CNBC pulls video of Elizabeth Warren smacking down anchor over Glass-Steagall

Earlier this week, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) went on CNBC last Friday to debate the Glass-Steagall banking regulations that were adopted in 1933, and her proposal to update and strengthen the law in a way that would likely force the big banks to spin off some of their business and stop being so damn big.

As you can imagine, CNBC is no fan of Glass Steagall, regulating banks, or Elizabeth Warren.

During her appearance on CNBC, Warren basically kicked ass, the video went viral, with over 700,000 views in a matter of days, so CNBC pulled it.

Here’s what sits in place of the video now:


And where did CNBC pull the video from?  They filed a complaint with YouTube and had the video yanked from the Senator’s official YouTube account – but only after it had accumulated over 700,000 views in a matter of days.

Apparently, the buzz over Warren’s appearance got so great, that CNBC anchor Jim Cramer had to try to shoot it down on Twitter (h/t to HuffPo for that point):

Yeah, Elizabeth Warren had so little impact that CNBC filed a complaint against the YouTube account of a United States Senator in order to get the no-impact video pulled.


Here’s a quick transcript of the best part, and below is the actual video, if it’s still live when this article goes up:

ELIZABETH WARREN: From 1797 to 1933, the American banking system crashed about every 15 years. In 1933, we put good reforms in place, for which Glass-Steagall was the centerpiece, and from 1933 to the early 1980s, that’s a 50 year period, we didn’t have any of that – none. We kept the system steady and secure.

And it was only as we started deregulating, you start hitting the S&L crisis, and what did we do? We deregulated some more. And then you hit long-term capital management at the end of the 90s, and what did we do as a country, this country continued to deregulate more. And then we hit the big crash in 2008.

You are not going to defend the proposition that regulation can never work, it did work.

CNBC’s BRIAN SULLIVAN: I didn’t say regulation never worked, Senator. By far and away, and I agree, there were fewer bank failures in that time after Glass-Steagall.

ELIZABETH WARREN: “Fewer,” as in of the big ones, zero.

Damn she is good. Below is the video:

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

101 Responses to “CNBC pulls video of Elizabeth Warren smacking down anchor over Glass-Steagall”

  1. Jim Olson says:

    CNBC hasn’t figured out that once it goes onto the interwebs, it *never* goes away?

  2. Dan says:

    Another banking failure is inevitable if Congress does not pass a new Glass-Steagall bill. The toxic mortgage derivatives are still being traded.

  3. Dan says:

    I am a populist Republican that admires the work that Senator Warren has done in regards to this issue. We need to pass another Glass-Steagall Act. Jim Cramer is just a shill for Wall Street.

  4. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    If you believe censoring an opinion because you disagree with it is foolish, then you’d agree that censoring a subreddit full of important news-worthy articles is foolish as well. Anonymous redditors weighing in with opinions isn’t nearly as important as exposing the public to the articles, and educating people of current events to begin with. So, your position of “downvoting inhibits real political debate, so we’ll remove politics in general” seems pretty stupid. You want to know how to change public opinion on matters where you’re outnumbered? Be polite, present facts intelligently and with sources, and pick your battles.

  5. Older_postie says:

    The lady knows her stuff. I guess thoughtfulness and facts don’t bring in the ratings like a clown shouting “boo-ya” equipped with a battery of horns. As others have pointed out, CNBC has applied the mentality of an all sports format radio station to financial news. So organized facts that tie together are ignored in place of random facts here and there interspersed with cheerleading.

  6. rustyoldcar says:

    Go Senator, go!

  7. caphillprof says:

    There needs to be less copyright and more public right to see these bozos for what they are.

  8. karmanot says:

    Remember those genuine, perfectly exact replicas of the Liberty coin in GOLD! Gold applied so thin that it rubbed off by the friction of its genuine plastic container?

  9. Thom Yorke Siegel says:

    I have no idea why the democrats tolerate her, but they would have my vote if they nominated her for president. Fuck hillary tho

  10. karmanot says:


  11. karmanot says:

    Yep, the Obama blueprint!

