look at the democratic leadership in congress. you have chuck schumer, born in 1950. nancy pelosi born before that. and joe crowley was the youngest, i think born in 1962. so i think there was this real want for young leadership, and i think that the primary result here is an indication of that. interesting statement from the national republican congressional committee. house democrats hoping for a post-pelosi air are left leaderless. the only person happier tonight than nancy pelosi is the nrcc. let me ask you about the notion of a blue wave and all the energy on the left. four years ago, 67,000 people vote. only 27,000 turned out last night. where s the energy at all on the left in terms of the turnout? i you know, i would say, look, this is a congressional primary that is happening in late june. new york is one of the few states that has two primaries, one for state politics, one for federal politics. the fact that there was a lower turnout to me isn t that surprising. i think
there are a lot of good hard working people especially on the hard news side. sure, but let me ask you this, because there is disagreement in these times, we know. did you see or do you think there are people there who are being knowingly misleading, knowingly spinning, knowingly unfair about what this president is doing, about how the d.o.j. and fbi work, about those big issues? yes, of course. i mean, what s astonishing to me isn t how people are ready to sell their souls but that they sell them so cheaply. the evening hosts for the most part are intelligent people. they are savvy. they didn t get there by being dummies. and they know what they are doing. they understand that they are doing propaganda. but they have drunk the jones town kool-aid, brother. and i will tell you, the damage being done to the united states of america by propagandizing
lawless. a president who does not understand our country, doesn t understand our system of government, and doesn t care or want to understand it. and so for me, it was ethically impossible to remain. and that does not mean that everybody at fox is evil. there are a lot of good hard working people especially on the hard news side. sure, but let me ask you this, because there is disagreement in these times, we know. did you see or do you think there are people there who are being knowingly misleading, knowingly spinning, knowingly unfair about what this president is doing, about how the d.o.j. and fbi work, about those big issues? yes, of course. i mean, what s astonishing to me isn t how people are ready to sell their souls but that they sell them so cheaply. the evening hosts for the most part are intelligent people. they are savvy. they didn t get there by being dummies. and they know what they are
is this a moment within your church and sermons you need to start talking about the immigration policy, is or are you politicizing a church by going there? politics are going to be in church because politics involve people, so we ll talk about whatever we need to. yeah. and this issue to me are you playing to your audience because you have a new york audience? i think if we were in tulsa, oklahoma or rural, alabama, we need to be talking about the rights of family, of people, of human beings. that to to me isn t a political issue, not a geographical issue but that s a jesus issue and we re going to keep talking about it. really appreciate it. we ll be right back, everybody. he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal he holds your house in the palm of his hand he s your home and auto man big jim, he s got you covered great big jim, there ain t no other -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie
heck out of the show. i know people will find this shocking, the idea that two lawyers either working on a settlement or have settled cases end up talking together to figure out how to deal with the media aspect of it. meaning lawyers, like in any other industry, end up working together even if they re on other sides of the issue. these don t strike you as uncommon? the only reason it s uncommon is because we are talking about going on tv. she was paid $130. that s not nothing. meaning a settlement was reached. the idea that these two attorneys had been having conversations about how to deal with the media side of it just to me isn t that unusual. now, is there an argument to be made about the bar association to say, well, we didn t know davidson was representing her interests. okay. file a complaint with the bar association. what michael avenatti is trying to do here is get discovery. he wants more information than he currently has. i m not faulting him for trying.