The Young Turks - Accidental Admission

Episode Date: September 1, 2022

Progressives are continuing to oppose Manchin’s Bill. Wait… did Donald Trump’s Lawyers just confess? Sarah Palin throws a tantrum over her special election loss. Kristi Noem bails on campaign stop over abortion questions. Californian citizens have been told to not charge their electric cars. Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur *** 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 Watchlist ▶ https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey ▶ https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt Unbossed with Sen. Nina Turner ▶ https://www.youtube.com/unbossedtyt 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. All right, well, all are the young Turks, Jane Cougar, Anna Kasparin with you guys. And also all of you, also reality, we decided right before we came on air that I was fair to reality today, because I'm the fairest man in America. We all decided that. So it's, it's just a momentous day. I just wanted you guys to know that.

You know what's not fair to reality? You're Mike. That's not fair to reality. Are you underwater? What's going on? Okay, here, let me try something. Let's try it live. Let's try it live.

Okay. Is this better? You keep talking. Is this, okay, is this better? That is better. That is better. That is better. Yes.

In the meantime, we could all talk about how great my eyeliner looks today. Yeah, okay. Look, we've established three things, so we're going to go on and do the news. Number one, I'm fair to reality. Number two, unfair to microphones. Number three, Anna's fair to eyeliners. That's it. That's it. We're all good now. All right. So Casper, proceed with the news. All right. Well, we begin with some controversy, as our good friends in the UK would say. I think you and I are about to disagree in regard to whether or not progressives who have signed on to a letter deserve credit for doing so. Now, this has to do with the fact that Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin struck a deal in order

to get Manchin to agree to vote in favor of the so-called inflation reduction act. Now, in order for him to do that, Chuck Schumer agreed that there would be a side deal where there would be legislation that would fast track permits for fossil fuel companies. because, of course, that is a priority for Mansion who makes a lot of money off of fossil fuel energy in this country, particularly coal. Now, the 40, the Democrats, the progressive Democrats who signed onto this letter, there are 40 of them, are essentially asking House leadership, Nancy Pelosi, and the House, Nancy Pelosi, to basically agree that they would not include this side deal legislation as part of a

must pass bill, right? And it seems like Nancy Pelosi has already agreed that she'll play along with this effort of including the provisions that Mansion wants in a must pass bill, like let's say a government funding bill. And so the progressives are like, we will be displeased if you do that. So we urge you not to do it, Nancy Pelosi. That's essentially what they're doing, okay? So more than 40 House Democrats had signed on to the letter as of Wednesday, according to the office of the letter's organizer, Natural Resources Committee Chair Representative Paul Grihalva. As T.Y.T. first reported, the letter is addressed to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and majority leader Steny Hoyer and says fast tracking permits will hurt black, brown, indigenous, and low

income communities disproportionately. Grosha calls for Pelosi and Hoyer to keep the government funding CR free of mansions permitting reform legislation, which Grahalva says contains anti-environmental and anti-environmental justice provisions. The letter also says dirty energy projects will get rushed through at the behest of the American Petroleum Institute. And Representative Ro Khanna, who happens to be one of the individuals who signed this letter, also explained why it would be ridiculous to include the mansion provisions that loosen up the permitting for fossil fuels in the government funding bill.

Let's watch. But they know that we have to pass the budget when we come back. We can't have a government shut down before the election. And so this is going to be high on their priority list right after Labor Day. That's why I think the timing of the letter is good. You can't hijack the CR process to an ideological perspective. I mean, I can't say, I want free college in this country. I can't just say, okay, let's put free college and make everyone vote for it or we're going to shut down government.

So just like you can't do that for progressive goals, you can't do that for something that is so opposed by many members of the caucus. And just to give you some more details on what the side deal is, what it would entail and why it would be such a problem. An internal summary of this ideal legislation obtained by Bloomberg says that it would fast track permitting specifically for the Mountain Valley pipeline, which Mansion has supported. When finished, the MVP will carry natural gas more than 300 miles through Virginia and mansion's home state of West Virginia. And in addition to what you just heard Rokane's saying in the context of that interview, he also said, quote, if we were to pass this side deal, it would mean more plants like that harming black and brown communities, putting pollution in the air where kids can't be

in their backyards. We're not just talking about some abstract policy here. we're talking about allowing refineries, fossil fuel projects, and heavy industry to destroy neighborhoods. Now, you might be wondering, okay, well, where exactly do you and Jank disagree, Anna? I think we're going to disagree about the effectiveness of this letter because I would venture to say, as someone who's read the entirety of the letter, it's not even a strongly worded letter and there's really no ultimatum included. Jank, thoughts. Yeah. So this is a rare story where we've got a poll and a petition. Whoa. And we're going to have a disagreement about the petition in a sense. So fair show in America. We're honest with you guys when we have disagreements. Okay, so why do I really like this letter? Because it's 40 progressives. That's just a giant number already, right? Taking one step forward and saying do not put it in the CR. So for those of you that don't live in

CCR is continuing the resolution, and it just basically means something that allows the budget to continue. So on the petition, we refer to it as the budget bill, and that's why it's a must pass, because you can't, the government can't not pass a budget, okay? But by the way, that is where progressives then get leverage, because the mainstream Democrats and the mainstream media will soon yell at all the progressives when they realize what's going on and say, oh, this is a must pass. bill, you guys can't block a must pass bill. No, that's actually when you have the most leverage because it must pass. So what that means is you don't have the option of not passing it. You have to bring us to the negotiating table and then negotiate with us. And that is exactly

when you should use your power and leverage. And that's what progressives have begun to do here. Like I understand Anna's point obviously, which is that they're asking Pelosi not to put it into the continuing resolution because if she does, then it forces a showdown, right? But does it? And so there I understand, I really get Anna skepticism because the progressives would then have to actually vote no for it to force a showdown. And my guess is Pelosi's going to think that they're weak because historically they have been. She's going to completely ignore them, which is a slap in the face, and then ask them, what are you going to do about it? So first of all, I want your in holding the line. That's why we're doing the petition. And it's at t-y-t.com

slash petitions slash no side deal. But don't worry, we'll put the link down below. And if you just go to t-y-t.com slash petitions, you don't have to remember the rest of it. T.y.t.com slash petitions will do it. And what we're saying is progressives, please, hold the line. Hold the line. There's no reason we have to honor a very corrupt side deal with Mansion. when Manchin didn't honor any of his agreements and killed Bill back better. Yeah, so I want to be clear about something. The letter, again, just want to make sure you know, it doesn't say anywhere in the letter, hey, Pelosi, if you include a pro-fossil fuel, pro-Mansion provision in the budget bill,

we will not vote for it. We will vote against it. Like, at no point does it say that. So I would venture to say that it's very easy for some of the faux progressives to sign on to it. So they get cookies and they get a round of applause from people like us without any real commitment, right? And we do have a poll on this. But honestly, after reading the letter, I feel like this poll isn't even worded accurately because they haven't made the promise that's being implied here. The poll is, do you agree with Anna on the likelihood that progressive signatories will break their promise? and vote yes if the government funding bill includes mansions fossil fuel side deal.

But again, I want to be clear that they did not promise to vote against a government funding bill or a CR if it includes the mansion side deal in it. So I think they're just being really careful in not making any promises, but they're sending Nancy Pelosi a letter to describe their displeasure if it happens the way they think it's going to happen in the future. But so let me get into that strategy. And by the way, I get what you're saying, Anna, and historically you've been right. And I'm tempted to vote in your favor in the poll, okay?

But I don't want to. I want, I want the progressives to do the right thing. And they're on the way to doing the right thing. And by the way, we wouldn't have known any of this if it wasn't for our new TYT Washington correspondent Candace Cole. Because Grohava writes a letter, but it's not public. No one in mainstream media cares. They all want that deal to pass because it helps corporate interests. So nobody's paying attention. Candace goes and finds out, oh my God, one, the letter exists. Two, she found in the first round that 30 people had signed out to it.

Now that she got Rokane on the record and now found out that there's 40 progressives who signed on to it. Now, if it had said what Anna says, which is we're going to vote definitively against the budget bill if you put it in there, there's no way they would have gotten 40 signatures. No way. And so I think strategically Grahava was right in making the letter a little bit softer because then he shows a giant block of 40 votes that might vote that way. If he had said we're going to vote against it, everybody would have gotten nervous. It's Washington. Oh my God, the media is going to yell at us, Pelosi's going to yell at us. It would have gotten nervous. That's just a fact, right? So instead he's got the 40 signatories. And now though, this puts them on the spot in it. Let me read you one of the last lines in the letter.

letter, okay? Grahova wrote and 40 progressive sign on to it. Such a move, if she, Nancy Pelosi puts it in the budget, such a move would force members to choose between protecting EJ communities and those are, you know, the underserved communities, minorities, etc. for further pollution or funding the government. Yeah, that's the point. That is literally the point. Yeah. And my point there, Anna is that's in the letter. So if the progressives that signed on to it, then say, okay, well, we got nervous. We got scared of Pelosi, even though it's a must pass bill. And we don't want to be at the negotiating table, which most of the time they do. They get nervous just like that. Then they'll be saying in public, yeah, we chose the budget and leadership and the Democratic

party over underrepresented and underserved communities, that they made that act of choice. Now they're on the spot. And so I think Grohava handled it perfectly. And finally, I do want to just give a comment that Groslva gave to the Hill on this story. Grohava acknowledged that it would be likely, it would likely be difficult for many members to vote against funding the government. This is not trying to torpedo anything, he said. This is saying the continuing resolution and the budget is critical, yes. But let's do this other one where everybody.

is accountable, he said. So we'll see, we'll see what happens. I feel bad being the cynical one, and I know I'm supposed to cheerlead this and feel really good about it. But listen, they're swimming in a sea of sharks, and they've decided in a lot of ways, well, we'll just be the humans that happen to be carrying meat for the sharks. Like, I just feel like if you're going to be swimming with the sharks, you've got to be like a shark and you've got to be way tougher than just writing a letter that expresses your displeasure. But we'll see. We'll see what happens. I'm just getting a little tired of like, I'm getting tired of the strongly worded letters. And to be honest with you, I don't even see this as a strongly worded letter. No, but Anna, I just look,

I'll say one last thing actually somewhat on your side, which is that if you do letters like this, I love it. And I think it's a great step forward. But you have to follow through. Because if you write the letter and then Pelosi says, no, I think progressives are irrelevant. I think I don't care at all what you 40 think. I care what my fossil fuel donors think. So I'm going to put it in the budget. I'm going to put it in the continuing resolution. I'm going to shove it in your face.

Well, then you got to vote no. Otherwise, you lose even more leverage. Then your threats and your letters mean nothing. And then you would prove Anna completely right. It's a great step forward. But you've got to keep taking more steps. Otherwise, it winds up being counterproductive. Yeah.

Well, I hope I'm wrong. I would feel a lot of joy to be proven wrong on this. So we'll see. We'll keep you guys updated on it. For now, though, why don't we move on to our next story? Anybody that knows President Trump's office, he has guests frequently there. It's just a joke. Donald Trump's worst enemies might actually be his own attorneys, because you just heard from

one who is apparently having a difficult time keeping her mouth shut and avoiding incriminating her own client. Now, that was his lawyer, Alina Haba, and she went on. Fox News to basically confess that Donald Trump did in fact have classified documents in his office. But her big complaint in the context of this interview is that Trump isn't the slob that the FBI would have you think he is. All right, let's watch. They've put this picture out so that you would assume, and I am somebody who has been, and the press loves to talk about this especially today, I'm somebody that has been in his

office, I've seen it. This is not the way his office looks. you this appearance that you walk in and there's these top secret documents just strewn about they literally must have gone in and taken out documents they wanted or cover letters as it is and put it about so that the public believes that this is top secret documents that were on his floor okay so understand what you just watched with trump's attorney speaking on national television she just essentially confessed that he was in possession of top secret and classified documents and also made it abundantly clear that he had guests in his office all the time, just going in and out. But in her mind, the ultimate defense is to say that Trump

would never keep those classified documents on the floor. And look, to be honest, I don't know what the truth is about whether the FBI placed the documents on the floor to take the picture or if they were found on the floor. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that Trump had top secret and classified documents in his possession, that he and his lawyers had lied to the Justice Department about the fact that he was in possession of those top secret and classified documents. But they can't stop talking, Jank. They can't help themselves. They keep talking about this case in a way that's actually super incriminating to Donald Trump. You know, whenever I have to debate anybody on whether Donald Trump is unintelligent,

it infuriates me. I can't believe that we're in the year 2020. He's been around all this time, and people can't see the most obvious things. Who cares if the picture looks sloppy, you moron. That is not what you're going to be tried on. You're going to be tried on whether you had the documents. And you and your lawyers, initially, by the way, when we said this on the show, when they said, oh, the FBI planted it, I was like, damn, that's an obvious lie, but that's a lie that could stick. because who knows if, you know, it was already in there or they put it in there, right?

That's a believable lot. But they bungle it, of course, because they're serial bunglers. They're so stupid. So him and his lawyer go out and like, oh, no, the documents were there. I had him in cartons, but they put them on the floor. They should not put them on the floor. Who cares they're on the floor? You just admitted you had the documents.

I didn't plant it. And that you knew where they were and they weren't in cartons. And then on top of that, the idiot moronic lawyer forced by Donald Trump, I'll explain that in a second, goes on TV and goes, yeah, a lot of people were going in and out of that room. Oh, God, it's so good. It's so good, though. It's so good. How did these people pass the bar? Did they pass the bar?

Should someone check? Should someone check? You know how like sometimes you hear these stories of people putting like Ivy League schools on their like CV or their, like, resume and then it turns out that it's just a lie because no one ever really checks. Someone should probably check, no. Yeah, no, look, first of all, Trump lawyers is like the best case in error is 50% chance they pass the bar. But no, it like, but in all seriousness guys, Trump has had a lot of trouble finding lawyers, which is remarkable. Do you know how much free publicity you get if you're the lawyer for the president or the ex-president?

That is massive publicity, incredible for your career, right? Like, that's why Dershowitz always goes around, like clinging on to any famous person. You'll cling on to their leg like he's Van Gundy. And they're like, he's like, oh, yeah, make me famous, make me famous, right? But lawyers will not take Trump anymore. Lawyer after lawyer, including his former lawyers, have all rejected him. That's why he's at the bottom of the barrel with knuckleheads who might or might not have graduated from law school. who are, I mean, look, guys, here, in law school, the very first thing they teach you is do not

incriminate your client. And do not let your client incriminate themselves. That is why they tell the client all the time, don't say anything, don't say anything, okay? Because if you say anything, you might contradict yourself, you'll give the other side ammunition, and you might accidentally admit that you did it, like Trump keeps doing over and over again. Not only are Trump's lawyers letting Trump incriminate himself left and right? They're incriminating him. I mean, it is legal malpractice of the highest order. But I said that they're being forced to do it because I know Trump. I've covered Trump politically for all of these years. And what he makes everyone do in each case is, you've got on TV and defend me. I'm not sloppy. Tell them I'm not

sloppy. Tell them I had the documents, but they were neat. Okay. Who cares? Okay. So we've got a bunch of other things to get to in the story, so I want to do that right now. So in other examples of Trump incriminating himself, he posted on truth social stuff that he really shouldn't have posted. So here's one example. This is graphic three. There seems to be confusion as to the picture. So the picture he's referring to is the latest DOJ court filing where they include the picture that has them all upset because it apparently makes Trump look sloppy, where documents were sloppily thrown on the floor and then released photographically for the world to see as if that's what the FBI found when they broke into my home wrong. By the way, they didn't break

into his home. They had a warrant to search his home. And you don't get a warrant signed by a federal judge unless there's probable cause. And obviously there was definitely probable cause. He continues to say they took them out of cartons and spread them around on the carpet. Making it look like a big find for them, they drop them, not me, very deceiving. So in other words, yeah, I mean, look, they found classified and top secret documents in boxes in my office, the same office that my lawyer on national TV just admitted I have all sorts of people coming in and out of, but I'm not that sloppy. And he repeated this talking point in a recent interview.

So let's take a quick look at that. A lot of people think that when you walk into my office, I have confidential documents or whatever it may be old declassified, but I had confidential documents spread out all over my far floor, and like a slob, like I'm sitting there reading these documents all day long, or somebody else would be. It's so dishonest when you look at it. And so people were concerned because they said, gee, you know, that's a strange scene. You look at the floor and you see documents, right? They have cover sheets of documents. No, they put them there, John, and they put them there in a messy fashion. You're not being investigated for being messy, although you're messy in a lot of different ways. But that is not what the problem is with the classified documents investigation. It's that you had the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago in the first place. But he doesn't seem to get that and continues to admit that he did, in fact,

have those documents in his possession. It's just that he's not sloppy. He's not sloppy, Jake. Yeah, no, he's clinically stupid. And FBI taking a picture like that, by the way, is the most normal thing in the world. That is how they normally spread out documents. It just happened to be on the floor. They weren't trying to provoke them.

They were just doing the most normal picture in FBI history. But the right wing mind, this is a story we covered before, incredible studies on this. Their number two thing that triggers the right wingers is fear. They're filled with fear, right? And disgust. Yeah, but number one is disgust. Yep.

And so they don't like things that are dirty. That's why Tucker Carlson is always calling immigrants dirty, right? And so that's why Trump is panicked. Oh, no, it's going to trigger the right wing mind because it triggered him because he's a right winger. And he's like, I'm not dirty. I'm not sloppy. I'll confess to massive crimes. like espionage, just to show you that I'm not sloppy.

That's amazing. And by the way, his idiot lawyer said, they just charged him with mundane crimes like the Espionage Act and two others. Yeah. The espionage act is mundane. Are you out of your mind? And by the way, Anna, why do we even have this picture? Because the Trump team kept saying, oh, they're hiding the evidence.

They're hiding the facts. They better release what they have. And they're like, okay, here's the picture of the top secret. documents in your office. They're like, how dare you release that picture? They're just the world's dumbest criminals. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we've got some good news on a special election that just took place

in Alaska. What happened with Sarah Palin? Why did she lose? Who won? More details on that when we come back from the break. All right back on TYT, Jank Anna, Andre Varendive and Terry Clyer, because they just became members. They're using their noggin, hit the join button below, so easy. That's on YouTube, everyone else. Also so easy. TYT.com slash join. You could even do it on Twitch for free.

t-y-T-y-T.com slash prime. And by the way, I just am going to give one quick comment from Twitch. This at NPM says, dirty mansion's side deal sounds like a euphemism for the world's worst sex act. That's kind of nasty. Yeah. Thank you for that. All right, we ready for the next story? We are.

Okay, great. Let's do it. Sarah Palin has failed at her most recent attempt at a political comeback. She lost the special election for a vacant house seat in Alaska. seat is now flipping to a Democrat for the first time since 1972. That's right. Democrat Mary Peltola won the special election to fill Alaska's house seat for the remainder of 2022. So that means that there will be yet another election in November of this year. But between now and then, again, Mary Peltola, an Alaska native will be filling

that seat. The real news here is that Sarah Palin lost. She fell about 5,000. vote short after Republican Nick Begich the third was eliminated and his supporters' second choice votes were actually redistributed. Second choice votes, what does that mean? Well, this was the first election in Alaska where they implemented ranked choice voting. And of course, Palin is blaming this new system for her loss. But at the end of the day, when you look at the some of the Republican voters in the state voted, it gives you a sense of how much displeasure the people of Alaska probably feel toward Palin, who, let me remind you, decided to quit the first term of her governorship midway through and decided to chase Fox News and celebrity instead.

Now, Palin will get another shot at the House race in a few months, as she and Peltola are among those vying to fill the full term in a separate election note in November. With Peltola's victory, the former state lawmaker will flip the seat held for nearly half a century by the late GOP representative Don Young and is set to become the first Alaska native in Congress. And remember that Palin again resigned halfway through her term as governor. And the state has also started using this new ranked choice voting method. What does that mean? Well, Palin criticized rank choice voting in a statement after the results were released on Wednesday, calling it a new, crazy, convoluted, confusing system. Now, if you're wondering how that works, in open primaries

that include candidates of all parties, voters cast one ballot for their top choice, and then the top four vote getters advance. Then in the general election, voters rank those four candidates, first through fourth, okay? And Palin says, quote, though we've disappointed, though we're disappointed in this outcome, Alaskans know I'm not, I'm the last one who'll ever retreat. Instead, I'm going to reload, okay, with optimism that Alaskans learn from this voting system mistake and correct it in the next election. Let's work even harder to send an America First conservative to Washington in November. So what does she mean by learn? from this mistake?

Like, is she blaming the voters? Like, is she claiming that the voters were too dumb to understand how this system works? It's just, anyway, good luck. It doesn't seem like the people of Alaska like you. In fact, some polls show that three and five don't like her at all. And it could be because of the fact that she abandoned them for celebrity. Okay, there are two giant elements in this story. And the fact that Sarah Palin lost, that she's a kind of celebrity at this point,

is the third interesting point in this story, but it's overshadowed substantively by the other two. So in ranked choice voting, which I love, okay, Sarah Bailey should have won, and I'll tell you why. Because the top four were two Democrats and two Republicans, but the other Democrat dropped out, Algross did. And now so the remaining Democrat had all the Democratic votes, and that's why she finished

First. So I don't even know what Sarah Palin and Tom Cotton are complaining about. It's not like Sarah Palin ever finished first in any round of voting. No, the Democrat did. She got 40% of the vote Democrat did. But then at that point, there's two Republicans left. In ranked choice voting, presumably the Republican that lost came in third, naked package to the third, his voters should have gone to the other Republicans, Sarah Palin. But they didn't, and not enough of them went to Sarah Palin. A lot of them went to the Democrat, and that's why the Democrat won in a red state like Alaska. And what that tells you is, and I'm actually slightly surprised by this, there are actually still Republicans left that don't want to vote for extreme Republicans like Sarah Palin, that they would prefer to vote for a Democrat rather than an extreme lunatic Republican.

color me shocked by that. No, I'm serious. I'm because it was a big chunk of voters there. And I'm very surprised by that. And that's great news for the country. And of course, the other giant news came out of this is, I think the Republicans are running straight into an iceberg called the abortion issue. And so this is now probably the third election where they are shocking defeat. And the Democrat ran on a pro-choice agenda. Yeah, that's right. So I want to talk about the strategy that we saw from Mary Peltola because her focus was on two main issues. And that was reproductive rights and the importance of empowering labor and supporting labor unions. And those are incredibly popular messages, especially right now when people are seeing their rights being

stripped away from them by this theocratic Supreme Court and workers are feeling more frustrated than ever at both their pay and their working conditions in the middle of inflation when it comes to important things like food and gas and all of that. And I think that that was a winning message. She understands the right strategy, the right issues to tackle while campaigning. And now you see all of these different examples, Jank, of these right wingers who were just so. so vociferous in their support of stripping women of their bodily autonomy. And now they're kind of being a little more measured with the way that they talk about these issues, or they run away from their own constituents when they're simply asked about their

stance on these reproductive rights issues. And let me remind you about what went down in Kansas, which is by no means a blue state, right? In Kansas, as we had shared with you, the voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot initiative that would have taken reproductive rights out of their state constitution, thus paving the way for abortion bans within the state. But as you guys know, the voters decided no, we're not going to vote in favor of that. Kansas had a voter registration spike of 1,038% after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Mail in voting doubled. Turnout in 2022 doubled from 2018. I mean, you guys are getting the picture here, right? In 2022, of course, is a midterm year. Kansas abortion amendment about 59%

voted no, 41% voted yes. And as you guys know, the pro choice side one. Kansas had about 458,000 Republican voters versus 281,000 Democratic voters and 184,000 independent voters. So I give you that breakdown because seems like there might me some Republican voters who ain't about the abortion bans either. And that's not surprising when you poll people nationally and see that, you know, 70 plus percent of Americans are not in favor of restricting abortion access. Jank. Okay, guys, put these three points together, okay? So look at the math on what Anna just told you. In Kansas, first of all, all four districts voted pro-choice, including there's a couple of districts in Kansas that are deep red, right?

Even the deep red districts in Kansas were like, no, pro-choice. That's amazing. And the stat that Anna read you about the number of people who showed up to vote, it was mainly, I explained this in the conversation in an interview I had with Brent Welder, who's from Kansas. the primaries in Kansas were mainly for Republicans. So that's why there was almost as many Republicans as Democrats and independents combined, but pro-choice won anyway and 1-60 or 40. So that means a ton of Republicans voted pro-choice. So that's huge. That's point one. Point two, Pat Ryan in Pennsylvania.

William. They said, oh, there's eight times as many people registering to vote as there would be before a normal election. Maybe it's because of Roe. He ran aggressively on pro choice. The polling of likely voters showed that he was supposed to lose by eight. Instead, he won by four because all the new people who registered are not likely voters. But they all showed up to vote and it created a 12 point swing. Now, Sarah Palin loses in Alaska to someone running on an aggressively pro-choice agenda. Oh, no, the Republicans are no world of trouble. That's why they're backpedaling like crazy. That's why Tom Cotton today's like, it must have been the ranked choice voting. It was rigged, it was rig. Okay, brother, go ahead, run your pro-life campaign.

See how it turns out for you if you think it was rigged. And then Blake Masters, a lunatic who's in favor of dictators, just comes out, okay, did I say abortion? Scrub the website. Scrub it, scrub it, scrub it. I mean, I didn't say pro-life. I don't mean, the pro-life. Dr. Oz is backpedaling now.

You've got to make exceptions for rape. And it says, well, that's not what you were saying during the primary. Oh, they realize they're right in the middle of hitting that iceberg. Well, we've got more on that when we come back from the break because the governor of South Dakota was confronted about her comments and support for abortion bans in the state. Let's see how she handled it when we come back from the break. Jake Uger, Anna Kaspareit, Young Turks, News. Let's do it. Well, it turns out that, it turns out that stripping women of their bodily autonomy,

not a popular position to have. And when politicians who have supported abortion bans are confronted about their past statements in support, they like to run away, like Christy Knoem, governor of South Dakota. I love this story because it shows you how terrified they are of having to acknowledge their own record, the policies that they champion and support. And so this all happened at an event, at some sort of golf course. She shows up and she's greeted by two constituents in her state. And when the constituents tell her, about their own experiences with abortion and ask her questions about why it is that as a woman,

she doesn't think that other women should be able to control their own bodies. Again, she runs away. Within minutes of touching down for an appearance at a virtual golf facility in Sioux Falls, the top Republican in the state bailed upon being pressed by the women on their personal abortion stories and the dangerous new reality after Roe v. Wade. So she was confronted by two women, one of whom, by the way, literally drove across the state when she found, found out that Christy Noem was going to show up at this event. Leah Bothamly and Tiffany Campbell support abortion rights and disagree with Noem's support for a ban on most abortions in South Dakota.

The measure went into effect immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe on June 24th. Now, Bothamly, as I mentioned earlier, is the one who drove across the state once she found out that the governor was going to be at this event. She called out her name, meaning Christine Nome's name, and approached Nome, and then said, I want my rights back, which she said she repeated about five times. Noam couldn't take that, didn't like that. Campbell said that she walked up, shook hands with the governor, and engaged in a short dialogue, asking a technical question about the state's abortion law. She has her own abortion story, having obtained one to

end a pregnancy on September 20 of 26, 2006. Campbell said she was pregnant with twins and was told she could not carry both to term, as NPR had actually reported back in 2008. And so she wanted to make a point about how if she needed that abortion today, under state law, it would be very unlikely that she would be granted that abortion. And Christy Noem disagreed because she says, no, no, our abortion ban makes a exceptions for the life of the mother, except abortion doctors are so terrified of the legal liability associated with providing any of these services that they turn women away.

They don't even risk it. So effectively, there is a total abortion ban in states like South Dakota. And when the women were talking to her, she didn't like it, couldn't take the heat. And so we have a snippet of her basically running away like the coward that she is. Let's watch. I've got tons of time. Yeah, when I never read it, the woman, you don't respect you, the woman. You don't respect my grown trial.

You don't most mother. And you know, something that's been coming up over and over again and reading about Christy Dome's leadership is how she is very inaccessible to her own constituent. She doesn't like to have public events. She doesn't like to talk to voters in the state. And you can understand why it's really difficult to do so when you can't even defend your own positions. Yeah, so look, you get into these type of situations when the politicians only talk to donors. And that's what Christine Nome is an excellent case of that.

So she won't do town halls, she's only doing one debate with her opponent. She doesn't, she wants to limit the number of times. she's seen in public and she's asked hard questions or any questions. Well, this is a democracy. You're supposed to be the representative of the people. And so that's why people are getting frustrated and you're going to a public event. They came and they're the public and they asked you questions. And so she could have just answered a bunch of their questions and they said, okay, look, I answered enough. Now I'm going to go do the event and that would have been normal,

right? No, she ran away from the event completely. And then the guy putting the event together was just crying and crying about it, put out this statement about how that it was all the protesters fault. And how dare they question their, that someone who was elected to be their representative? How dare they? And then they had this hilarious line in the letter that I want to read you guys. Having a six year old, go home upset and in tears, because she didn't get to talk to her governor about horses. Is not how this night should have gone? Is it? I mean, is that the most important question for the governor to get? If the governor was accessible and she had given people an opportunity and heard them out on policy issues, then she wanted to talk to a six year old about horses, great,

fantastic. But if the only question she's willing to entertain is a question about horses from a six year old, that's why you have confrontations like the one you just saw. Yeah, that's exactly right. And after she ran away from her own constituents and refused to answer their questions, She had a spokesperson released a statement about how she's actually a wonderful governor who's at very, very accessible to her constituents. And I want to talk about that real quick. Nome's fellow Republican lieutenant governor, Larry Rodin, who was also present but did not speak with the women. Although at one point he did hold up a hand to indicate someone apparently Bothomley should be quiet, she refused. So there's that.

But here here's the statement from Ian Furry. statement to the Daily Beast, he clarified that he says that Noam listened to Campbell, clarified some facts and then told her, let's have the debate this legislative session. He said Noam tried to make it clear that she never supports a bill before she's seen specific language of the bill. Remember, Christy Noam is also the right wing governor who signed a trans athlete ban in school sports, and then failed to mention a name of a single trans athlete who inspired the legislation in the state of South Dakota. Because it's all theater.

That's all it is with Republican lawmakers. It's all manufactured culture wars. It's all theater. It's all meant to distract you from the fact that they love to rob you or help their donors rob you. And in the meantime, if there are some casualties involved in this. whole manufactured culture war, oh well, too bad, but don't dare to ask them any questions about it. Because if you do, apparently you're somehow the bad guy. If you're trying to ask

your elected lawmakers, elected governor, any question about their leadership. How dare you? You're the bad guy. It's amazing. Yeah. And by the way, casualties is quite literal, because there was, look, if Christy Noem wanted to just say, hey, look, I don't comment on a bill until I see the specifics of the bill, that's a weasily excuse because you already know your abortion stance. Yeah. It's not like it's news to you. And then we're going to read the bill and go, oh, I changed my abortion stance. But at least it's a legitimate weasily answer, right? But she on top of that lied to the citizen that you saw there. And that's, and that's she said, the person asking her questions, said that's what made her so angry that was the lie. Because Christine Nome says there's already something in there to protect the life of the mother.

But the woman was telling her, wait, no, this question isn't about the life of the mother. The doctors told me that if I didn't have this procedure, both of the twins would die. So I did the procedure, which would now be illegal. And one of the boys survived, just like the doctor said, he's 15 years old. now and he wouldn't be alive today if this bill passes and has passed and is in effect, right? And she's, and Nome was basically like, no, the bill covers that. No, the bill doesn't cover that. You're definitely wrong. You've seen the specifics of the bill. You're in favor of it, and it doesn't cover that. And that's why you shouldn't interfere with a woman and her doctor,

but Christine Nome is in favor of big government and government tyranny that gets between you and your doctor and limits your freedom. So she should just be honest about that and say, I don't think women should have the same freedom. I just don't think that. I think the zygote is more important than the woman. Just say it. Be honest and let's move on. All right, let's do one more story before we move on to the second hour. I want to talk a little bit about the inflation reduction act and how it includes what had been advertised to Americans as a tax credit for anyone buying electric vehicles. But there's a huge catch that I don't think most people know about and I want to inform you about it. So let's talk. The transition to electric vehicles comes with some

serious challenges that are worth discussing. And one of the things I want to discuss is the inflation reduction act, which included a provision that had enhanced tax subsidies for individuals who want to purchase electric vehicles. Now, it's supposed to be an incentive to buy electric vehicles. I get the reasoning behind it. There was a program that actually started back in 2008 that would provide about $7,500 in tax credits for people who purchase electric vehicles. However, what this new Inflation Reduction Act does is it expands it by adding an additional $4,000, again, in the form of the tax credits. So it'll be the $7,500 plus an additional $4,000. But again, there is a catch, and that's what I want to talk about.

So for years, prospective electric vehicle buyers could count on federal vehicle tax credit, which amounts to $7,500 and on a wide range of EV models. And as I said, this new bill adds an additional $4,000. Okay, so let's fast forward to what the exceptions are. The final assembly of any qualified vehicles must take place in North America. And the credit will also hinge on the vehicle size. total cost and potential buyers income, starting before 2024, at least 40% of the critical minerals and at least half of the battery components used to build the new eligible EVs

will need to come from the U.S. or one of its free trade partners to access the full credit. Okay, if there's one thing that Americans know about this country, we've outsourced manufacturing jobs and we do not source the minerals necessary for electric vehicle batteries here in the United States. In fact, many of those incredibly important minerals are sourced in other countries and China's got a lot of control over a lot of those minerals because they decided to actually take, you know, electric vehicles, solar panels, renewable energy, things like that a lot more seriously than the United States did. So they kind of had a head start on all of that. The critical Minerals used in electric vehicle batteries are currently sourced from all over the world.

The lion's share of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, while lithium tends to come from South America and Australia. It's part of the reason why the United States was behind an effort to do a coup in Bolivia that luckily didn't work out, and the people of Bolivia rose up and decided to get rid of the right-wing dictators who took part of that coup. But nonetheless, I mean, we need to think about the issues around the minerals necessary for the EV batteries. U.S. reserves of minerals like cobalt, lithium, and nickel are just a small fraction of the world's current supply. Even stricter rules will eventually kick in. By 2024, eligible vehicles can't incorporate any battery components from China or other foreign entities of concern.

And in 2025, they can't include any critical minerals from these countries either. And China is responsible for more than 70% of the global battery cell production. The country not only makes much of the world's battery components like cathode materials, but is also home to the largest battery manufacturer, contemporary Empirix Technology Co. And so I'll just give you one more stat that should concern you about whether anyone's really going to qualify for the tax credits necessary to buy these electric vehicles. Around 70% of the electric hydrogen and hybrid cars currently sold in the United States will not be eligible for the credit according to the alliance of automotive innovation.

And, Jank, I get the idea. I get that we're trying to persuade industry to manufacture things here and to source minerals here. But I just have a problem with how that's not guaranteed, number one. And the way that the inflation reduction act was advertised to the American people made it seem like, oh, we're actually going to help ordinary people afford these insanely expensive electric vehicles. And it looks like, no, there are insanely strict rules that work against ordinary people who might want to take advantage of that tax credit. Yeah, here's what I'm really worried about. Um, all of this hinges on, do Democrats know what they're doing? Because I remember in the era of

competence in the government where they, if you're drawing up a bill like this, you would take up a decent amount of time writing it up because you would talk to the experts. And you would say, okay, is this realistic? Is it possible? How quickly can we get there? And if they've done all the due diligence on it, and they know that it's possible, then it's a positive thing to to have it produced here in America. But if they haven't done a due diligence or they're wrong about it, it'll become a totally pointless bill.

And then we'll have all the negative parts of the bill and none of the positive parts of the bill. And a couple of years from now, you'll start to see reports of them going, well, it was just poorly worded and there was nothing we could do. And the fossil fuel industry got everything they wanted and we didn't get any positive developments

on renewable energies. Golly, gee, there was nothing we could do. Oh, boy, I don't know which one of those two things it is because you'd have to be a deep expert in this field to know if this is realistic or not. But are you sure you want to bet on Democratic competence? No, I don't. I'm actually, I'm genuinely concerned. Okay, I'm genuinely concerned with what's happening on a federal level, but also what's happening at a state level here in California where Gavin Newsome has announced that California will be banning. the sale of new gas powered vehicles in the state beginning in 2035. Now, some people might think

that sounds fantastic, great, that's wonderful. Except I don't know if we're really set up for this. Okay, I'll tell you why. So right now, California, Southern California is experiencing a severe heat wave. And a few days after announcing this plan to ban the sale of new gas, powered vehicles, he does another press conference where he's like, yeah, so we're going to need you because of like the blackouts that are happening due to the heat wave and how our energy grid is just being overwhelmed right now. We're just going to ask you guys with electric vehicles to like, don't plug in your electric vehicles, okay?

What? So we've got a whole electric system that can't even handle a heat wave at a time when Yes, there's global warming, the climate is warming. Maybe we need to stop putting the cart before the horse and make sure we have the infrastructure in place to deal with this very bold thing that Democrats in California are doing. I'm not saying I'm against electric vehicles. I'm just saying that everything seems to be done so haphazardly without taking any real consideration about how much it's going to cost ordinary people who couldn't afford electric vehicles, considering how much they're. cost today, right? Now, I get that the idea is eventually, like with any new technology, the price will come down. Sure, great, except we're talking about California where the cost of

living is already incredibly high. The federal subsidies seem shady as hell because most electric vehicles don't even qualify. We don't have the electric infrastructure in California to handle a freaking heat wave. I'm just really concerned about what this all means. And right now in Castaic, California, there is another wildfire. So let's say you were a good environmentalist, you know, you're environmentally conscious and you decide that you're going to somehow scrape up the money to buy the electric vehicle, but you're in Castaic and you just got an evacuation order. But you're told not to charge your electric vehicle. What happens then? How do you get out of that situation? I just, does anyone think about this stuff? Yeah. Well, that's what I'm

worried about. So look, if they've thought it through and it's possible, then I think it's a great thing. And California is really important because it's so gigantic that if you have a good governor here and solid democratic led legislature and they pass good laws, it'll force the market to react to it. Because you can't say, hey, I'm not going to sell cars in California. Because California is the fifth, if it was its own country, it'd be the fifth largest economy in the world. So it's a market mover. And so it's a good idea to do something like this if you've got all of your ducks in a row. Now, what I'm worried about is corporate Democrats, a lot of politicians do, but corporate Democrats are the king of this, love to do things where they go, okay,

I'm not going to help you in the short term. Like Gavin Newsom recently said, no, I don't want $18 minimum wage in California. I'm going to prevent it from going on the ballot. So that would help you right now today would be a measurable help, it would be over $6,000 worth of help for 5 million Californians. He's like, no, the chamber conference doesn't warrant that, you're not getting that, okay? But I will pass something that might or might not happen in the year 2035 because I won't be governor then. I'll have moved on to other things. And if it falls apart because it was totally unrealistic, who cares? I've already moved on with my career and I already got all the corporate cash. And I got your votes because it looked like.

like I was doing something really positive. So that's why this story in particular, the devil is in the details. Is it realistic or is it not? You know, in the state of Virginia had previously agreed to follow suit with what California is doing with the ban of gas powered vehicles by 2035. But they have decided to renege on that agreement because they realize that they would not have the infrastructure necessary to support that influx of electric vehicles if they followed suit, right? So again, I don't know how this is all really going to play out. I am worried that they will implement that ban. And in the end, what will end up happening is people who can't afford electric vehicles

are going to turn to gas powered vehicle, used gas power vehicles. There's going to be increased demand for the gas powered used vehicles, which will drive up the price and people who are already living in the most expensive state in this country are going to be squeezed even further. It's just you got to think ahead a little more. And if we've got these vulnerabilities with our infrastructure, maybe fix that before you decide to do these like blanket bans. But nonetheless, this is what we're dealing with. Anyway, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including a corrupt politician getting called out to her face. We've got video and more coming right up.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger and I'll see you soon.