  12. Jon Rodriguez says:

    There was once a really interesting guest on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, unfortunately, I forget his name. However, the point he made kind of blew me away: We teach “economics” to future decision makers as if it were this carefully balanced, academically decipherable subject, like slowly guiding apprentices on the delicate workings of a large fragile machine. We teach “business” to future capitalists as if it were a selfish, angry war where inequality isn’t just normal, it’s necessary and highly desirable. We never seem to combine these two disciplines, and it really shows.

  13. Norman Poisson says:

    I’d like her as president TOO! She must be telling the truth if something like CNBS pulls her video.

  14. goosecannons says:

    I want her as President. Can we have her as President? Can she run so I can vote for her? PLEASE?!

  15. Bob Huddleston says:

    WooHoo! Fair Use for the WIN, right here on this page!…I think and hope so, anyway.

  16. That’s not how copyright works. In theory, if you’re commenting on specific parts of the segment, you could claim fair use to reproduce those specific segments, but rehosting the whole segment on youtube probably won’t cut it (especially since it’s likely an automated ContentID takedown).

  17. Debi says:

    As far as I’m concerned, she’s the only HOPEFUL presidential candidate there is.

  18. powerroots99 says:

    because those who oppose it stand to lose a lot of money… that’s why.

  19. Louis says:

    is that like a zen koan or something?

  20. Louis says:


  21. Transplanted 'Nuck says:

    Once the clip became newsworthy CNBC lost the copyright protection it previously enjoyed. Do you have a position on the content of the video or are you a lawyer for CNBC?

  22. Ali says:

    Continental Illionis was one bank that crashed and did not set off a banking crisis where as ALL MAJOR banks failed after regulations were gone how do you compare those two and say that regulation is not a good way to go?

  23. Swift2 says:

    Jim Cramer, old douchebag.

  24. cole3244 says:

    senator warren gives the nicest smack downs known to woman, she is a reason to have hope for the future and if we can get her in a position of even more power the future might just look very positive.
    cnbc has been on my no view list like fox & cnn for a while now and this is one of the reasons why.

  25. nicho says:

    Well, you don’t make a lot of money by knowing how the economy works. You make money by knowing where markets are going in the future. It’s like you don’t call an electrical engineer to fix your toaster.

  26. nicho says:


  27. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

  28. SILENTSAM69 says:

    Why should copyrights apply to the news? They provide a service, they do not sell an intellectual property.

  29. oyunkolu says:

    I hope all is well with you and your summer.


  30. ComradeRutherford says:

    I believe you have me mixed up with someone else. I was commenting on CNBC’s attempts to bury this video clip and nothing more.

    I am well aware that Glass-Steagell was repealed by sellout-Dems. And the sellout Dems work hand in hand with their political masters, the GOP, to prevent any limits on corporatocracy.

  31. Naja pallida says:

    Can’t deny, my 401k took a serious hit in 2008/2009 as well, almost halved in value, but has since recovered with some serious rethinking… but I can’t imagine there are many people whose retirement savings didn’t take a hit. That was the whole point of the scam. Make the little people pay, while the perpetrators of the crime line their pockets.

  32. Lordwhorfin says:

    Don’t lie to Senator Warren’s face, smug anchor-peeps. The responding smack-down WILL leave a mark.

  33. Fuck this shit, I’ll upload the video on YouTube myself. Suck it, CNBC>

  34. karmanot says:

    “How do these people sleep at night?”—–well compensated.

  35. karmanot says:

    “Just curious as to what you think espionage might be?” Selling Paula Deen’s grease recipes to China?

  36. karmanot says:

    You mean the Jim Cramer, who lead his ditto heads over the cliff during the Bush crash?

  37. matt says:

    Actually it was because it was a massive liberal circle jerk. Anyone who tried to argue the other side got downvoted and accosted into oblivion. This inhibits any REAL political debate.

  38. elfinito says:

    They also leave plenty of links up from CNBC (go check Youtube, and plenty are there)…so they do seem to have some selction criteria. Does this one match what they normally pull…I don’t know.

