So the early years of the Trump
administration focused on
hunting down and
punishing leakers that provided
reporters with details of Trump
associates' contacts with Russia.
This is according to
the New York Times.
And they are reporting that those
efforts included forcing
the Justice Department to secretly
obtain personal information of
Democrats on the House Intelligence
Committee and their families.
This is a quote from the reporting,
prosecutors subpoenaed Apple for
data from the accounts of at least
two Democrats on
the House Intelligence Committee,
aides and family members.
One was a minor.
The records of at least a dozen
people tied to the committee were
seized in 2017 and early 2018.
Including those of representative
Adam B Schiff of California.
Representative Eric Swalwell of
California said in an interview
Thursday night that he had also
been notified that his data
had been subpoenaed.
Now after the DOJ under
Jeff Sessions failed to connect
the leaks to Dems, they consider
dropping it until William Barr took
over a year later.
Quote, William P Barr revived
languishing leak investigations
after he became attorney general
a year later.
He moved a trusted prosecutor from
New Jersey with little
relevant experience to
the main Justice Department to
work on the Schiff-related case.
And about a half-dozen others
according to three people with
knowledge of his work who did not
want to be identified discussing
federal investigations.
Now AG William Barr's involvement
has caused some to remember
this dishonest exchange with
Senator Kamala Harris over his
Justice Department being
asked to start investigations.
Let's take a look.
>> Attorney General Barr,
has the president or anyone at
the White House ever asked or
suggested that you open
an investigation of anyone?
>> I wouldn't- >> Yes or no?
>> Could you repeat that question?
>> I will repeat it.
Has the president or anyone at the
White House ever asked or suggested
that you open an investigation of
anyone, yes or no please sir?
>> The president or anybody else?
>> Seems you'd remember something
like that and be able to tell us.
>> Yeah but I'm trying
to grapple with the word suggest.
There have been discussions
of matters out there that they
have not asked me to open
an investigation but- >> Perhaps
they've suggested?
>> I don't know,
I wouldn't say suggest- >> Hinted?
>> I don't know.
>> Inferred?
You don't know.
>> No, he doesn't know.
The zeal in the Trump
administration's efforts to hunt,
this is a quote directly
from the reporting.
The zeal in the Trump
administration's efforts to hunt
leakers led to the extraordinary
step of subpoenaing communications
metadata from members of Congress.
A nearly unheard-of move outside of
corruption investigations.
And this is more from
the reporting.
Moreover, just as it did
investigating news organizations,
the Justice Department secured
a gag order on Apple that expired
this year, according to a person
familiar with the inquiry.
So lawmakers did not know they were
being investigated until Apple
informed them last month.
Lance and Cenk, there's a lot
in this story, but I want to take
a pause here to get your thoughts
on what's being reported.
>> So I just want to ask right
wingers first,
I just want to be clear, right?
Because a lot of
them are defending this.
Well, we had to spy in on our
political opponents and we had to
spy in on members of the media.
Because earlier there were stories
about how New York Times and
other reporters were also
spied in on by Donald Trump.
Okay, so does that mean we can now
spy on Republican politicians and
Fox News hosts?
I'm just want to be clear,
because I want to be just fair to
everybody.
Because if you're defending Trump
on this, I assume that we can
look into, maybe even you guys,
if you're a right winger,
maybe we can just now ask Apple.
Why don't you just give me
their phone records?
Because they love when the big
government spies in on Democrats.
They love it when they spy in
on reporters they don't like.
So I'm just wondering,
inquiring minds want to know,
that's all, Lance.
>> Well, I mean I know Trump's
always getting compared to Nixon
for reasons like this, and
not just because he secretly hates
the Jews or likes to say the n word
in private or anything like that.
But I think it's more about people
trying to utilize their power and
exert it in times where they
probably are going well beyond
the bounds of what is acceptable.
And I think that was the case with
Trump, right?
We saw time and time again,
there was so
many different opportunities for
Trump to try and be sorry [LAUGH] I
don't know what that was.
But sorry, for
Trump's trying to utilize the tools
at his disposal in order to try and
either maintain or coalesce power.
>> Yeah, my favorite
of course was the clip ban.
I mean when [LAUGH] she's
like, did.
Because look, right wingers
probably don't understand
anything about the law, right?
So the Justice Department is
supposed to be independent.
It's not supposed to be political.
There are plenty of things inside
the government that are political,
makes sense.
And that's why we make fun of
politicians when they, say I don't
want to politicize this.
Of course you do,
you're a politician, right?
But there are some things that
are supposed to be independent.
Because if you're not independent,
we wind up being in a police state,
a fascist state,
an authoritarian government.
Actually the thing that right
wingers are most scared of
always telling you, Democrats
are going to make you do this.
They're going to make you drink
Starbucks every day.
They're going to make you do all
these crazy things right?
By the way, he literally said that,
mine's going to be drinking
Starbucks every day.
Okay, so- >> That's not a meme?
