An unlikely critic of Marjorie Taylor Greene's national divorce plan
spoke out against the congresswoman, and that person was Laura Ingraham,
sounds like a little bit of drama, can't wait to see what it is.
So let's watch.
>> Okay, well first, a law prohibiting American citizens who have not committed
a crime from voting would probably not withstand legal scrutiny.
And second, how would this national divorce be good for conservatism?
Now, why would we wanna embrace the states that gave us Jimmy Carter and
bill Clinton, but essentially give up on the states that gave us Reagan and trump?
Imagine if Younkin had given up on Virginia, or if republicans on Long Island
gave up on New York, the last thing we need is an American breakup of any sort.
Remember a motto of this show, almost from the start over five years ago,
has been no state left behind.
Just because it often seems like democrats have given up on America themselves,
doesn't mean ever that republicans or conservatives should, they should not.
I'm certainly not willing to give up on the states that gave us Sinatra,
John Wayne, or that welcomed my grandparents from Poland.
There are good hardworking people in Illinois, in New York, and in California,
Washington state, who don't wanna move and who are looking for new leadership.
So let's give it to them.
>> So look, overall, I think what she's saying is fine, except for
really since day one, the motto of your show is no state left behind?
>> And I independently thought the same exact thing when I was prepping for
this story, I was like, I've never seen that on our show [LAUGH].
That's been the motto all along [LAUGH] man, you suck at promoting your motto.
Okay.
But overall, totally right.
And hey look, broken clock twice a day, right?
So we agree with her, but the interesting part of the story isn't that,
the interesting part of the story is the internal drama at Fox News.
>> Yes, yes, I buried the lead folks, okay, so
now Sean Hannity is coming at it from a different perspective, and we're gonna
have a phone conversation about why and what the intentions are here.
But before we get to his more recent discussion about this, remember he had
Marjorie Greene on his show to basically promote the notion of a national divorce.
Let's watch that to get a refresher.
>> The congresswoman has another idea as well,
banning people who move from blue states to red states, from voting for five years,
so they don't bring their bad politics with them.
I actually favor that idea.
I think most people instinctively want this to be the United States of America,
and here's my question, how did you get to this point?
I mean, I look at topics, for example, how do you reconcile defund the police and
no bail laws, with law and order?
How do you reconcile secure borders and wide open borders?
How do you reconcile energy independence with energy dependence,
and new green dualism?
How do you reconcile peace through strength with with people
that wanna gut our defense?
I don't see middle ground on a lot of these issues.
>> Now, we revisited the topic on his podcast and promoted it yet again.
Let's watch.
>> I definitely like the idea of more power being brought to the states, and
a more decentralized federal government which is bloated, and way out of control.
And I think instilling any fiscal discipline, instilling discipline in
Congress would be a great goal, you're not talking about a full divorce,
you're talking about a transfer of power, that's a very different thing.
>> So Jakem what's going on here, right?
Because is Sean Hannity serious about wanting a so called national divorce?
We've discussed how tricky something like that would be,
considering you've got plenty of republicans and
red districts by the way, in states like Carlifornia, it's not that easy.
So what's going on here?
>> Well, it's not easy because it would instantly lead to civil war,
it's not like we haven't lived this movie before.
We went through this about 150 years ago.
Okay, so here's the super interesting thing, drama within Fox.
So Ingraham, Hannity and Tucker Carlson obviously,
three main hosts in prime time, but they all view things a little bit differently.
I don't mean ideologically,
I mean their relationship to different power bases within the right wing.
So Laura Ingraham is the most corporate of them all.
So whatever Murdoch says, Laura Ingraham is very likely to do it.
Okay, now Murdoch has turned against Trump, and it gets the crazies
like Marjorie Taylor Greene, so all of a sudden Laura Ingraham comes out and goes,
I don't know about this Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Now, once we tell you this, you'll be able to see in the future with your own eyes
then falling into these little buckets.
One of the reasons that Laura Ingraham is that way is because Laura Ingraham was in
the woods for a long time.
She's one of the last hosts to come out of Fox News,
even though she was in talk radio forever, okay?
