A “Fox & Friends” host got an unexpected lesson on wealth inequality from a retired man eating breakfast in an Ohio diner.
Pete Hegseth visited a diner Wednesday in Columbus, where he encountered a few fans of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) the morning after the latest Democratic presidential debate.
“I think she makes a lot of sense,” said Bill, a longtime Democrat sipping coffee in the diner. “You know, when she brought up that billionaires and taxing them after about $50 million, two cents of every dollar that they’ve made after, it’s nothing to them, and it would help so many people here.”
“I mean, we could build our infrastructure, the schools, colleges — we could do so (many things) with that,” Bill added. “Most people would think two cents of every dollar, what is that? A drop in the bucket? But it’s millions, billions of dollars. These 3 percent of the people that we have that own almost half of what we are worth in the United States is just deplorable.”
Hegseth asked whether he thought Warren’s tax plan would drive wealthy Americans out of the country, and Bill told the Fox News host that higher marginal tax rates had worked just fine when he was a younger man.
“It seems to me like, if I remember correctly, back in the 1960s and 1970s, that if you were a millionaire, your taxes were awfully high,” Bill said. “I think it was in that range 50, 60, 70 percent — nobody bitched about it then, still made lots of billionaires. I think once you get past a couple of million dollars, you got all the money you need. How about giving some of that to the people who worked for a living that can’t make it?”
Hegseth ended the interview by questioning whether that was a wise campaign strategy, and then turned to a server who was wrapping up an overnight shift and asked their thoughts on the debate.
“I really liked Elizabeth Warren, as well,” the server said.
A Fox & Friends diner guest tells Pete Hegseth that the wealth gap “is just deplorable,” and that “back in the 60s and 70s, if you were a millionaire, your taxes were awfully high … nobody bitched about it then.” pic.twitter.com/A9PtsOwRLf
— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) October 16, 2019
How The Hill’s John Solomon helped Rudy Giuliani spread his Ukraine conspiracies
After John Solomon ran columns in The Hill that touched off a disinformation campaign against Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the publication had discussions with Rudy Giuliani about a business venture.
As ProPublica revealed last month, Giuliani associate Lev Parnas had helped arrange an interview Solomon conducted with a Ukrainian prosecutor who claimed the Obama administration interfered with anti-corruption cases involving high-profile people, including Biden’s son Hunter. Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, trumpeted Solomon’s work on cable news. The Hill articles are now a central component of the Trump impeachment investigation.
Forget the politics — for now: Follow the flowing money in the Ukraine scandal
The Ukraine scandal is mostly viewed through the prism of politics — an attempt by President Donald Trump to gain an advantage over a political opponent. But, as most things are, it’s also about money — and we found lots of it flowing between key players in the scandal.
On this week’s episode of “Trump, Inc.,” we follow the money.First, Let’s Meet Our Cast of Ukraine Players
Richest among them is Dmitry Firtash, an oligarch who has been battling to avoid an extradition flight to Chicago, where he faces federal charges of bribery. The Department of Justice has described Firtash as an “upper-echelon” associate “of Russian organized crime.” (He denies the charges and says the prosecution is politically motivated.)
Televised impeachment hearings mattered during Watergate — but they may not today: John Dean associate
I started a continuing legal education program with John Dean in 2011. We have done over one-hundred-and-fifty programs across the nation since then.
Our first program was about obstruction of justice and how Dean, as Nixon’s White House Counsel, navigated the stormy waters when he turned on the president and became history’s most important whistleblower. Unlike the current whistleblower, Dean had been involved in the cover-up, but ultimately decided he had to end the criminal activity in the White House, with no assurance of anonymity and with the almost certain expectation that he was blowing himself up in the process.