>> Yeah, I know, right?
Is that amazing?
Yeah I know he literally said that.
Because the progressives love giant
corporations and so
we're going to make you drink their
coffee everyday.
Anyway, so
in a situation like that, you have
to make sure, in all situations,
that the Justice Department is not
politicized.
That's the one thing that
definitely should not
be politicized,
otherwise they're going to start.
Because they arrest people,
they have the FBI under them.
They have the Attorney General
obviously, they have
all the district attorneys etc.
If you use the force of the law
against your political opponents or
your media opponents then we're no
longer a democracy.
So that's why when Kamala Harris
asked Barr,
did the White House ever ask you to
investigate anybody?
He said what do you mean by words?
[LAUGH] Because of course,
of course they did.
And now we find out yeah,
they've asked him,
I don't like those reporters,
go investigate them.
And don't I like those politicians,
Adam Schiff, lazy Adam Schiff or
whatever anti-semitic thing he had
for him, right?
He's like, just go find out.
If he's got kids,
grab their phones,
do whatever you want with them.
By the way the ostensible reason
for this is we're so
worried about leaks.
The Trump administration leaked
like a sieve, not just against them
but also in favor of them.
By the way this is true of
Republicans and Democrats.
They do leaks that make
them look positive all the time,
those are never investigated.
Never ever, doesn't
matter if they're top secret,
national security etc., right?
But if anyone ever leaks against
them, my god I'm so concerned about
national security, right?
And in this case, what had gotten
leaked was Trump told
the Russians and the White House,
don't worry I'm firing James Comey.
You won't have to worry about that
problem anymore.
By the way fake lefters now come in
and go Russia again, Russia again.
I can't believe you
mentioned the word Russia.
Look into the story,
that's what happened.
So I don't know why Trump wanted
to make sure that the Russian
ambassador was relieved that
he wanted to get
rid of our FBI director.
But when people found out about
that, Trump was furious.
And was ready to break any law to
make sure that whoever told
the Americans that he told
the Russian ambassador that he
would basically do his bidding for
him inside our White House, that he
would find them and punish them.
Now of course, the good news is,
Donald Trump,
in his infinite incompetence,
investigated all these people and
still couldn't find the leaker.
>> They want to make you drink
Starbucks every day from now until
forever.
>> [LAUGH] It was actually
Tucker Carlson.
That is not edited.
[LAUGH] >> That
really did catch me off guard, but
I guess it's as ridiculous as him
actually saying it.
And this is the scale, the scope,
I think it's the juxtaposition that
really gets me.
The absurdity of what is important
to conservatives versus what's not
important.
And it really hinges upon on who's
it in favor of.
If it's overreach by the government
and it's in favor of their
political ideology,
they're totally fine with it.
If it is overreach and
it's having to do with them
not being able to pick up a gun
at a drive through at Wendy's then
they have a problem with it.
And so that's really the hypocrisy
but I think it's absolutely at this
point, it's baked into the system.
And I think Democrats either
are oblivious to it or
they're complicit with it and
I'm leaning more and more and
more that they're complicit with
this versus just ignorance.
>> Yeah, I mean I'm someone on
the left who obviously is not
really a fan of the institutions of
either the CIA or the FBI.
But I do find it kind of unique how
loyalties seem to flip depending
on what's happening, right?
I remember a lot of Republicans
used to despise Wikileaks and
thought they were traitors and
then all of a sudden Wikileaks was
revealing Hillary Clinton's emails.
And so now Hillary, sorry,
Wikileaks is a patriotic
institution, stuff like that.
I think the same thing applies in
this case when we're talking about
either the DOJ, what have you.
If Trump's doing it, it was okay.
Then it was completely fine, right?
Because he was basically trying to
weed out corruption.
He was trying to drain the swamp.
But if it goes in
the opposite direction,
then this is just a dramatic
overreach of government power.
>> Yeah and that's a great point.
And unfortunately once folks
are into a particular camp,
they can't see straight.
So the facts no longer matter.
So they're like, Trump good.
By the way, I mean there's another
classic example.
The Republicans hated Russia and
they used to accuse people on
the left being lackeys for
the Russians even after they
stopped being the Soviet Union.
They were like, who cares about it?
>> Or North Korea,
don't forget about that.
>> Yeah, North Korea is an even
better example.
Thank you Lance, right?
So they went from North Korea is
the worst communist
dictatorship etc.,
which by the way is true, okay?
They don't do communism but they're
an awful, awful dictatorship.
But then Trump literally said
that he fell
in love with Kim Jong-Un and they
wrote love letters to one another.
And now the right wing turn around
and North Korea's the best,
communism's awesome.
[LAUGH] I mean, is there any bigger
hypocrisy than that, right?
Now they're giant Russia fans.
And so right now, guys the reality
is just look at the facts, right?
So in the case of Russia, should
you be against the Russian people?
Of course not.
Why would anybody be against any
kinds of people, right?
The question is,
how's their government, right?
I always use Turkey as an example
because I'm Turkish-American.
So the current right wing
government of Turkey is led by
Erdoğan.
Not a big fan, okay,
because he's right wing and
I'm not.
And I think he's done abuses that
I'm against.
That doesn't mean I hate Turks,
okay?
That doesn't make any sense.
So in the case of Russia, you could
say, Vladimir Putin, a giant right
winger, authoritarian,
horrible leader of Russia.
That doesn't mean we should
invade Russia.
That doesn't mean that you need to
switch your position on whatever.
You just have to look at the facts.
Here, I'll give you one last
example, FBI, right?
So as Lance pointed out,
historically the FBI and
CIA have not exactly been fans and
friends and allies of the left,
right?
And certainly all across the world,
the CIA did coups and so
many other ways to disrupt
leftist governments that were
actually trying to look out for
the people of their countries and
keep their natural resources etc.
But then the FBI was awful to
the civil rights movement,
to any progressives.
J Edgar Hoover was a monster
of monsters.
FBI was one of the worst
organizations in American history.
But these days the FBI is
an interesting mixed bag.
And so sometimes when they do thin
blue line and protect police when
they're not doing the right things
or law enforcement when they're not
doing the right things,
we criticize them.
But they've actually done a pretty
good job of stopping a lot of white
supremacist terrorist attacks.
And I give them credit for that.
Why, am I switching teams and
now I love the FBI?
No, credit where credit is due.
And discredit were
discredited is due.
It's not that hard, you just have
to not be ideologically rigid.
And in that particular case I don't
know I get that.
I have a cult of personality and
that talk show host or
that political leader told me
I'm either pro FBI or I'm anti FBI.
I'm either pro Russia or
I'm anti Russia, and
all the baggage that comes with it.
No, just please I'm begging you to
use your mind.
>> Cenk, I used to believe, no,
I still believe everything that you
just said.
I used to think that there was
a limit to how far conservatives
would go with their hypocrisy or
willingness to
switch sides based on how it
benefits them politically.
But after January 6th and
then after just different figures
on the right got blacklisted or
the no fly list.
It seemed like they're now really,
really willing to turn on America
itself, on democracy itself.
They're like we love America but if
the power structure of America is
not going to benefit us, then down
with democracy seems to be the next
move of some conservatives.
I've wondered what you
thought about that.
>> Well Ben real quick on that.
Actually that's an interesting
one where I think they have
been relatively consistent, but
with a mirage of marketing, okay?
So let me explain what I mean.
I think conservatives in
this country never believed
in democracy.
They wore the flag, and
they carried the Bible, and
they did all the trappings and
the marketing of being patriotic.
But they always prefer to have
their power rather than equality
and justice.
So in the south,
they said we love democracy but
not for Black people.
America's for equality, but not for
Black people.
We're going to keep them as
slaves, right?
Well, then you're obviously not for
equality, period.
That's the most obvious
thing in the world.
You're obviously not for justice.
You're obviously not for
the things that
America theoretically stands for.
And then they were so
adamant about that,
that they declared war on America.
because they say we would rather
have our power than America.
Fact, there's no disputing it,
right?
And then during the Jim Crow era
for 100 years they said we don't
care what the federal laws are,
we don't care what America wants.
Down here in Mississippi we
going to do what we want,
we going to break the federal
law all the time.
And screw America, and
screw justice and equality, we're
going to keep Black people down.
We're not going to let them vote,
we're going to do poll tax,
we're going to do lynchings.
But what is lynchings,
what is cross burnings?
It's terrorism, is to terrorize
the population, talked about
this on our recent show.
And the Tulsa massacre,
there's still folks alive today who
lost family members.
And they still don't want to talk
about it because they were so
terrorized that if they ever
mentioned it out loud, that they
too would be lynched, right?
So did those folks for that extra
100 years after the civil war,
do they believe in equality and
justice and the American way?
No, they despised it.
So now when I see them arguing for
yes, Trump should abuse his power,
screw democracy, if he didn't win
let's storm the capital and
take it by violence.
That actually is the conservative
tradition in America.
>> I don't think you even have to
look that far back
in the past though.
Just look at modern day voter
registration laws and the ones that
are trying to be passed, right?
Those disproportionately target
Black Americans,
indigenous Americans.
I mean like my mother is indigenous
in Canada and we can't fathom how
your system works where people have
to wait in line for
nine hours to vote.
That is absurd to me.
It takes me less than five minutes,
and it always has
in elections, right?
Whereas I hear the stories of
people in America they have
to line up all day.
And now they're not allowed to be
given food, they're
not allowed to be given water,
because it's considered to be
somehow infringing on democracy.
Where it's disproportionately
affecting people who
are marginalized.
>> And they have no shame about it.
>> Yeah.
>> And Ben's right, no shame.
They're trying to take away
people's voting rights right now,
today, while pretending to be
in favor of democracy.