  39. Naja pallida says:

    Someone will inevitably apply the same metric to actual market experts, university professors, etc. Like why isn’t Paul Krugman a billionaire if he knows so much about economics, and how the markets work? But it ultimately it seems to come back to one conclusion, the markets are a scam.

  40. You guys realize that the clip is up on CNBC’s website, right? And that Senators also are subject to laws that cover things like copyright?

  41. nicho says:

    Expect nothing — and you will not be disappointed.

  42. nicho says:

    My question has always been, if these assholes know how to make money hand over fist in the stock market, why aren’t they doing that instead of working for a living.

    I know if I had some secret formula for making money, I’m not going to sign on to actually work for a living — and tell people my secret in the process. I’m just going to become a professional investor, make a ton of money, and sit by the pool — while the servants being me my lunch.

    Anyone who works a 40-hour week and pretends they know how to make money by investing is a fraud.

  43. Houndentenor says:

    And yet almost all of them will get re-elected. that’s a real problem. People think Congress is doing a horrible job (no argument there) but will re-elected their own Congressman thereby assuring nothing will get any better. A few election cycles of kicking most or all of them out on their asses and they’d start to be more afraid of the voters than the CEOs. I’m not holding my breath.

  44. dillhole jones says:

    Thanks CNBC, I definitely didn’t want any news in my news.

  45. sherrir says:

    seriously? When is taking 4 laptop computers’ worth of Top Secret information (actually, he took the laptops) to not one, but TWO countries that we have spied against and been spied on by over the past century, and allowing their “dump” to those countries, not espionage? Just curious as to what you think espionage might be? Talking on your shoe phone?

  46. Naja pallida says:

    I took philosophy for three years one week.

  47. SkippyFlipjack says:

    oh ok — I guess I must be subscribed to it

  48. D says:

    “Earlier this week, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) went on
    CNBC last Friday to debate the Glass-Steagall banking regulations that
    were adopted in 1933…”

  49. Peter says:

    It is way past time to remove campaign money from politicians and move to a government funded election campaigns, severely reduce the campaign start times, institute a maximum contribution, eliminate all gifts, etc.

  50. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    They didn’t delete it; they removed it as a default subreddit of the front page. This means people are no longer automatically subscribed to it and see it headlining on the front page along with “funny”, “pics”, “aww” and other mindless media. This reduces exposure of important social and political topics and news to a very large community.

  51. ehmkec says:

    I plead guilty. My ‘safely’ managed retirement fund lost 40% from 2007 – 2009. I am extremely fortunate to have a tax deferred account of any value but I know a lot of people who lost everything And I just can’t help but wonder… Oh that reminds me – remember the goons who thought Social Security should be put into Wall Street investments? (…long pause) But thank goodness the financial crooks were all put in jail where they can’t fleece anyone else. Right? They are in jail, right?

  52. SkippyFlipjack says:

    seriously? they removed the politics section altogether? edit: seems to still be there. change of heart?

  53. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I’m not talking about guest votes, but vote tallies — when I hover over the downvote total (and I downvoted your post just as a test) I don’t see the list of names. Upvotes will show, for example “6 Guest votes.”

  54. razster says:

    Because of a setting option. AmericanBlog allows for annon to vote. Others who use this can force signin to vote.

  55. nicho says:

    And what? CNBC is planning on putting it in DVD and selling it and they don’t want Youtube undercutting their sales? If this was something that made hem look good or Warren look bad, it would still be up there.

  56. nicho says:

    I think you need to get out more.

  57. SkippyFlipjack says:

    I think that link — which I hadn’t seen before, cool information — is across all Google properties, so yes it shows that NBC’s lawyers are busy, but not whether removal of this kind of short clip from YouTube is common. I feel like there are a TON of clips from news shows available on YouTube and they’re a major source of promotion for these shows so it seems that CNBC may indeed be sort of sensitive about this one.

  58. SkippyFlipjack says:

    Side comment — Disqus added names to the up and down votes! When did that happen? I’ve been hoping they would add that at some point. Correction: just the up votes, down votes are anonymous. OK, so we’re half transparent, half opaque.

  59. Naja pallida says:

    Did you take Glenn Beck’s “buy gold” advice too? :)

  60. Naja pallida says:

    None of the financial channels are worth a chicken fart. CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg… they’re all about shilling for Wall Street, and the thousands of corporations headquartered in the Cayman Islands. They’re basically nothing but a big whitewash infomercial for “Wall Street can do no wrong.” Not one of them did anything to warn investors about the crash in 2008, that the really serious financial people were warning about for years prior. They didn’t even seem to see it coming, at all. Every time there’s a new financial crisis, even minor ones, they’re completely stunned and useless and end up just repeating what is already reported in the mainstream news. What’s the point in having a specialty financial channel if they don’t give you any insight that you couldn’t get watching CNN? Then you have idiots like Jim Cramer, whose financial advice is about as useful as Glenn Beck’s “buy gold” scams. They’re all a waste of perfectly good channels that could be showing old reruns of Law & Order.

  61. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    Kguest is right in stating that this isn’t a partisanship interest though. A major problem with our political system right now, besides all the money dumping thanks to unlimited corporate personhood (thanks citizens united), is the illusion of democracy through the voting process. Both bipartisanships are in bed together, as they are lobbied by the same corporations and private interest groups. This is why there is a 10% approval rating in congress and nothing productive gets done. Even when the people make a big enough stink, whatever resolutions are made are quickly snuffed out behind the curtains when they think public attention has moved on.

  62. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    I was using as an aggregate for international news from more credible sources with significantly more journalistic integrity. Yesterday, removed one of their most engaging forum communities from the front page: POLITICS.
    Why? Official response: “not up to snuff”. It was replaced by a forum posting pictures of landscapes. Followup complaints and opinions were that the users expressing opinions in POLITICS were “too liberal”. Basically, they weren’t mimicing back talking points from Washington and regurgitated propaganda/ private sector agendas from major media news.
    Sad, really.

  63. dhough1976 says:

    Of course, Cramer is honest…except when he opens his mouth or types a word.

  64. dhough1976 says:

    I’ll bet you have. THe question then becomes, why did you listen to him? Further, why do you watch him? I is an idiot to the extreme who cares nothing about people’s financial well being or interests. His only motivation is shameless promotion, and the pursuit of celebrity. Were he to disappear tomorrow from the face of the earth, no one, and I mean NO ONE, would miss him!

  65. gratuitous says:

    I totally believe Jim Cramer when he tweeted that Sen. Warren’s factual recitation had NO impact at CNBC.

  66. dhough1976 says:

    CNBC…why does it exist? It treats financial matters like ESPN does sports, except the fate of millions of livelihoods and futures are at stake, and impacted by the talking heads in empty suits (read CRAMER and his ilk) screaming about investments like they were debates about who is the best running back in the NFL. And of course, all of these so called financial journalists (stifle guffaws) invariably come down on the side of their corporate masters. CNBC, if you went silent tomorrow, no one, and I mean NO ONE, would notice.

  67. samizdat says:

    A big paycheck is apparently an excellent sedative.

  68. dula says:

    Democratic congressmen take note. This is how a freshman senator takes action right out of the gate, rather than wait around and avoid controversy while you scope out your presidential prospects.

  69. Mike Crews says:

    Corporations own the public statements of our elected officials. Nice one!

  70. Marlon says:

    Apparently, you no longer adhere to the liberal media meme. Someone will be in contact with you shortly to begin you’re retraining process. Submit to them. I am joking.

  71. Too Big Has Failed says:

    Love the moment when Senator Warren responds with an emphatic “no.” She’s strong and calm and assured.

  72. Sheepish says:

    Obviously hasn’t been watching Fox News

  73. Max says:

    Yes, and I named that rock hyperbole ;)

  74. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    I was referring to the crooked bureaucrats, banksters, and “reporters” with a hand in ruining this nation and it’s economy.

  75. TheEthicalMan says:

    “…the worst piece of reporting I think I’ve ever seen in my life”?

    Have you been living under a rock?

  76. Max says:

    While extreme kudos to Warren, this is the worst piece of reporting I think I’ve ever seen in my life. It makes it sound like NBC Universal targeted this video (and by implication, not others) because of its political message or because it shows a CNBC anchor with mud on his face.

