The Young Turks - A Socialist Agenda

Episode Date: August 2, 2022

The Republican National Committee has associated itself with “Stop The Steal” to train poll workers. The New York Police Department is forced to turn over 2,700 surveillance documents on black lives matter activists. Joe Manchin has shockingly been labeled a socialist. Trump says he endorses an “Eric”, but he doesn’t specify which one. Charlie Kirk is tired of the spam emails he gets from Donald Trump. Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Dr. Rashad Richey *** The largest online progressive news show in the world. Hosted by Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. Help support our mission and get perks. Membership protects TYT's independence from corporate ownership and allows us to provide free live shows that speak truth to power for people around the world. See Perks: ▶ https://www.youtube.com/TheYoungTurks/join SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ http://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks TWITTER: ☞ http://www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM: ☞ http://www.instagram.com/TheYoungTurks TWITCH: ☞ http://www.twitch.com/tyt 👕 Merch: http://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA #TYT #TheYoungTurks #BreakingNews Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Welcome to TYiT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparion, And we have a fantastic two hour show ahead for you all. Joining me today is Dr. Rashad Ritchie in the first hour. Dr. Ritchie, it's a pleasure to have you on the show.

How are you doing today? Pleasure to be here. How are you, my dear sister? I'm doing well, I'm doing well. I can't complain. We've got a great show ahead. I get to host with you in the second hour. I get to host with Francesca Fiorentini. And by the end of showtime, you guys can all tune into our election coverage. We will be covering the primary races and that panel will be hosted by John Iderola, Francesca Furentini, Jessica Burbank, Jackson White.

I mean, just a fantastic show all around, so make sure you tune into that immediately following the second hour of the program. Later in the show, we'll also talk a little bit about Alex Jones and his testimony today in the defamation trial. As we've mentioned before, he's already been found guilty of defaming the parents who lost their children in the Sandy Huck Massacre. And now the real question is, what will he have to pay in compensatory damages? We'll discuss that later in the second hour. But in the first hour, lots of policy-related news to get to, including senators on the Republican side, just openly embarrassing themselves by openly demonstrating that they don't know how systems of government work.

Marsha Blackburn will be taking the center seat for that topic today. And we'll also discuss a little bit more about what we're learning about the negotiation between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and conservative Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. But before we get to that story, why don't we jump ahead to what Republicans are up to in regard to rigging elections in their favor? They've got a plan, they're having summits about it, and Politico has obtained those tapes. It's worth discussing. The Republican National Committee is planning a sweeping operation to recruit and coach thousands of poll workers who push election lives and genuinely believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. These are individuals who tried to push the phony slate

of electors to overturn the results of the 2020 election. These are some of the most questionable individuals in our country when it comes to protecting our democracy, but they are being courted by the R&C to implement tactics in swing states that are incredibly damaging to our democracy and make no mistake about it. Their goal is to dismantle what's left of our democratic process. Now Politico obtained recordings of organizing summits held this spring in both Florida and Pennsylvania, and here's what they learned. On the tapes, R&C National Election Integrative, director, Josh Finlay, repeatedly characterizes the committee's role as supporting in-state coalitions, delivering staff, organization, and muscle in key states, meaning swing states.

Conservative election attorney Clita Mitchell, who was a central figure in former President Donald Trump's legal strategy to overturn the 2020 election. So they're working with this woman who used to be part of Trump's legal team in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. And wait till you hear some details about what she has done and said in the past. Publicly, by the way, the RNC has insisted that, no, we're not trying to dismantle the democratic process. No, no, no. They've insisted its goal is to ensure there are enough trained poll workers to protect the electoral process and ensure partisan parity at polling centers. The recordings, however, indicated that the RNC is relying heavily on people who have

spread false or unproven claims of irregularities and conspiracies. So here comes Clita Mitchell, the woman that I had referenced earlier. Who is she? What is she up to? Well, Mitchell was on Trump's post-election phone call directing a Georgia elections official, Brad Rathensberger, to find him 11,700 votes after losing the state. and is among those currently under subpoena in a criminal investigation by the Fulton County District Attorney. For those of you who may have missed that call or reporting that we did on that call that Trump had made to Raffensberger, here's a quick refresher for you. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have, because we won the state,

The people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry, and there's nothing wrong we're saying that, you know, that you've recalculated. CBS News has confirmed that this was one of at least 18 attempted calls from the White House to Secretary Raffensberger. That's right. Donald Trump called Secretary Raffensberger 18 separate times, urging him to just find votes, tens of thousands of votes necessary to essentially steal. the election on behalf of Trump to flip Georgia from voting for Biden to all of a sudden voting for Trump. Now, some more information that's relevant about Kleda Mitchell. White House call log showed that she's also among a handful of individuals with whom Trump spoke on January 6th of 2021. The day the Capitol was attacked, and she was suing to block the House Select Committee from being able to obtain her full phone record.

I wonder why. Also at an April 5th Arizona summit, Mitchell spoke mostly about an emerging quote, new American majority of people of color, young people and unmarried women who could make conservatives obsolete. And I think this is a good opportunity to bring you in, Dr. Ritchie, because this is white replacement theory. This is fear that the conservative white voter is because becoming obsolete as a result of growing diversity within the United States. Rather than try to court a diverse base of voters, the Republican Party does what it can to essentially suppress the vote among these individuals. And I know that you've covered this extensively on your programming, and I just wanted to get your thoughts on what's transpiring

right now. It shows you, Anna, at the end of the day, these individuals are involved in what we we call race identity politics, and they devolve into this race identity political structure because they are unable or unwilling to provide actual solutions. So let's be very clear about former president Donald Trump. He's going to be a defendant for the rest of his life until he dies, period. He's going to be a defendant of some sort. You literally have individuals now who are saying put us in place in order to observe the election and to count the votes. Well, here's why. It's not just about who cast the ballot, it's also about who counts them.

And that has been a strategy now of the Republican Party to put key people in place who can manipulate the outcome of the election. Why? Once again, because they have no ideas. If you have ideas, that means you're presenting remedy and solution to a diverse voter base. You don't have to simply connect back to a racial dynamic when you actually have. have ideas. But this is not new. Anna, if you remember, even the civil rights movement during the era of Dr. King, and Dr. King started to talk about how poor people, poor whites, have just as much reason to fight against the white establishment as black people in America. When he started to make that connection, and he fought against the Vietnam War, and he said, these things do not

make sense. The majority of Americans should be on my side, white, black, or brown. When he started to connect those dots. What happened? They went back to a race dynamic in their political structure. And they said, listen, don't vote, don't support, don't endorse this brand or this ideology because they're not white. And it went back to this white supremacist dynamic. Once again, you're seeing it right in front of you. This is their go to play. This is their default setting. This is absolutely nothing new. We've seen this play before. What I'm concerned about is how transparent Republican operatives and members of the Republican Party tend to be when it comes to their agenda and what they intend to carry out. I mean, these are tapes that were obtained by Politico, but to be quite

frank, it's not like Republican, you know, the Republican establishment was trying to hide what they were up to. Someone filmed this, handed it over to Politico, political reports it, and it's just further reinforcing what we already knew about what the Republican Party is up to. The thing that I'm concerned about is that unlike, I would argue, the Democratic Party, when the Republican Party says they're going to do something, for the most part, they do it, especially the most vicious elements of their agenda. And I don't see an effective line of defense. I don't see the opposition party, the Democratic Party, doing what's necessary to protect our electoral process.

You have the Democratic Party in Congress arguing that we need to do something, you know, that amounts to a voting rights bill, and they, of course, didn't execute anything in that regard. And so here you have these Republican, you know, operatives very openly saying, no, we're going to implement all of these different strategies to potentially rig the, you know, these elections in swing states to our advantage, and there's nothing really being done to stop it from happening. And the difference between Republicans and Democrats is Democrats are talking about expanding the ability to vote, right? Doing these registration drives, getting eligible voters, meaning people who can legally vote to register and take part in this democratic process. Whereas the Republican Party sees that as a massive threat. And here is, Here is a statement, by the way, from Clita.

She's not a fan of voter registration drive. She says, quote, it's a place the left sees a great target of opportunity. And we have to make sure that doesn't happen, she said, referring to democratic efforts to register voters from traditionally underrepresented voting blocks. And that's really the difference. You've got one party that's trying to get out the vote. You have another party that's trying to restrict the vote. Yeah. And here's something that Donald Trump did for conservatives. I don't like the guy. I don't like his politics. But he freed conservatives from institutional thinking. Democrats by and large are still down with the institution thinking there's something very sacred about this this element known as the presidential institution. You don't have radical leadership to balance the radical leadership on the right. You have normative leadership. You have normative leadership. have mediocre leadership. And that's why Republicans technically run nothing but still run

everything. Because they're willing to push the agenda. Now, let's talk about also all of these individuals who are now caught on hot mic moments talking about, listen, I need a pardon. And even if I don't get a pardon, I'm not going to fold. Roger Stone said that hot mic moment called in 2019 was revealed recently. Well, yeah, they're willing to break the law. These conservatives were willing to break the law. Yes, granted, for some BS, but they were willing to break the law. They were willing to push the agenda to push the needle. I don't know of any radical leadership in the Democratic Party currently an actual executive authority who's doing that. We have some progressives who are willing to push the needle. I'm not saying do anything illegal, but I am saying

operate in the gray if you have to wait until it gets to a judge to make a final adjudication, but damn it, push the agenda. You see what these individuals are doing to this country. And if you don't do it, you can kiss democracy goodbye because that's what's at stake now. If there was any time, Anna, to start operating in the gray, to push the agenda to his max, to say yes, yes, yes, until the judge tells you know, this is the time to do it. Mm-hmm. I mean, I could not agree more. And unfortunately, there are all these convenient excuses for why the Democratic Party can't accomplish its own agenda. Forget using the bully pulpit, forget using sticks along with carrots to persuade senators like Joe Manchin or Kirsten

Cinema to play ball with what Democrats purport their agenda is supposed to be. They just kind of point to these convenient excuses for why they can't get anything done on behalf of their voters, on behalf of their base, on behalf of the American people, and by the way, on behalf of maintaining what we have left of our democratic process. They love those convenient excuses. And the question is, what is the priority for democratic leadership? If it's not to protect people's right to vote, if it's not to ensure that they're pushing aggressively for the social spending bills that they campaigned on, then what do they really represent? And so the reason why I think Republicans, are able to run rough shot and do what they want to carry out their agenda is because we don't

have aggressive fighters on the other side stopping them from doing what they're doing. And the people who pay the ultimate price are people like us. People in disadvantaged communities whose votes will continue to be suppressed or will be suppressed further. People who show up to vote on election day but get intimidated by these maggots who want to prevent them from voting in the first place. These are legitimate concerns. And I'm not saying that Democrats should do anything to rig elections in their favor or to their advantage. It should be a free, fair, and open process that is obviously transparent. That doesn't prevent people who are eligible from voting from doing so.

But we're not headed in that direction. We're headed in the opposite direction. And it is concerning to say the least. Well, I want to move on to something a little different, since we're talking to about transparency here. I think it's worth discussing what the NYPD is up to in refusing to be transparent with what they've been documenting, what they've been surveilling, and what they've been up to in terms of monitoring Black Lives Matter activists. The New York Supreme Court has officially ordered the NYPD to release thousands,

literally thousands of documents revealing their surveillance tactics toward members of Black Lives Matter. These are activists who protested in the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020. Now before we give the details on the most recent ruling, I think it's important to understand the context here and the background of this case. Amnesty International is very much front and center in this effort to reveal these documents. And on September 15th of 2020, Amnesty International requested a list of documents related to the procurement of facial recognition, drones, gate recognition, and other surveillance technology between March 1st of 2020 through September 1st of 2020. Now, they requested the documents, they were denied the documents, and I should note, you might be curious. I was certainly curious about so-called gate recognition. What is that? Well, gate recognition systems use the shape of the human body and the way it moves in order to identify it.

The software, which I'm guessing is faulty, just like facial recognition technology, uses what's referred to as CV algorithms. It detects a human silhouette on video and analyzes its movements. The data then creates a human behavioral model. And again, these surveillance tactics are certainly problematic, technologically speaking. They've been faulty to say the least. But the question is, who are they surveilling? How were they surveilling them?

And Amnesty International says that the NYPD has more than 15,280 surveillance cameras cameras at intersections all across the city, which have allegedly been used to identify and prosecute and persecute BLM protesters. So here's just one example of the NYPD abusing surveillance power. There's Derek Ingram, who's a 28 year old co-founder of Warriors in the Garden. He was targeted by officers in riot gear during an hours long NYPD raid on August 7th of 2020, after allegedly shouting into a police officer's ear during a June protest against police brutality. A spokesperson for the NYPD confirmed that facial recognition software was used during the course of that investigation. Now it's important to keep in mind that the charges against him were

eventually dropped. So he had a felony assault charge against him that was downgraded and then eventually dropped altogether. And then in the public records request, Amnesty International wrote that the use of this technology, facial recognition and surveillance technology by the NYPD could have some serious human rights concerns, especially when we have passed evidence indicating that these surveillance techniques are often faulty and can end up accusing innocent people of crimes they have not committed. Now the NYPD denied the request, but Amnesty International and the surveillance technology oversight project, known as stop took the department to court, okay? So this is where the new news comes in. The NYPD

initially argued that an initial search for responsive records produced over 30 million emails, and it would be unreasonably burdensome to comply with the request. But lawyers for Amnesty International and the NYPD have met since, and the groups have narrowed down what they're asking for to just 2,700 documents. And the most recent update is that on On Friday, the New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Love rejected the NYPD stance and ruled that the department must release to the groups any records not exempted under the state's public records law. Love ordered the groups to resubmit their public records request and for the NYPD to either turn over the documents or specifically identify which exemption

prohibits the release of each one. So Dr. Rishad Ritchie, this is good news, especially because Amnesty International and the general public will now have access to these NYPD records, which we should have had access to from the very beginning, considering the fact that these are public servants paid with taxpayer money. Yeah, I like what Justice Love did here. I wish it would have been a little more concrete and no explanation could be provided, but I don't think they're going to find a legal explanation to withhold these documents in a way. Let me say this. The CIA, it is illegal for the CIA to put citizens under surveillance domestically. Why? Primarily because of their massive surveillance capabilities and the lack of prerequisite mandate for an investigation. They don't have

the same due process responsibility. But it seems as if the New York Police Department is operating as the de facto CIA, where they're putting a massive number of citizens under surveillance who have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever, and then refusing to adhere to a simple request because this information is now part of the public record. Why are they operating as an outfit external of the normative rules? Here's why, because they always have. You see, police, they have always felt as if their governmental agency is special and should not be held accountable as any other governmental agency, even though they get their money from the same place, us, taxpayers, they get their directive from the same place. Policyholders or politicians

that actually implement policy and give them their scope, their range of operation. So I find it interesting. Once again, we're talking about the culture of policing and how on paper, on policy, it's right, okay? They're supposed to give this information by way of requests as part of public record. But in culture, what have they done? They have done exactly what they are accustomed to doing, operating outside of the rules and saying basically the rules do not apply to us. So I like the ruling from the judge. I wish it would have been a little more concrete and we will see if there's any more legal maneuvering after the justice has said, you gotta turn this stuff over if you do not have an actual legal exemption or not.

Exactly, and it's really important for the public to have access to these documents, because there needs to be oversight, there needs to be assurances that the NYPD is not abusing its power. And more importantly, if innocent people are being surveilled, that is a human rights abuse. It is a form of intimidation toward individuals who are engaging, in their First Amendment rights, in their ability to assemble, in their ability to protest, in their ability to express political speech. And what I find so fascinating about the police response to the protests that took place in the summer of 2020, is that while on one hand they purport to care so much about the businesses

that were looted, they seem to do very little, if nothing, really, to protect those businesses, is because the entirety of their response was focused on persecuting, surveilling, and demonizing the activists who were protesting on the streets. Not the looters, the protesters. Yeah. I think that's telling to say the least. That's right. And you gotta think about the irony of this. I mean, the people are protesting police brutality, police negligence, the use of excessive force, police corruption. And in the middle of that protest, literally the way they are surveilling the individuals protesting them is corrupt itself. Police departments are out of damn control. And this is why it takes leadership to rein them in.

And you have some DAs who are doing it throughout this country. Not enough, but we got to get more and better leadership in those positions to hold cops accountable. Absolutely. We got to take a brief break. But when we come back, we have more news for you, including Marsha Blackburn, a United States Senator, just openly demonstrating how little she knows about ideologies and systems of government. We'll be right back. Welcome back. I'm Anna Casparian. Hosting with me today is Dr. Rashad Ritchie, who many of you probably already know of. But if you don't, Dr. Ritchie hosts Indisputable here at TYT Network, a program that you should definitely be watching if you're not already. Dr. Ritchie, what went down on your show today? Oh, we talked about a lot. One story we broke that was an indisputable exclusive was an officer who has been indicted for murder for killing a 26 year old black male out of Tuskegee University.

That officer was actually back working as a cop training SWAT in that local police division, Clayton County, Georgia. He was indicted actually by Fannie Willis, the same DA who was investigating Donald Trump. This cop was indicted for murder, for burglary, violation of both of office, and they literally gave him a job working to train SWAT members of that police department. We broke that story. I was even able to obtain exclusively a photo of him on the shooting range. We were the first to break that story and naturally you can find that story on our Facebook and YouTube pages. Man, that is, that is incredible. So he was indicted. Has he stood trial yet? He has not stood trial yet. The indictment is still pending. Trial is set, but once again,

it's unheard of to have a cop indicted for murder and literally still have a gun and training other people how to shoot. Insane, absolutely insane. Wow. Anyway, Everyone check out Indisputable. It's a fantastic show and you will not regret it. For now though, why don't we move on to Marsha Blackburn? This bill represents the worst elements of a radical socialist agenda that Americans have already rejected. A multi hundred dollar, a multi hundred billion dollar tax hike that will kill tens of thousands of jobs, sabotage energy, producers and make it even more expensive to heat homes and fill gas tanks. A multi-hundred

billion dollar payday for climate activists and the environmental lobby. Innovation killing price controls on prescription drugs and tax breaks, but only for the wealthiest Americans. You just heard from one of the MAGA senators in Congress, Marcia Blackburn, basically flaunting right before the American people, how little she knows about socialism, about the very legislation that she is trashing in that speech. She refers to the negotiations between Joe Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as a radical socialist agenda. And what she's referring to is a bill that I've actually been very critical of myself because of the fact that, well, to be fair, there is a little bit of socialism in there. But the socialism isn't to the benefit of the American people. It's the benefit of fossil fuel companies who will get to enjoy expanded drilling on federal lands, which they will profit from.

And we, the American taxpayers, will pay the costs of. And I'll get to the details of that in just a moment. I've been talking about it in detail, but I'll give you even more details to make my point. But to call this some sort of radical socialist agenda, as if the government is taking over the means of production is laughable. In fact, what is being proposed does the exact opposite. It takes taxpayer money, provides subsidies for allegedly renewable energy. We'll see about that. But more important, Finally, it expands opportunities for fossil fuel companies to do drilling for natural gas on federal lands. Federal lands belong to all of us. But fossil fuel companies will get to profit

off of those federal lands. Now I want to get into the details about the bill because we're learning more about what the 725 page legislation really entails. And this is the agreement between Manchin and Schumer, but the final bill might look entirely different, okay? But as it stands today, the legislation whose scope and ambitions were dictated by fossil fuel industry ally, Senator Joe Manchin includes components that are helpful to our business. Rich Walsh of Valero said during the fossil fuel giant's earnings call on Thursday, referring to tax credits in the 725 page bill that could benefit the company. Now, I don't know if you guys have Valero gas stations in your neighborhood or in your state.

We certainly have them here in California. There are no windmills or solar panels involved in this situation. Okay, Valero is very much a fossil fuel company that benefits from drilling for fossil fuels. And so that's the reason why Rich Walsh is celebrating this deal between Mansion and Schumer. And just how could it be helpful for the fossil fuel industry exactly? Well, the agreement in its current form would set new two year limits or maximum timelines for environmental reviews for major projects, a potentially massive victory for the fossil fuel industry that could that could also entail some benefits for renewable energy production. The bill would also attempt to clear the way for the approval of the Mountain

Valley pipeline, which would transport Appalachian shale gas about 300 miles from West Virginia to Virginia. This pipeline is a key priority of mansions, a man who makes literally half a million dollars a year from dirty coal. Also, other provisions would limit legal challenges to energy projects and give the energy department more authority to approve electric transmission lines that are deemed to be in the national interest, according to the document. One provision in the agreement could make it harder for government agencies to deny new approvals based on certain environmental impacts that are not directly caused by the project itself. You guys are starting to see the point I'm making here, right? You know, Marsha Blackburn, who is a darling to corporate America, who loves the idea of raping and pillaging public lands in order to benefit fossil fuel companies, complaining about legislation that will do just that because it was authored by Democrats. That's it. That's all it takes. All it needs to be is a Democrat authored bill for a Republican like Marsha Blackburn to refer to it as a socialist agenda.

when it's anything but I have more details on this, but Dr. Ritchie, I wanted to bring you in and get your thoughts. Senator Blackburn gives a highlight of the tribalism in politics right now. As you just said and you nailed it, all it took was for a Democrat to have some level of authorship on the document. That's all it took. And all of a sudden it is now transformed into something quite different. So she's not ignorant of what it actually does. I think she's well aware. That's why she's decided to qualify this by utilizing the term radical and socialist. They do that when they want you to not pay attention to the details that they're speaking of because they have learned the best way to manipulate their conservative base is to categorize something as either radical, socialist,

or communist, and they now can get away with not understanding or relaying the proper details. So I think she was well aware that she's taking an approach that may actually be antithetical to the truth of this bill, but she wants to kill it because it has an author connected to the Democratic Party. Well, let's be 100 about this. This is about corporate progress. Now the progress of community. This is about corporate progress. And while I understand the dissension from those who are true advocates for community, her dissension comes because she is. is a true advocate of Trump. She's in a cult and anything she can do in order to create an us and them narrative with a Democrat or maybe even McConnell in some instances she's willing to do because that's the narrative of the cult currently.

Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. And the other point that I'll make just to wrap this up, put a bow on it is when you hear from certain corporate Democrats about the importance of bipartisanship, about the importance of reaching across the eyes, aisle and working with our fellow Republicans on legislation, I think they understand that that's a complete BS talking point, because there's no way in hell any Republican in this era would work with them, or if they do work with them, ever give them credit for legislation that they've managed to pass. Republicans will always attack Democrats no matter what. It was a prominent feature of the Obama administration, and it continues till this day.

And look, we can only speculate about what the intentions are among corporate Democrats when they use that need to unite line, which they often do, the need for bipartisanship and argument they often make. I would venture to say that many of them know it's not possible, and it's a line that they use in an effort to carry out water down legislation. that does right by their corporate donors, that's really the best way to decode what the situation is. To call Joe Mansion of all people, who is probably the biggest capitalist in Congress as we speak, someone who has all these personal investments in fossil fuels and benefits handsomely, profits handsomely from those investments, to call that guy a socialist demonstrates a level of ignorance or a level of deception that needs to be called out by members of our media. But are they calling it out? You know, it should be embarrassing for lawmakers to lie like this.

It should be embarrassing for lawmakers to demonstrate that they don't understand what something as simple to understand like socialism. Like when they demonstrate that they don't know what it is, or they at least present themselves as individuals who are ignorant of what it is, they should be ridiculed. They should be criticized by our media, but they're not. It takes independent sources like TYT to decode what's really going on. I mean, how embarrassing is that, Dr. Ritchie? I mean, you're a United States Senator Marsha Blackburn and you're referring to this as a radical socialist agenda. The only way that I see that as a valid point is if you're specifically referring to how corporations will benefit from all the tax breaks and from the

deregulation that is baked into this proposal. Yeah, there's an audience for the lies and Donald Trump has not just created that atmosphere. It was here before he started running for president and became president, but he has definitely become a catalyst for this era where truth can now be debated. Facts are now negotiable and in that kind of arena, that kind of atmosphere, lies like this will stand with certain communities and the senator is aware of it. And that's why she's utilizing her pool pit to do so. Exactly. Well, the show is, I mean, the time is going by real fast. We gotta take another break, unfortunately. But let's do that. When we come back,

we'll talk about Donald Trump endorsing Eric. What does that mean? Well, if you're confused, don't worry, most people are. We've got that story and more coming right up. Welcome back to the show Anna Casparian and Dr. Rashad Richie with you. Let's jump into our next story. Let's get right to it. Donald Trump endorsed Eric in the Republican primary for a Senate seat in Missouri. Now, he writes in a statement, I trust the great people of Missouri on this one to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me a landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 elections. And I am therefore proud to announce that Eric has my complete and total endorsement. Huh, Eric, huh?

That'd be great if there were only one Eric running in the Republican primary for that Senate seat in Missouri. There are two erics running for that seat, namely Eric Gritens, who had to resign from his post as governor after allegations came out indicating that he was abusive to his ex-wife. He took it as an endorsement of his campaign and said, I'm honored to receive President Trump's endorsement. From the beginning, I've been the true MAGA champion fighting against the Rhino establishment backing Schmidt. And he's referring to Eric Schmidt, who's running against him in the Republican primary for the seat. President Trump said it best when he characterized Schmidt's campaign as great dishonesty in politics. Now, Eric Schmidt also took it as an endorsement for his campaign, writing via Twitter. Endorsement, President Trump, I'm grateful for President Trump's endorsement.

As the only America first candidate who has actually fought for election integrity, border security, and against the left's indoctrination of our kids, I'll take the fight to the Senate to save America. Now let me be clear about something. Both these candidates are trash, okay? The people of Missouri are losing, regardless of which one of these goons ends up winning the primary race. And God forbid, one of them ends up winning the Senate seat, which by the way, to be fair, has been held by Republican since 1987. So it's not looking good for Democrats in Missouri. But nonetheless, Greitens even claimed that he had a call with Trump to thank him for the endorsement. He said, I just had a great phone call with President Trump. I thanked him for his support.

Together, we will MAGA and save America. Okay, great. Except Gryton's was likely speaking of the Trump call described by Politico, where the former president reportedly called Gryton's with the news of his endorsement. Trump made a similar call, though, to Eric Schmidt, but didn't tell either Eric, he was also endorsing the other. No, this guy, like Trump is a chaos agent, and usually we're the ones who look. lose as a result of that, but in this case, chaos agent all the way. I mean, this is hilarious. This is such a fun story. I don't know what the outcome of all this will be. I think that Trump

genuinely wants to endorse Gritens. That's my take on it. But he has been discouraged from being vociferous about his support for Gritens. What's your take, Dr. Ritchie? Well, as you said, both erics are garbage, okay? But look at the mind of Trump here, because this gives you an indication of his thinking and what he thinks about others. He literally could not make up his mind because of cronies who are supporting both of these erics, they came to Trump and said, no, you got to support this area. No, no, no, no, you got to support this Eric. He says, he literally asks, well, do they spell their first name the same way? That was actually a question that Trump posed to his team.

They said, oh, no, no, they both spell it, E-R-I-C. And so Trump comes up with a great idea because he thinks the people that follow him are children, and he does not believe in their intellectual prowess. He says, I'm just going to say, I endorse Eric. And then he proceeds to call both Erics and gives them the same lie. because he believes that they are children too and simply play things in Trump world. So while we don't agree politically with these individuals, they are adults. And at some point, you should engage, especially with the former president of the United States as an adult.

Speak to me man to man. If you're going to endorse the other guy, don't call me telling me you're going to endorse me and keep me in the dark. So they literally had to figure this out because of them sending out. messages about the endorsement. And at the center of this chaos, the chaos king, Donald Trump himself, revealing not only his own psychology, but revealing what he thinks about those who follow him in the conservative party. He just doesn't really care about anything or anyone. The only thing Donald Trump cares about is Donald Trump, and that's it. Right. And so he has been urged by some Senate Republicans to avoid endorsing Gritens, who, by the way, came out with a pretty terrible,

violent political ad, which we talked about previously on TYT. I want to remind you of what that ad is and how it promotes violence. I'm Eric Griton's Navy SEAL, and today we're going rhino hunting. The rhino feeds on corruption and is marked by the stripes of cowardice. Join the MAGA crew, get a rhino hunting permit. There's no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn't expire until we save our country. Okay, can we just quickly address the fact that you have grown men publicly fillating a former president for political brown points and then at the same time presenting themselves as tough guys, like holding a weapon is not going to dispel the notion that at the end of the day, you're a little bitch for Donald

Trump. Let's just let's call a spade a spade. That's the reality of the situation. Yeah, 100. And Gryton's friend, best friend for many years, literally did an intervention a video and said, listen, man, I know you don't believe in the big lie. We've talked about it. I know what you're doing and it's hurting you and it's hurting this state. You have lost all credibility. I mean, he went on and on about how he supported Greighton when he ran from governor, how his mother took out a loan just to give him, I think, $2,000 at one point. And this friend did a real intervention video. But naturally, Greiton says not responded to it. And these individuals, as I have said before, are part of a cult. They have volunteered to become part of this Trump cult.

And look, at the end of the day, it shows you what the priorities are for these candidates. It's not to serve the people of the state. It's not to better the country. It's not about representation or serving as a public servant at all. It's all about doing whatever it takes, including public humiliation to accumulate power for what, for themselves, for their narcissistic fantasies, possibly to enrich themselves while they enjoy those positions of power, something that we talk about all the time on this show. And it takes place on both sides quite a bit, you know, trading on insider information that they get through briefings, information that the general public is not privy to. We see these issues everywhere. The system incentivizes the

worst people to run for public office because the system demonstrates that if you manage to be rewarded or if you're managed to get into that position of power, you can abuse it all you want for personal gain without any consequences. And I think that is at the heart of the problem. You know, Trump being a chaos agent, you know, all of that, sure, it's a problem. But what is at the root of this issue. And it's the fact that again, the system incentivizes self-interested people who just want to enrich themselves to run. And that's the reason why they have no problem humiliating themselves, as Grighton didn't in that ad, by the way, in order to accumulate that power. It's amazing. And it rips up good people. Yep, exactly. All right, well, let's get to

our final story of the first hour, because I love this so much. And by the way, before we get into it, let me just note that Dr. Rashad Ritchie debated Charlie Kirk, and that video is available on YouTube, you should watch it. It was marvelous. Really well done, Dr. Ritchie. Thank you. With that said, though, let's get into our next story about Charlie Kirk. Biden and Camel are terrified that you'll click this link to save America. People are not this dumb, okay? They're like, well, we have to raise as much money as we can. Then how about you treat your voters with respect?

your voters with respect. That was Charlie Kirk complaining about not Democrats and their fundraising effort, but about Trump and his fundraising emails. A little bit of a twist here, right? Now, here's why Charlie is so worked up about this. It turns out that Democrats have been really making a killing through their fundraising efforts, which I think is a little bit of a problem. We'll get into that later.

Republicans not doing so well in comparison. Let's watch. New York Times writes, online fundraising has slowed across much of the Republican Party in recent months. An unusual pullback of small dollar donors that has set off, quote, a mad rush among Republican political operatives to understand why. Well, first of all, maybe Republican politicians shouldn't have been voting for gun control legislation, sending $56 billion to Ukraine. Maybe Republican politicians shouldn't be voting for gay marriage.

And maybe your online donations would go a lot better. Well, let's go a little deeper, certainly deeper than Charlie Kirk did in this segment to kind of understand what's happening with these fundraising efforts. Now, the total amount donated online to Republicans, by the way, fell more than 12% across all federal Republican campaigns and committees in the second quarter. compared with the first quarter, and that's according to analysis of federal records by Wyn Red, which as the name obviously indicates, is the main online Republican donation processing portal. Now, more alarming for Republicans is that Democratic contributions have actually surged at the same time. So federal, total federal donations on Act Blue, which is the Democratic counterpart, jumped by more than 21%. Now,

Without even having to do much research, I'm sure you can speculate accurately, in my opinion, that this has more to do with the fact that Republicans succeeding in stripping rights away from people, including reproductive rights, for instance, has played a role in encouraging Democratic voters to donate more to Democratic candidates or Democratic politicians, Democratic Party. I would say your money is probably best spent somewhere. else unless there is a progressive politician who actually is fighting to protect your rights. Or you can donate that money to organizations that are providing abortion access to women, for instance, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. We'll get into that discussion a little

later. Let's take a quick look at this graph, which shows you the differences in Democrat versus Republican fundraising. And it goes back to January of 2021. And you see this huge, like this steep increase in fundraising for Democrats beginning in the summer of 2022. Gee, I wonder what happened. Could it be that the Supreme Court overturned row? That probably has a lot to do with it. Now, one of the theories is that donors are afraid of losing their rights to radical Christian fundamentalists, and they should be worried about that. Some Republicans have pulled their donors to ask about why they were not giving. And according to people familiar with the results, inflation was the top answer. Still, inflation's role is being hotly debated in digital

circles because it has not affected Democratic donations, which jumped particularly in the aftermath of SCOTUS's overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now, there is an interesting Trump outlier here. So while Charlie Kirk is critical of Trump's fundraising efforts, he's actually doing pretty well. And I'll get into those numbers in just a moment. But before I do, here's what Charlie Kirk had to say about it. Do you get some of these emails from Donald Trump or from the NRC? I need $20 right now. By the way, it's not from Trump. It's from all the consultants around him. And I just, I love Trump. I defend Trump. And I just think the people around him that are sending these emails are doing such a disservice to Donald Trump.

I mean, it is a joke. It is a mockery. I talk to grassroots people all the time. They say, why do I get all these emails? I mean, I could show you my text messages here. It is an absolute insult to our intelligence. This is just over a couple days. This is just text messages. Trump rally alert. Have you RSVPed for Trump's rally in Wisconsin? No, I live in Wisconsin, Arizona, actually. How about this one? Don Jr. My father just called and asked about you, friend. He's activated your seven times impact for five minutes. By the way, I know Don, and I know that this stuff is not even being run by them. Now, Charlie Kirk claims that Republican voters are not dumb.

They're going to see those Trump fundraising emails and get turned off by them. But that actually has not happened. So you can evaluate their intelligence based on this information. Trump continues to be the party's dominant fundraiser, and yet virtually none of the tens of millions of dollars he has raised. has gone toward defeating Democrats. Instead, the money has funded his political team and retribution agenda against Republicans who have crossed him. As one Republican said in a survey, Republicans are struggling to grow online fundraising revenue because the big dogs are eating all of the food in the bowl.

And I'm assuming the big dog he's referring to here is Donald Trump, who's not sharing the goods with other Republican candidates. And so Dr. Ritchie, what do you make of all of this? Do you think that this disparity in fundraising between the two parties has more to do with Republicans essentially pushing for policies and succeeding in doing things that are actually wildly unpopular with the electorate? Absolutely. That's a big part of it. So Republican policies animate left leaning contributions politically. That's what happens. Let's talk about Charlie Kirk's statement. I think the most ironic thing he said was, and I quote, absolute insult to our intelligence. Remember, Charlie Kirk is the man who wants people to believe that the election was stolen. Even though all judges have said it was not, Secretary of State Chief Elections officers,

et cetera, et cetera, Republicans down the list. An actual executive authority have said no, the election was not stolen from this state. Judges appointed by Donald Trump himself have said no, the election was not stolen in the United States of America. People appointed in the Justice Department by Trump said no. The election was not stolen. Trump's own children saying no, the election was not stolen. He, Charlie Kirk, says it's an insult to the intelligence of Trump supporters to get a fundraising email saying we need money to win. That's an insult. But it is not an insult to preach propaganda that is contrary to every fact known to man. You have indoctrinated, dear Charlie Kirk, your all followers to believe in a lie.

And if they will believe that lie, sir, it is not abnormal for them to believe the next one. That in order to win, they need more money. That somehow Donald Trump Jr. is saying, give us money right now. You, sir, are part of the reason why this group is so damn gullible. I'm not saying they're all dumb. Some of them are, but they're all indoctrinated for sure. And that indoctrination comes by way of a systemic process that you, Charlie Kirk, are a part of. Well, I mean, not only that, look, one thing that stands out to me about Charlie Kirk in recent weeks is how he is on this war path to convince the American people that in America and in our system of government, there is no separation of church and state.

that the founders of this country and the constitution never intended for a separation of church and state, which is a lie, to be sure. But if he's genuinely concerned about why people are dissuaded from donating to Republicans, or more importantly, are persuaded to donate to Democrats instead, he should consider that what he is spouting scares a lot of Americans, including some of our brothers and sisters on the right. That's right. Because while, you know, the pro-Trump Republicans tend to get much of the airtime, there are plenty of Republicans out there who understand there's a separation of church and state, who do not want this country to devolve into Christian nationalism. I'm sure there are plenty people of faith on the right who do not identify with Christianity and would like to practice their own faith without fear that a right-wing fascist government would, prevent them from doing so. So if they want to continue pushing these talking points about the

need for an authoritarian Christian nationalist regime to reign terror on all of us for not believing what they believe, have at it. But that certainly fuels voters on the right to donate more to Democrats. And I don't know if it's really helping them out with Republican donors at all. Yeah, I agree with you. And you have to remember as flawed as the founding fathers were, they were escaping people like Charlie Kirk and Marjorie Taylor Green. They were trying to leave this ideology of a theocratic dynamic in government. And let's be very clear about this whole biblical adherence to governmental rule. They can't live up to this stuff.

If they were to say, okay, let's adopt the Ten Commandments and make it law, thou should not lie. All of them will be in hell to jail right now. So they can't live up to what they're proclaiming themselves. This is just a power grab. They're utilizing religiosity, if I can use that word, in order to obtain, maintain, retain power. That's all this is about. This is not about a spiritual movement or movement for righteousness.

This is all about another dynamic to get them to grab power and to grab power in a way where you do not question that power because religion has a way of indoctrinating individuals so they don't question what is true in front of them. Absolutely. Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better myself. Dr. Ritchie, always a pleasure to have you on the show. You're very busy man. So I'm grateful that you're generous with your time and you're able to host with me today. Everyone, go check out Indisputable. If you haven't already, I guarantee you will not regret it. And also check out his debate with Charlie Kirk. Yeah, let final thing I'll say, Dr. Ritchie, what I really appreciated about the debate that you did with Charlie Kirk was your patience, your grace, obviously you came with the facts. I mean, that goes without saying. But there is a way to engage with these individuals, even the most unsavory among them, and just calmly, logically, dismantle their arguments in their own territory. And that is exactly what you did. It was fantastic. Everyone check that out. I thank you for saying that. All right, everyone. Well, we're going to take a quick break when we come back.

Francesca Fiorentini joins me for the second hour. We'll get into foreign policy and more. Don't miss it. We'll be back in just a few. Truly believe that this is a human being. This without a doubt. Without a doubt, yes. This is a dolphin feat.

thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen ad-free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon