Angela Rye Firmly Tells Kevin O'Leary Not To Touch Her In Fiery CNN Debate
In the segment, Rye argues that Musk's contributions of $6,600 to seven different Republican lawmakers should be viewed as a 'quid pro quo,' insinuating that the billionaire was buying influence. In an attempt to launch his counterpoint, O'Leary began animatedly gesturing and was abruptly confronted.
'He literally tweeted to members of Congress… you don't have to touch me!' Rye snapped.
Taken aback, O'Leary attempted to defuse the situation. 'I did that nicely,' he insisted. 'I don't want you to touch me,' the podcaster shot back.
'I won't ever do it again,' O'Leary then conceded, leaving an awkward tension to linger between them.
See the moment below.
Unmoved by the awkwardness, Rye pressed on, emphasizing that Musk had explicitly thanked the lawmakers receiving his donations on X. 'But he literally says, he literally, he says thank you to the members who introduced articles of impeachment,' she stated. 'That is an exchange of value. That is a violation.'
O'Leary, rebounding from the tense moment, pivoted to a broader perspective on political fundraising. 'Let's talk about the two narratives going on simultaneously. The oldest profession on Earth is not prostitution; it's politicians raising money,' he quipped. 'That has happened from the beginning of time. That's going on forever and will continue forever. This issue around judges, this is pure politics. Get over it. This is what we live in today, every day.'
'No laws have been broken,' he added. 'You don't like it? Too bad.'
Angela Rye has never been one to hold back her feelings about political issues. In 2017, Rye created another moment when she refused to call Donald Trump 'her president.'
See Rye's exchange with Kevin O'Leary above.
More from VIBE.com
People Are In Their Feelings Over Angela Rye Referring To Trump As 'Your President'
CNN Dismantles Race And Equality Team Amid National Mass DEI Disbandments
Kevin Costner Recalls Refusing To Cut His Whitney Houston Eulogy For CNN: "They Can Get Over That"
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's war on mail-in voting is futile — and could hurt the GOP
President Trump is threatening to wage war on mail-in ballots — and the GOP has to hope he thinks again before the 2026 mid-terms. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he is 'going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,' and he'll start off with 'an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterm elections.' Trump likes the idea of in-person, same-day voting, which has much to recommend it. Advertisement But mail-in and early voting are so ingrained and widespread that they aren't going anywhere. Most Republicans have concluded that there's no alternative to making use of these modes of voting, and crucially, they managed — most of the time — to get Trump on board in 2024. Advertisement This aided the Republican get-out-the-vote operation in a close election. Clearly, though, Trump believes that mail-in voting is a Democratic plot, and he also hates contemporary voting machines. Old-school paper ballots don't guarantee honesty, however: In an infamous instance of voter fraud, allies of Lyndon Johnson stuffed Box 13 with enough ballots to put him over the top in the very narrow 1948 Democratic Senate primary in Texas. Today's voting machines, moreover, were a reaction to the Florida fiasco in 2000, when punch-card ballots had to be painstakingly examined by hand with a presidential election at stake. Advertisement The fact is that vote-by-mail has been steadily growing since the 1980s, and it needn't favor one side or the other. In Florida, Republicans have long made it a priority to maximize mail voting. A study by the academic Andrew Hall of pre-COVID voting patterns in California, Utah and Washington found a negligible partisan effect as those states rolled out vote-by-mail systems. Advertisement Overall, turnout went up only very slightly, and 'the Democratic share of turnout did not increase appreciably.' Mail-in voting didn't change who was voting, but how they did it — encouraging, as you might expect, voting by mail rather than in-person. Vote-by-mail did have a strong partisan tilt in the COVID election of 2020, in part because Trump inveighed against it. In 2024, Republicans made a concerted effort to make up ground — and succeeded. The GOP went from 24% of the mail vote in the must-win swing state of Pennsylvania in 2020, to 33% in 2024. And Republicans outpaced Democrats in mail-in balloting in Arizona. The advantage to a party of getting people to vote early — whether in person or by mail — is that it takes high-propensity voters off the table. Then, a turnout operation can focus on getting lower-propensity voters to the polls. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If no one votes until Election Day, party operatives waste time and money right up to the cusp of the election contacting people who are going to vote no matter what. Advertisement None of this is to say that all mail-in voting is equal. So-called universal mail-in voting, or automatically sending a ballot to every registered voter and scattering live ballots around a state, is a bad practice. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The rules should be more stringent. Advertisement Georgia, for example, gets this right: You have to ask for an absentee ballot and provide your driver's license number or a copy of another form of valid ID. Ballots have to be requested at least 11 days before the election and must be returned by Election Day. The outer 'oath' envelope has to be properly completed or the ballot is subject to being rejected, although the county elections office will provide the voter a chance to 'cure' the envelope. Advertisement It's also important to count early and mail-in ballots quickly, something that too many states fail to do, with California — as usual — the worst offender. States should be expected to abide by whatever rules have been set prior to an election, rather than changing them on the fly, and they should ensure that voter rolls are regularly cleaned up. The real question about vote-by-mail isn't whether it is staying or going, but whether Republicans, too, will take advantage of it. Twitter: @RichLowry
