logo
CNN's Jennings congratulates Democrats for ‘getting rid of' Jean-Pierre

CNN's Jennings congratulates Democrats for ‘getting rid of' Jean-Pierre

The Hilla day ago

CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings on Wednesday congratulated Democrats for 'getting rid of' former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre after recently revealing her decision to become an independent.
'I'd like to congratulate Democrats for ridding yourselves of this untalented mediocrity,' Jennings said on CNN's 'The Arena with Kasie Hunt.' 'I mean, this is the most self-aggrandizing liar that has ever held this job.'
'The White House press secretary's a sacred position, and she stood up there for years and lied through her teeth to the American people,' he added.
Jean-Pierre has a book coming out soon in which she pushes Americans to 'embrace life as independents.' The book, titled 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines,' is set to be released in October and described as a 'groundbreaking, revelatory assessment of America's broken two-party system.'
'Jean-Pierre didn't come to her decision to be an independent lightly,' a publisher's description of the book reads.
'She takes us through the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision.'
Jean-Pierre, the first Black and openly LGBTQ person to hold the role of press secretary, previously slammed members of her former party for pressuring former President Biden to leave the 2024 presidential race.
'I'd never seen a party do that in the way that they did, and it was hurtful and sad to see that happening, a firing squad around a person who I believe was a true patriot,' Jean-Pierre said in February.
The Hill has reached out to Legacy Lit for comment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Says Musk Wants to Talk After Explosive Public Feud
Trump Says Musk Wants to Talk After Explosive Public Feud

Newsweek

time29 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Trump Says Musk Wants to Talk After Explosive Public Feud

President Donald Trump said Elon Musk is "the man who has lost his mind," brushing off their high-profile fallout despite headlines suggesting the two may soon speak, per ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl . "Not particularly," Trump said about whether he was interested in a call, claiming Musk was keen to speak. 08:28 AM EDT Russia offers political asylum to Elon Musk over Trump feud Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images A Russian official said the American billionaire Elon Musk could be offered political asylum in Russia over his fierce dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump. Dmitry Novikov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, commented to Russian state news outlet TASS. "I think that Musk has a completely different game, [so] he will not need any political asylum, although if he did, Russia, of course, could provide it," Novikov said, in remarks translated from Russian. Musk and Trump, ostensibly political allies over cuts to federal spending, publicly clashed on June 5 in a series of social media exchanges and comments to reporters. The dispute's origin is the impact of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill on U.S. public debt. Read the full story by Jordan King and Shane Croucher on Newsweek.

Hawley Breaks With Republicans to Oppose a Major Crypto Bill
Hawley Breaks With Republicans to Oppose a Major Crypto Bill

New York Times

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Hawley Breaks With Republicans to Oppose a Major Crypto Bill

While the clash between Elon Musk and President Trump captivated Washington on Thursday, another drama was playing out behind closed doors over a bill to regulate the $250 billion market for stablecoins, which could transform America's relationship with the dollar, upend the credit card industry, and benefit both Musk and Trump. The bill, the GENIUS Act, is poised to pass the Senate within days. But a prominent Republican, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, said that he will vote against the bill in its current form, warning that it would hand too much control of America's financial system to tech giants. 'It's a huge giveaway to Big Tech,' Hawley said in an interview. Mr. Hawley, who previously voted against the bill for procedural purposes, is concerned that the legislation would allow tech giants to create digital currencies that compete with the dollar. And he fears that such companies would then be motivated to collect even more data on users' finances. 'It allows these tech companies to issue stablecoins without any kind of controls,' he said. 'I don't see why we would do that.' Similar worries scuttled an effort by Meta to get into stablecoins. In 2019, Jay Powell of the Fed, among others, raised 'serious concerns' about Meta's cryptocurrency initiative, called Libra and then Diem. It abandoned the project in 2022. The GENIUS Act has exposed divisions in both parties. Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts oppose the bill, warning it would make it easier for Trump, whose family announced its own USD1 stablecoin in March, to engage in corrupt practices. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace
Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace

A major fault line in contemporary society is that while our political lives are governed by democratic principles, our economic lives largely are not. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, Maple Leaf Foods experienced an outbreak in its Brandon, Man. factory. Not only were workers ordered to keep working in unsafe conditions, they were forced to work overtime. Walmart has long been accused of forbidding its cashiers from sitting down, even during long shifts. At one of its warehouses in Pennsylvania, Amazon allowed the temperature to reach an unbearable 102 F in 2011. When employees pleaded to open the loading doors to let in fresh air, management refused, claiming this would lead to employee theft. Instead, Amazon parked ambulances outside and waited for employees to collapse from heat stroke. Employees who were sent home because of the heat were given demerits for missing work, and fired if they accumulated too many. These examples reflect the fact that, in most workplaces, employees have no say in who manages them or how major decisions are made. Entering the workplace typically means leaving the freedoms of democratic society behind and entering a private domain unilaterally controlled by an employer. For most workers who are not in senior management, the main job of every job is to follow orders. Functionally speaking, workers are servants. In its governance structure, the modern workplace operates as a kind of mini dictatorship. Although workplace discipline isn't enforced with physical violence, supervisors still have the power to discipline or punish those who dissent. But what if there were an actual legal right to workplace democracy? My research scrutinized the pros and cons of such novel legislation by drawing on decades of research comparing conventional, top-down firms with democratic worker co-operatives (where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board). In large American firms, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now a jaw-dropping 351 to one. As CEO, Jeff Bezos made roughly 360,000 times more than Amazon's minimum wage workers. This inequality ripples across society with significant consequences. By contrast, most worker co-ops maintain a pay ratio of three to one and only very rarely exceed 10 to one. There's also a stark difference in how workers are treated. While conventional firms lay off workers whenever it's profitable to do so, co-ops do everything in their power to save jobs. Top-down decision-making also breeds degradation and disrespect. A 2016 Oxfam report, for instance, documented how some Tyson Foods employees were prevented from using the bathroom to the point where some urinated themselves and other felt compelled to wear diapers to work. A Gallup survey from 2021 found that across the American economy as a whole, only 20 per cent of workers strongly agreed with the statement that 'my opinions seem to count.' In co-ops, workers are generally treated with more respect and dignity. They typically participate more in decision-making, have higher job satisfaction and have less antagonism with management. In conventional workplaces, many employees hate or fear their boss. Roughly 17 per cent of the workforce opt for self-employment in order to get away from the tyranny of the boss, even though self-employed workers typically earn about 15 per cent less than their salaried counterparts and receive less than half the benefits. Worker co-operatives are typically less dominating than conventional firms because workers elect their managers and can create self-managing teams where workers have more autonomy over matters like scheduling and how tasks are carried out. Though co-ops are far from perfect, with workers often feeling that they aren't able to participate in decision-making as much as they would like. Most workers have no viable alternative to undemocratic work, and so no choice but to suffer its harms. While in theory, workers can quit and rely on welfare or social assistance, in practice, this isn't viable because welfare rates are often too low to live on. Starting a business or becoming self-employed is another theoretical option, but it's too financially risky to be a serious alternative for most. Joining a worker co-operative is the most promising alternative, but there were less than 400 worker co-ops in Canada in 2022, representing less than one per cent of employment. Converting an existing workplace into a co-op faces serious barriers too. Even if the workers desperately want a conversion, if the employer doesn't, they're out of luck; their employer owns the organization and can simply say no. Canada needs a new law to expand democracy by granting workers the legal right to collectively buy into the firms they work for. The process would resemble how unionization works today. It would start after a majority of employees sign a declaration stating their intent to form a worker co-operative. After this threshold is reached, a formal process would be triggered: employers would be required to disclose all relevant financial documents with the workers, and workers would receive education on the managerial, technical and legal requirements of co-ops. Co-op development bankers would provide loans and financing options. Once this is done, workers would hold a final vote. If a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) votes in favour, the employer would be paid the fair market value for the firm and the business would be restructured as a worker co-operative. Importantly, the law would allow this transition even if the employer is opposed, just as collective bargaining legislation allows workers to unionize without employer approval. It would also ensure owners are fairly compensated; owners shouldn't lose their property, but they should lose the right to unilaterally govern other human beings in perpetuity, especially when those others are willing and ready to govern themselves. Of course, this law might bring some economic disruption. It's possible that certain owners might oppose democratic ownership so strongly that they would rather shut down the business altogether than work as equals, but such cases would likely be rare. On the other hand, research shows that worker co-ops are just as productive as conventional firms (if not more so) and they have similar survival rates. This is highly reassuring for the overall well-being of the economy. Moreover, workers would need to invest significant amounts of their own money in order to buy out the firm, so conversions will occur only after serious consideration. The bottom line is that while the costs of this legislation would likely be modest, the benefits to workers and society at large would be substantial: reduced inequality and domination, increased job security and respect. Canada should establish a right to buy-in as soon as possible. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Tom Malleson, Western University Read more: Canada's small businesses could be saved by converting them to co-operatives The key to a vibrant democracy may well lie in your workplace New budget offers Canada a chance to get employee ownership right Tom Malleson has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store