    In fact, NBC has sent Google over 119,000 urls to take down as infringements of copyright in the past month alone, which any reporter or human being can check by going to

    It’s fine and noble to trumpet Warren’s aggressive attempt to reinstate Glass-Steagall. It’s not ok to ascribe some hidden motivation to NBC with absolutely no evidence, and the real reason for the takedown notice (ie. it’s illegal, and in loading the video to Youtube Warren breached Youtube’s Terms of Use as well as copyright laws) is staring you right in the face.

  77. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    Any time shills can’t seduce and corrupt someone, they smear them and try to get the public to think they are “crazy”. Very similar nonsense to what the government is doing to Snowden, cept in his case they just need people to think he’s a traitor trying to sell secrets to the “enemy”

  78. Houndentenor says:

    I love how scared the corporate shills are of Sen. Warren. It’s about time they are scared of someone who can actually do something.

  79. Houndentenor says:

    It was a combination. It was a Republican controlled Congress but signed by Clinton. Just because the stupid was bipartisan isn’t an excuse for the stupid.

  80. Houndentenor says:

    Who says we do?

  81. Houndentenor says:

    The same folks who scoffed at the idea of a mortgage meltdown don’t see the need for a return of Glass-Steagall? Why am I not surprised.

  82. SHeadius says:

    CNBC is the IP holder. Doesn’t matter who uploaded it.

  83. ehmkec says:

    I may have (probably) lost money because of Cramer. A$$h0le!

  84. hoplite_i says:

    Actually it was Phil Grahms baby. And at least Clinton says it was mistake and he regrets signing it. No such remorse from the GOP.

  85. HaveSomeIntegrity says:

    I hate these large “news” stations. All we have in America now is yellow journalism. How do these people sleep at night?

  86. Bryan Chandler says:

    Youtube has no choice in the matter. The DMCA requires them to pull it down preemptively before it can be contested by the uploaded (Sen. Warren.)

  87. CCIFan says:

    The best thing that ever came out of Squawk Box was the piece that Jon Stewart did a few years back comparing Squawk Box with “the raw speed of false money with the intelligence of a box of parrots”

  88. broketheinterweb says:

    What a butthurt television host. If only he cared more about the country than his weak little ego.

  89. kguest says:

    Are you freaking kidding me??? Glass-Steagell was repealed by a Democrat and the Too Big to Fail bill (Dodd-Frank) was signed by Democrat as well. Wake up and stop the partisan crap slinging you small-minded fool. This is bigger that just R v D.

  90. nicho says:

    When you realize that these “media” channels are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the corporatocracy, everything makes sense. I have no idea why anyone wastes time watching this garbage. The difference between the US and the Soviet Union is that in the USSR everyone on both sides knew it was propaganda. There were no delusions that it was news. Far too many Americans thinks they are getting news when they sit slack-jawed in front of the teevee. I haven’t watched this stuff in years. Once in a while, when I can’t avoid it, I see it and I’m horrified and sometimes sickened by what I see. This stuff is poisonous crap — even when they let the occasional “liberal” on.

  91. nicho says:

    That’s all we have these days.

  92. jomicur says:

    “Corporate media.” The phrase says it all.

  93. ComradeRutherford says:

    CNBC can’t stand the truth. Like most Republicans.

  94. UncleBucky says:

    They’re f’ing cowards. Or they got taken down the hall and whipped by some C-level bully…

    Had to pull the video. Now everyone who has it is showing it until the C-level bully probbly kills someone!

  95. caphillprof says:

    youtube should be ashamed of itself

  96. Jean Thomas says:

    More Elizabeth Warrens. Articulate, smart – she makes those CNBC people look like the fools they are.

  97. tsuki says:

    CNBC Hosts – Regulation is BAD, except of course when we use it. No matter what CNBC does, they look like idiots.

  98. S1AMER says:

    Can we clone her?

  99. Quilla says:

    Oh, my, Elizabeth Warren scares the boys. Good on you, girl!

  100. Indigo says:

    Zero bank failures? Can’t have that! People might feel secure.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS