Tim Dillon pushes back on CNN reporter asking if he's part of 'new establishment' that impacted 2024 race
Comedian and podcaster Tim Dillon rejected claims that he and other prominent comedians formed a "new establishment" that contributed to former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 presidential election during an interview with CNN on Monday.
Dillon told CNN reporter Elle Reeve that he doesn't "buy the narrative" that several comedians with podcasts were responsible for sinking the Harris campaign or determining the outcome of the race.
Reeve asked Dillon whether he believed he was part of a newly emerging establishment, and he pushed back, saying, "I don't think I'm part of the new establishment."
Dillon continued, noting that Harris entered the race under challenging conditions: "But this is a very specific circumstance in which Kamala Harris ran for president. She was somewhat unpopular, and she was not a star in Democratic politics before this at all. And her communication strategy was pretty weak. I think most people admitted that. So to hang this defeat all on a few podcasts and to say that they were the problem, I just don't buy the narrative."
The comedian dismissed the notion that "a few comedians with podcasts" were able to go toe-to-toe with the "multibillionaires, huge media institutions, a whole political party apparatus" that supported Harris' campaign.
"I think it seems like a great way to excuse running an unpopular candidate on a platform that American people weren't sold on," Dillon said.
After being pressed further by Reeve on comedians' influence on politics, Dillon mocked the idea that he and other comedians have power that "is equal to the CIA."
"The idea that, like, the power that Theo Von has would be equal to, like, the intelligence agencies or these massive legacy media institutions seems crazy," he stated, referencing fellow comedian Theo Von.
Reeve maintained that comedians had significant sway, arguing they had formed an 'establishment' with substantial influence over large audiences. Dillon eventually interrupted, challenging this notion.
"Well, just, you used the word establishment," Dillon interjected. "I didn't say that we didn't have any power or that audiences weren't powerful. But when you use the term 'establishment,' I think that that's more than just having an audience. That's having an institutional component that I don't think we have."
The comedian continued, offering a counter narrative to the reporter's argument that podcasters had the power to have a major influence on an election.
"But I think legacy media does. I think the government and the intelligence communities do. I think Hollywood certainly does. And I think all of those people, all of those power factions have worked together for a very, very, very long time. So to say that a few comedians with podcasts equal that seems crazy to me," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Will Rubio move to ban Chinese students from the US?
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Protest erupts after immigration raid, police in standoff
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
Geek Vibes Nation
an hour ago
- Geek Vibes Nation
‘Bird In Hand' Review - An Honest Look At Family And The Struggle To Embrace Your Identity
Identity feels like something that should be simple. It is just who you are, right? Well, yes and no. It is that, but definitions are difficult and involve complex levels of context provided by life experience, racial history, familial history, and a certain amount of unknowable information that we only sometimes have awareness of at different points in our lives. The gaps in our identities are likely the most interesting; otherwise, what is the living of our moment-to-moment experience even for? The living, no matter how messy, will help inform where we go next and how we deal with it. Bird in Hand, from first-time director Melody C. Roscher, explores this, and much more, under the guise of a familial dramedy. Bird (Alisha Wainwright), a biracial woman, has returned to her family's home in the country, ostensibly because she is engaged to be married to her boyfriend, Frank. This leads her to her mother, Carlotta (Christine Lahti), with whom she has a strained relationship, and her stepfather, Dale (Jeffrey Nordling). As their relationship is explored, they also make connections with their neighbors Dennis (James Le Gros) and Leigh (Annabelle Dexter-Jones), a white married couple who have purchased a plantation home, but don't worry, they are 'updating the narrative.' Wainwright has easily the most difficult task in the film. Roscher, also the screenwriter, is much more consumed with making Bird a real person rather than focusing on pure likability. This is not to say that she is unlikable per se, simply that she is an actual human being with flaws, some of her own making and some due to family history. Even through her issues, Bird's ache for care, consideration, and answers to the questions that she is afraid to ask all comes through clearly and in a manner that makes us root for her. Her search for a possible meeting with her birth father, Bower (K. Todd Freeman), with the excuse of hiring him as musical entertainment for her wedding, offers her the challenge of acting with nothing but her talent and a screen featuring an advertisement for his band. The fact that Wainwright manages a gamut of emotions, including longing, worry, desperation, and frustration, all in the space of a few moments, is a testament to both her obvious talent and Roscher's well-placed trust in her abilities. From the beginning, which features a fight between Bird and Frank in which she is dressed as a bleeding bride for a Halloween party, Roscher handles difficult themes with aplomb. Bird's reaction when being pseudo-proposed to (shock, confusion) may seem odd at this moment, but the script allows this moment to come full circle without ever holding your hand. When Carlotta is dismissive about her upcoming nuptials, we quickly find out that marriage, along with most expected life events, are frowned upon, both due to her 'woo-woo' ideals and her difficult history with Bower leaving her after she became pregnant with Bird. Although there is a massive amount of drama involved, the dark comedy that comes to the forefront almost immediately makes Bird in Hand a mostly easy watch. Yes, families are difficult and emotions are complex. But when you have Christine Lahti almost stealing a horse and white people asking a biracial young woman to pose for pictures in front of a plantation, there are plenty of opportunities for moments of levity that are taken advantage of by Roscher. Some moments feel a bit too much on the side of comedy, but these are brief before we return to Alisha Wainwright's astounding performance of a complex woman. But, like everything in life, nothing is truly simple. Is Bower cruel? Is Carlotta willfully misleading her daughter? Is Bird selfish? Are Carlotta and Dale a loving couple? Are Dennis and Leigh well-meaning white folks? These are all questions that have answers. The problem is that this all depends, not only on who you ask, but when you ask, as the answers, like identity, are constantly in a state of flux. We are all simply doing our best and reacting to the latest information we have. As we age, it becomes important to see our parents as real human beings, but there is maybe nothing harder to achieve. As sons and daughters, we want to be taken care of one moment, and we want a strong reaction the next. When Bird screams at her mother to 'stop being comfortable,' it rocks you to your core. If we are going through emotional trauma, what could be more difficult than a calm person who we know is imperfect and roiling with emotions under the surface? That is, until those emotions come and we have to deal with them. Roscher bravely denies us any easy answers and lays a real, difficult, fractured relationship at our feet, daring us to pick up the pieces. Bird In Hand held its World Premiere as a part of the U.S. Narrative Competition section of the 2025 Tribeca Festival. Director: Melody C. Roscher Screenwriter: Melody C. Roscher Rated: NR Runtime: 87m
