are celebrating. And this is a little bit of a win for him, especially if the prosecutors in this case decide they're not going to attempt to refile these specific charges. But remember, they're still facing a lot of very serious charges. And this is the state prosecuting Trump and his co-conspirators, meaning that if Trump ends up getting elected, If he's president again, he might be able to pardon himself from federal indictments, but he wouldn't be able to do so when it comes to indictments in a particular state.

Now some law experts say this isn't that big of a deal, including Anthony Michael Creece, who is a law professor at Georgia State University and has been closely following the case. He says the following. I think it's a minor hiccup for the DA and less so signs of a fatal flaw. It was never particularly clear what constitutional theory undergirded the oath of office charges. I suspect the DA's office will button up their theory and go back to the grand jury. But again, unsurprisingly, Donald Trump is celebrating today. You have Trump and Giuliani's legal team basically thrilled about these updates. Let's go to Steve Sado, who is Trump's lead defense attorney.

He says that the ruling is a correct application of the law, as the prosecution failed to make specific allegations of any alleged wrongdoing on those counts. The entire prosecution of President Trump is political. Listen, I think it is partly political, but I think there's merit behind this case for sure. But he says that it constitutes election interference and should be dismissed. So, and of course he thinks it constitutes election interference because he feels that the only reason why Trump is being prosecuted. is to hurt his chances of getting reelected, when in reality the exact opposite has happened as indictments have come in in case after case. So look, again, I think that there is a political component to it. Politics is a dirty, dirty game. But I also think there's merit to this case.

I just wish that they had the ball rolling a lot sooner rather than waiting until we get closer to the election to announce these indictments and to actually take Trump to court. But as Honig explains, the latest ruling is yet another unforced error for the prosecution. There have been several screw-ups, frankly, by the DA throughout the history of this case. Going back to the investigative phase, the DA got herself disqualified from a small piece of the case because she created a political conflict of interest. The judge who was overseeing the grand jury removed Fannie Willis from the case. We've seen Fannie Willis make public statements in the church and elsewhere that have now been called into question that I think violate the ethics of prosecutorial

rules. And now we've seen six cases, six of the charges thrown out of the case. And unlike the conflict of interest issue, this does go to the charges against the defendants. This does go to the indictment itself. And there is still a case. The lead charge, the racketeering case is still in place. But this is a setback. I think it was a terrible idea for Fawney Willis to name Nathan Wade as a lead prosecutor in this case, a man that she had been dating, there's a conflict of interest there, totally a bad idea. I just don't think that this is a case that we should take lightly, and we should have prosecutors dotting their eyes, crossing their teas, and being as thorough and careful as possible, because this is an important. Trump, this is an important case, plain and simple. And it's really hard for me to not feel furious about how games are being played. And like there's favoritism taking place with

naming a lead attorney who I don't think is necessarily the right person to be the lead attorney, lead prosecutor in trying Donald Trump and his co-conspirators. But we'll see how this plays out. And I appreciate CNN and especially the honesty that we hear from honing in his legal analysis, because I think there's usually an effort to provide cover for Fawney Willis and the decisions that she makes when in reality, we gotta call a spade a spade and if mistakes are being made, if dumb mistakes are being made, it should be called out. Again, this is not a case that you should be playing around with. All right, with that said, why don't we take our final break and when we come back,

I'll give you that update on the mayor of Dalton, Tiffany Henyard is her name, and then later if we've got a little bit of time, I just want to talk a little bit about about the economic populism of the right, which isn't really a thing. I did everything right and they indicted me. What's up everyone? Welcome back to the show. I'm Anna Casparian and I want to do an update on the mayor of a small town.

Now you might be wondering, why do you want to talk about a small town? Who cares? The alleged crimes here are so brazen and the theft of public funds, alleged theft of public funds, so brazen that I can't help myself. We have to cover this because I think the, you know, voices of the 20,000 people living in the village of Dalton should be heard. And I think that the mayor here, if found guilty of these allegations, should be brought to justice. Tiffany Henniard, the mayor of Dalton, Illinois, is struggling to silence growing calls for an investigation into how she spends public money.

Henniard vetoed a measure calling for an outside investigation into her alleged misuse of public funds. Calling for an investigation of Mayor Tiffany Henniard. This after, the village board late last month called for the FBI, the U.S. attorney, and the Cook County Sheriff to investigate the village's finances. Tiffany Henyard, the mayor of a small town near Chicago called Dalton, has vetoed a measure passed by the board of trustees that would open an investigation into her handling of public funds. Despite the town's trustees getting slapped down by Henyard yet again, federal and state investigators luckily remain undeterred. The U.S. attorney, Cook County Sheriff, and Cook County State's attorney also support the investigation,

The FBI has begun interviewing dozens of people related to the investigation into Henyard despite her veto. Not a great sign for the town, which actually enjoyed a budget surplus when Henyard was elected back in 2021, but is now in financial apparel. So the mayor blamed the town's financial struggles on the board of trustees, which she claimed is incompetent and uneducated about municipal guns. government. Henyard has admitted the town has a $2 million deficit, but some people believe the real number could be as high as $5 million. Other local politicians allege that the town is staring down as much as $7 million in debt.

It's just that we don't know exactly how much debt we're talking about here because Henyard has closed off access to the town's financial records. The board of trustees can't access it. Residents are fed up and so is the board of trustees. Kiana Belcher is one trustee calling for that investigation. What is it that you all say she's spending public money on? We have not received a financial report since September of 2020. She alleges that last year the mayor racked up a million dollars in police

overtime for her own personal detail. A weekend, possibly 27 to $30,000. $27 to $30,000 for a weekend. For the weekend, yes, last March where we still were receiving copies of the card. She also says the mayor spent $1.3 million. Because we have love on ice today. Building this ice rink. Nobody can go over there unless she's having an event.

She said that ice skating rink was for the community, but only uses it for her events. It's closed off to the public, unless She's having an event. Anyway, that's just the beginning. There's so much scandal with Henyard that it's impossible to keep up. For example, Henyard's charity, Tiffany Henyard cares, has already been closed down after she allegedly used taxpayer money and government employees to run it.

And when it comes to using the town's resources on travel, let's just say she's not staying at Howard Johnson, which to be fair, no one should. But get a load of this. Henyard and other town officials have spent more than $67,000 of public money on trips to major cities such as Atlanta, Austin, New York City, and Portland. Some of the trips included first-class travel and one trip to New York cost $13,000 in taxpayer money. Keep in mind that as the mayor of Dalton and the supervisor of Thornton Township, Henyard collects an annual salary close to $300,000 a year.

That's more than what a federal lawmaker makes. Okay, it's definitely what more than what normal people make. And look, these are people who, like we're talking about a person who's making $300,000. And on top of that is using public resources on herself, on hair and makeup, before she appears before the public. on travel, on her own personal police detail that follows her around 24-7, meaning that these officers are basically clocking in a ton of overtime. And as I shared with you a few weeks ago, Henyard is also allegedly failing to pay vendors contracted with the town.

Vendors contracted by the village say they're not getting paid. The banners or the billboards with her face on them, is that person not getting paid? No, the person is not getting paid. It was 122 banners for $19,900-some dollars. NBC News has reached out to Mayor Hendard, who according to NBC Chicago also works as township supervisor for a neighboring community, making a total salary of close to $300,000 a year. One of the bills Henyard allegedly failed to pay was a $75,000 payment for the town's police vehicles, which led to threats that the vehicles would soon be.

be impounded. At the same time, she's signing new contracts while dozens of previous vendors remain uncompensated for their work. Henyard's alleged abuse of political power and corruption is also complicating a ballot measure in Thornton Township that would raise property taxes in order to fund mental health programs in the area. Fox 32 Chicago reports that the referendum set to appear on next week's primary ballot, seeks taxpayer approval for a 0.15% property tax increase designated for mental health services within the township. But a coalition of 11 out of the 17 South Suburban mayors have come together to discourage constituents from supporting the referendum because it would allocate nearly $3 million in additional funding to Thornton Township and its

Supervisor Tiffany Henniard. The mayors say that aside from allegations that Henniard is currently misusing public funds on herself, she has also failed to provide clear details on how additional funds from the ballot measure would be utilized. To be fair, I'd be worried about increasing taxes on constituents only to have those additional resources abused by a seemingly corrupt politician like Henniard. Obviously, everything we've learned about Henyard so far has been troubling to say the least. But believe it or not, it gets even worse. The Department of Human Rights is now investigating her office over allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation.

NBC, Chicago obtained copies of complaints accusing Henyard and an unnamed Dalton trustee of sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination. The allegations center around a trip to Las Vegas last May for an economic development conference. That was where a former assistant says that she was the victim of a sexual assault carried out by the unnamed Dolton trustee. According to the complaint, she started to feel disoriented after having dinner with the trustee before blacking out. After waking up the next morning, she woke up in the trustee's hotel room with no memory of how she got there while experiencing physical discomfort. Officer Byron Miles, who was part of Henyard's security detail at the time, also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Department.

Miles said in his complaint that the trustee called him on his phone and told him he had unprotected sex with the woman. Miles said he recorded some of their conversation in his complaint. Now when the former employee spoke to Henyard about the alleged assault, they had suffered while in Las Vegas, the mayor allegedly told her that she would take care of it and to trust her. According to the complaints, though, the woman said when she told Henyard about the incident, Hanyard said that if the information were to be made public, she would be ruined that all the work she'd done would be lost. Days later, the former employee said she was placed on unpaid

medical leave without her consent and was later terminated. The village of Dalton denies the allegations and says that they've conducted a thorough investigation through an independent third party. As for Officer Miles, the Dalton statement also said that Officer Miles was interviewed and denied knowing anything about the allegations and the alleged victim refused to cooperate with our investigation. This is nothing more than two disgruntled employees trying to make off with the taxpayers hard-earned dollars. Well, that's rich. The village looks forward to defending these allegations and pursuing all other available remedies to the village, the statement

said. Right. Look, it's impossible, if not stupid, to believe anything that comes out of Henyard's mouth at this point. And there have been allegations that she likes to retaliate against anyone who crosses her, including small business owners who refuse to donate to her campaign. Suddenly it's impossible for them to renew their business licenses. Others were met with more extreme actions. A team of Dalton officers headed by deputy police chief Louis Lacey raided and shut down Pablo's bar and cafe and Rinkie's bar and cafe, both located on Sibley about a block apart. Employees and owners say it's part of an ongoing campaign of harassment by Henyard that is costing jobs and money. Their business licenses have been stripped by Dalton, but they've continued to operate with a state license.

Henyard is also the woman collecting a $224,000 salary just for her role as mayor of Dalton. Remember, she has two roles, mayor of Dalton, and then she's a supervisor for the township. But in an effort to deter anyone, even considering running against her, she tried passing a new rule where the next mayor's pay would drop down to just $25,000. This is why all of these allegations absolutely must be reviewed and investigated by the federal government. Luckily, some of those small business owners say that they've already spoken to the FBI. You just can't take anything at face value from a woman who won't even give local politicians access to financial records. Seems like she's, you know, hiding something. And it's likely because she has a lot to hide.

So can't wait to see how this all plays out. She's apparently coming out with a podcast this week. I'm really looking forward to hearing that. So we'll see. All right, well, let's do one more story before we bring in our friend John Iderola for the second hour. I wanted to talk a little bit about, well, what the right wing, the right side of the political aisle has to say about Americans potentially making more money. Apparently, they don't like it much. What's troubling about the slow jobless rate is the rapid rate of wage inflation.

That's now running at four and a half percent. Chances are if the economy continues to grow at a rate of roughly 2 percent or faster, we are going to see a further tightening of the labor market. And with that, even faster wage growth. And that's going to be bad news for inflation. Recently, economist John Lonsky told Fox Business that, you know, the viewers should be very concerned about Americans making more money for their hard work. I mean, it's a real problem in America.

Workers be making too much money, yo. I mean, imagine saying that with a straight face. Now last week, Biden announced two small measures to help Americans save money. I'm gonna be completely honest, one of them is good. One of them seems like complete BS because there's no specificity and it's totally vague. So he said that he's going to start a so called strike force on unfair and illegal pricing in order to really do something about inflation. That's the one where I think it's just BS meant to make him look good.

But the other one isn't BS. So he has decided to cap credit card late fees at $8. So that's something specific, that's something that's real, that's something that's something that will help Americans. So I will give him credit for that. Now, those actions have unleashed the ire of conservative media. And I think it's worth watching some of the hysteria. Let's take a look.

Actually, the market is the strike force. But if Biden is interested in doing this, you could look at all the issues that we're talking about in terms of where he's polling badly. Why is there no strike force to go after the border? I was reading piece this morning about how capitalism is the defining characteristics that sets this country apart from all of our enemies, all of our big enemies, right? Right. So if you squash capitalism, you're going to put that

into remission, which is not a great idea probably. Well, think about who's always paying late fees. They're probably the kind of folks that would vote for Democrats. This is a way of motivating them to go out and vote. And they're looking at every conceivable way to buy a vote. The lessons of history is that competition markets, markets allocate resources, set prices much better than ministries. I mean, if you want to have the government setting prices, then let's resurrect the old Soviet Union. And this morning, he's talking about late fees.

And he's talking about corporate America and it's company's fault that people are facing inflation. Is this all sort of a preamble to the state of the union on Thursday? Okay, number one, attacking Americans who are relying on credit cards, taking out debt in order to make ends meet. Like making fun of them and mocking them is like, oh, what kind of people tend to vote for Democrats? A lot of Americans are living in poverty. A lot of Americans, unfortunately, are not making enough money to be able to cover all of their bills.

A lot of Americans, according to the Federal Reserve, are unable to afford even a $400 emergency, nearly 50% in fact. And so mocking them or looking down your nose at them, not the way to go. I think it's pretty gross. But aside from that, I just want to know, Biden's strike force to combat inflation is nothing. There's nothing there, okay? They put out a press release, it had no specificity. It was just meant to like, you know, give a little nod to people who are concerned about

inflation without actually proposing anything specific to deal with inflation. So this notion that the Biden administration is looking to engage in price fixing is laughable. And to be honest with you, if the Biden administration was engaging in that, I would criticize them because price fixing is not going to bode well for our economy. It tends to backfire. But like instead of being more annoyed with the obvious stunt, the super low effort stunt of putting out a press release that has no specificity about what what the strike force would do. They're just making things up, but I mean, I guess that's what we should expect.

Anyway, here's how little we know about the strike force. These are all the details we have, because it's not a thing, it's not going to be a thing, and again, it was just a publicity stunt. The strike force will strengthen interagency efforts to root out and stop illegal corporate behavior that hikes prices on American families through anti-competitive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices. Okay, cool, how? Like, what do you, what are you going to do?

They don't specify. Let's read more. FTC chair, Lena Khan announced two reporters that the strike force builds on the FTC's far-reaching work to promote competition and tackle unlawful business practices that are inflating costs for Americans. So Lena Khan and the FTC focuses on enforcing antitrust laws to ensure that we don't have monopolies in the country. That's a good thing.

Do the fine people over at Fox business want monopolies in the country? Do they want to give consumers even less options than they already have? Is that a good thing? Is that what they want? If that's the case, and they should just say it. They should just say that they want to support a system in which companies monopolize and American consumers have no other options and they're charged all sorts of exorbitant prices for products that they would probably pay lower prices.

for if there was more competition in the market. But anyway, let's continue. The strike force will be co-chaired by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and it's gonna do nothing. Again, I can't reiterate enough. It is a publicity stunt. It was meant to put something out there just before the State of the Union address to let Americans who are struggling economically,

a lot of Americans who are struggling economically know that Biden's looking out for them without really specifying how. how and what he would do. But the strike force allegedly will focus on the following sectors of the economy. Like this is why it's so laughable because it's so broad, it's so vague. It's going to focus on prescription drugs and healthcare, right? So the federal government, meaning the executive branch, is going to unilaterally combat prescription drug prices in healthcare, right?

We saw how that played out when, Congress was trying to pass a bill, allowing for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Who's dumb enough to think that Biden is going to unilaterally do something about high pharmaceutical drug prices? Like, you'd have to be the most gullible person on the planet to think he's gonna do that. But let me continue, the strike force is gonna combat, you know, bad behavior in the industry as it pertains to food and groceries, housing, and financial services. Okay, as for the cap on credit card late fees, the actual thing that we should be giving Biden credit for, because it's specific.

On Tuesday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule to slash credit card late fees from the current average of $32 down to $8, saving consumers $10 billion a year, or an average savings of $220 per year for the more than 45 million people who are charged these late fees annually. That giant douchebag on Fox business totally insulted 45 million Americans. Yeah, he's so much better than them. What kind of person uses credit cards and pays late fees? So gross. Anyway, conservative media opposes the change, by the way, specifically the change that would cap credit card late fees.

And so does Senator Tim Scott, of course he does, apparently because he has stated that he will push the Senate to block it. He's gonna fight real hard to ensure that Americans who use credit cards and get charged late fees, get charged the highest possible late fee that the credit card companies want to charge. Good job, Senator Scott. What a what a patriotic American, really looking out for your fellow constituents. Anyway, Scott of South Carolina said the new cap will shift cost, this is so far. shift cost to consumers who pay on time and encourage payment delinquency.

It will decrease the availability of credit card products for those who need it most. Raised rates for many borrowers who carry a balance but pay on time. Wait, hold on, hold on. Let's stop for a second. I'm one of those credit card users who I like my perks. I like credit card. Who doesn't like credit card perks? So instead of using my checking account, when I buy things, I'll usually use my credit card because I get points. And then before I even get the bill, I pay it in full.

You know why I do that? Because I don't want to pay the credit card fees. I don't want to pay a late fee. I don't want to pay interest. So I'm just trying to understand. Tim Scott is worried that if the Biden administration caps credit card late fees to $8, well, that'll mean that credit card companies will, and I'm using his wording here, raise rates for many borrowers who carry a balance, but pay on time. Okay, so maybe he just means they still have a balance left month after month, but they're paying on time and they're not paying a late fee. That it'll increase their interest rate. That could happen, sure. But I just, I feel like that's a really lame way of justifying charging Americans high late fees. And by the way, if you want the

market to decide, if the credit card companies are charging higher interest rates, well, then people are going to shop around and find a credit card that might have a lower interest rate. You want to know what happens when you call your credit card company to cancel because you're not happy with the interest rate. They try to keep you by lowering your interest rate, which in fact, if you're using credit cards, you should do right now. You could probably lower your interest rate as we speak by threatening to cancel the credit card. They want your business. But let me continue with the rest of what he had to say. He thinks that it's going to increase the likelihood of late payments across the board.

They're like, Americans are going to be like, you know what, I'm willing to pay an extra $8 for no apparent reason. So I'm just going to be late in paying my credit card off or paying the credit card payment that's expected of me. It's just a really lame way to provide cover for what Tim Scott is really trying to say here. The credit card company should be able to charge you as much as they want for late fees, even if it's crushing desperate Americans who can't make ends meet with their low pay, so they have no choice but to rely on credit cards. It seems like there's a root problem here that senators like Tim Scott should be more focused on instead of ensuring that there's as much punishment as possible for people

who might miss a credit card payment. And if credit cards stop offering perks as a result of this, I'd just stop using credit cards. And I'd go back to using my checking account. I'm sure they're not going to want that. And we'll have the market decide, right? The market's so wonderful. The market decides everything. So why don't they allow that to happen? So anyway, according to Open Secrets, Tim Scott has taken nearly a million dollars from the credit card industry or individuals and PACs in the commercial banking industry. I'll give you the exact number. It's $840,170. It's a lot of money. So I would venture to say that he's less concerned about people who pay their credit cards on time having their interest rates increased

that he is about, you know, ensuring that his corporate donors, his banker buddies are getting a good return on their investment. And then here's how Scott's donors, here's why Scott's donors are upset. The New York Times reported that credit card late fees have become a major profit source for credit card issuers generating more than $14 billion in 2022 alone. According to the Times, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also indicated that credit card issuers have been exploiting a loophole in the 2010 Federal Reserve Rule that allowed credit card issuers to adjust late fees based on inflation and raise their fees far beyond the actual cost they incur when payments arrive late. So, look, you might be in favor of keeping the high late

fees. And if you are, that's fine. Go ahead. I mean, go ahead and support that if you think that's a great idea. But what you have to be honest about is that these lawmakers who are against capping the late fees are not at all economic, you know, economic populace, people who actually care about suffering Americans who can't make ends meet with their brutally low pay. They don't care about these people at all. These politicians don't care at all. And the thing that gets under skin the most is when they use rhetoric that makes it appear as though they care about ordinary people. If you care about ordinary people, then you should protect them from bad behavior carried out by major industries, whether it be the banking industry, the rail industry,

the list goes on and on and on. All we've seen from them is deregulation, tax subsidies for these businesses, all sorts of perks and goodies that they take advantage of and then turn around and, you know, obviously charge exorbitant fees on ordinary Americans. It's just frustrating. So anytime I hear anyone argue that Republicans are the real economic populace, I can't help but roll my eyes. This is what they're really saying about Americans, American workers, and those who have been victimized by banks for far too long.

All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, John Ida Rolla joins me for the second hour.