And she knows what it's like not being on Fox News and it ain't pretty.
So she's like Murdoch says, I do, okay?
Tucker Carlson is the most populous of them all.
He has the most amount of money, cares the least about what Rupert Murdoch says, once
they appeal to the audience and he knows the audience is filled with populist.
So he will often defy the corporate wing of the party, defy Murdoch and
go with Trump and Alex Jones and crazy conspiracy theories about sun
tanning your crotch leading to something or other, okay?
And Hannity is caught in the middle, Hannity is a robot, right?
And so you program him one way, and he'll just go in that direction,
whether it makes sense, or it's contradictory or not.
Remember, he was in favor of Afghanistan and Iraq and
he wanted to stay there forever and ever and ever.
Now, just the other day, he did a segment, how we've been in Ukraine too long,
what are we doing here?
Cuz he was programmed by republicans to say war is good when republicans started,
war is bad when democrats are in charge, right?
In this case, he's confused, cuz the audience is telling him, go more populous,
Rupert Murdoch and executives are telling him get back in line.
So he keeps going, yes, Marjorie Taylor Greene, civil war sounds like a good idea,
wait, it does not, we really want tax cuts and only tax cuts.
[LAUGH] He's going back and forth the robots malfunctioning,
cuz he's got two different sets of orders, and he doesn't really know anything.
He's just like, give me programming, I don't know what to say.
>> I mean,
I think that this is a fantastic way of informing the American people,
taking marching orders from various individuals or groups of individuals.
>> Yes. >> Instead of actually,
delivering the facts and these are commentary shows.
So commentaries allowed obviously, but is it accurate, genuine analysis or
is it just analysis based on who they're pandering to, right?
Like, I don't know, I think it's pretty clear to our audience,
like we don't pander to anyone including them.
So sorry guys, but I sometimes say things that upset you, and
I'm gonna keep saying it if it's what I genuinely believe, right?
Cuz it's the right thing to do.
I'm not gonna lie to you and tell you what you wanna hear,
it would be deceptive and wrong.
But with other hosts, especially at Fox News,
it's all about appeasing whichever group you're kind of angling at.
>> Yeah, So the couple of things that handy said in the longer interview with
Marjorie Taylor Greene,
I listened to the whole thing tell you exactly what's wrong with Hannity, right?
So he does the TV segment and he's like, Marjorie Taylor Greene on populist, right?
Good guys, good, and
then he gets I guarantee you gotta know from a Fox News executive.
So he goes back on the air with the Ray on radio, and he's like,
so what do you say national divorce?
You mean cut spending, right?
I mean that's what I'm like, wait, those two things are not at all related, right?
You just pretended it was about cutting spending, cuz the corporate wing
of the party just wants to cut spending, to give more breaks to rich people.
And then if you notice that even in the clip that we played for you at the end,
he goes, so you don't mean a national divorce, you mean a transfer of power.
Earlier, we're talking about the federal government should have less power, so
we should do less spending for average Americans and more tax cuts for the rich.
And then before she could answer, because he totally recast what she said,
she said national divorce, he's like,
you don't mean national divorce, you mean transfer of power.
He went to break, [LAUGH] he didn't ask her a question,
he just went to break, okay?
>> Okay, the most important thing to take out of this story,
to get out of this story is what I'm about to say.
Because some GOP strategist spoke to the Hill about this whole debacle,
and this should be instructive for
anyone who's even a little like even identifies on the left in any way, right?
Multiple GOP strategist told The Hill that some on the right are staying quiet
because they believe Greene's comments were meant to get a reaction- and
help her fundraise.
"She wants you to cover it.
She wants the MSNBC love so she can raise money off it.
She wants people talking about it," one GOP operative told The Hill.
>> That's 100% correct.
>> Okay. >> That's actually the one smart thing
that Marjorie Taylor Greene has done, and it's destroying the country.
But like democrats don't understand, when you fight for your side,
now they could do it with substance, she does it with nonsense,
on top of becoming more popular, you raise more money.
So she figured that out.
She's just playing that game 1000
times over >> Exactly.