The Young Turks - Afghani-Stunt

Episode Date: August 25, 2021

House Democrats passed a budget resolution to trigger the reconciliation bill process on Tuesday. Congressmen Seth Moulton (D- MA) and Peter Meijer (R- MI) secretly traveled to Kabul to observe the evacuation efforts. As the evacuation efforts in Afghanistan get more and more difficult, people like Erik Prince are offering private escape services on nearly empty flights for thousands of dollars. The FCC proposed fining conservative conspiracists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman $5.1 million for voter suppression robocalls. The American Medical Association has called for Covid-19 vaccine mandates. 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. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host Anna Kasparian, and we have a monster of a show. Ahead for you. You don't want to miss the chimpanzee B-roll that our very own Brett Erlick has brought together for an important story about chimpanzee love in the second hour. Yes, we're going to be talking about an affair involving a chimpanzee. It's a fun story, but also a little bit of a devastating story. And that is the hour that will be hosted by myself and John Ida Rola,

host of the damage report. In the first hour, though, we have some devastating updates in regard to coronavirus in the state of Arkansas. Arkansas is a symbol of the Republican leadership and how it has failed the American people in various states across the US. So we'll get to that a little later. Also, we have the war profiteers still looking for ways to profit off of the crisis taking place

on the ground in Afghanistan right now as Afghans and US citizens try to flee the country. And of course, we have some members of Congress who thought that now would be a great time to do a little PR stunt in Afghanistan just as officials are trying to evacuate American citizens out of the Kabul airport. But before we get to any of that,

I'd like to encourage you guys to like and share the stream. It's one of the easiest and most affordable ways to help support us and get the audience a little bigger, help with the algorithm, and we always appreciate the support and the love. Without further ado, let's give you guys an update on the reconciliation bill that we were discussing just yesterday. The corporate interests influencing the corporate Democrats in the House who essentially

said that they would stand in the way of the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, the budget bill that would include everything that Democrats allegedly want, are now taking a victory lap because it turns out that the 10 corporate Democrats in the House who were a problem from the were in fact being influenced by their donors, they were in fact being influenced by the richest people in this country to essentially force a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal by September 27th. That's something that Nancy Pelosi has agreed to. Now remember, when it comes to Biden's agenda, there are two separate bills. The first bill is the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which has some decent provisions in it, but of course has a

A number of corporate handouts and giveaways, it also includes what's known as asset recycling, which would privatize public infrastructure. So corporations and Republicans seem to love the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Corporate Democrats love the bipartisan infrastructure bill. What corporate donors do not like is the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, which includes all the provisions that have been stripped out of the bipartisan. bipartisan infrastructure bill. Now, progressives have said, we need to pass both bills simultaneously.

Nancy Pelosi argued that they would pass both bills simultaneously. But after the corporate Democrats in the House proved to be an issue and said that they would stand in the way of passing the $3.5 trillion bill, Nancy Pelosi gave to them and agreed that she would hold a vote on the bipartisan bill on September 27th. And so they held a procedural vote just yesterday. I just want to give you guys the context before I get to a memo that the no labels group has been sending around to brag and essentially engage in their victory lap. Yesterday we found out that the House voted 220 to 12 to pass the rule to one, begin

writing, begin writing Biden's $3.5 trillion safety net package. That's the reconciliation bill that I'm speaking of, and then two, guarantee a vote on the infrastructure bill, which allocates $550 billion in new spending by September 27th. And then three, vote on the John Lewis voting rights bill, which is a stripped down version of the for the People Act, which was of course a more robust voting rights bill that Mansion and Cinema said that they were against in the Senate. Now let's focus on what happened, like what is influencing these corporate Democrats? They claim that they just want shovels in the ground, everyone.

They want to make sure that we get these infrastructure projects started immediately because the American people stand to benefit from them. Now of course they don't talk about what their corporate donors are saying behind the scenes and how they're urging these Democrats to be supportive of the infrastructure bill and force a vote on it as soon as possible. But let me give you the details on what Pelosi initially wanted and what ended up happening. According to the Intercept, Pelosi offered the conservative Democrats a vote on the infrastructure bill by October 1st.

That was the initial plan. And Representative Peter DeFazio, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, suggesting that the House could finish work on its final reconciliation package by then. Now, seeking to win back the leverage, the conservative faction had recently lost. The Representative Gottheimer Group, these are the corporate Democrats, then shifted in demand to sometime earlier in September, thus the September 27th date. So when conservative Democrats got exactly what they wanted yesterday, turns out that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was very, very happy about it, and they were actually pretty

transparent, tweeting, thanks to the tireless work of the 10 House Democrats, we now have a date certain for a vote on the infrastructure bill, and it has been successfully decoupled, decoupled from the reconciliation bill, because remember, they don't like the reconciliation bill. The reconciliation bill helps average Americans with child care funding, with universal pre-K, with mandatory family leave, all of these provisions that would greatly benefit the lives of ordinary Americans. Chamber of Commerce is not interested in that. But they are interested in the corporate giveaways that will be included in the infrastructure bill. Now, the reason why it's important to pass both bills simultaneously is because obviously

corporate Democrats, corrupt Democrats have no reason. There's no leverage, right, to ensure that they vote in favor of the reconciliation bill unless you say that you do both bills simultaneously. Again, the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill hasn't even been written yet. But what corporate Democrats want, what corporate donors want, is a vote on that bipartisan bill. So all the leverage that progressives have is just washed away. Now to be fair, progressives are still standing their ground on this, right?

So really, this is an issue where the can has been kicked down the road and there hasn't really been any real, let's just say, any real positive development in either way. Like there will be a vote on September 27th. But as David Dayan mentioned, there needed to be a vote on the infrastructure bill around that period of time anyway. And I'll give you those details in just a second. But first, let's go to Liz Morrison, who's the co-executive director of the no labels group. This is a group of corporate donors who certainly did not want the reconciliation bill

to pass, but they certainly do like the bipartisan bill. She writes in a memo, a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill is not what Pelosi wanted, as both she and the Progressive Caucus had previously insisted that the Senate vote to approve the full reconciliation bill before the Speaker would bring up the infrastructure bill to the floor. The Unbreakable Nine, she's of course referring to the corporate Democrats here, have now broken this link as Pelosi can no longer use the infrastructure bill as leverage to force Democratic moderates to vote for a reconciliation bill. So guys, that was the plan all along. That was the plan. So understand what the real motivations of these corporate Democrats really are. They want to do away with any leverage that progressives may have.

Now, it looks like they might be a little delusional because they think that they have enough Republican votes to get the bipartisan bill passed without really relying on progressives. Progressives are saying, we're not going to vote for the bipartisan bill unless we see a path forward for the reconciliation bill. Corporate Democrats say, we might not even need you guys. Let me give you more from the memo. The nine, nine corporate Democrats, had to give up something too. They agreed to vote yes on the budget resolution that authorizes debate to begin on reconciliation. This is essentially the same thing all 50 Senate Democrats did a few weeks ago. It is just a vote to begin debate. And in the end, any of the nine can still vote again.

against a final reconciliation bill. So do you see what's happening here? The corporate Democrats say, we're gonna stand in the way of the reconciliation bill unless you give us a vote immediately, as soon as possible, on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. But in the background, you have the corporate donors saying, once we get that infrastructure bill passed, they know that they don't have to vote in favor

of the reconciliation bill. So they're still planning on, voting no. They're still planning on voting against it. And even Nancy Pelosi admits it in a statement that I'll read to you in a little bit. Now for their part, progressives, I do want to give them some credit because progressives are still standing their ground. Representatives Ilhan Omar, the whip for the congressional progressive caucus told the intercept that the caucus's insistence on coupling the two measures had not changed. Representatives Alexandria Acacio Cortez and Rashida Talib agreed. In fact, Cory Bush also weighed in and said,

quote, it has to be both. Both bills need to pass simultaneously. They have to be together. And also, the bills will only move together, according to Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, saying that the caucus, quote, has a strong chunk of members who will see to it. In fact, they did an internal poll, and they found that 100 Democratic members of Congress agree with the progressives. they will not vote in favor of the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless there is a path forward, a clear path forward for the reconciliation bill. Now, the American prospect also reports the following, and I think this is an important bit of nuance to the story. Even if House, even if the House votes for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, Pelosi doesn't even have to send it to

the president's desk right away. The timing of when that bill goes forward, is at her discretion, meaning that it's within her power to hold off on sending the infrastructure bill along until the reconciliation package is complete. Experts in congressional procedure have verified this, and Pelosi herself actually did a version of it earlier this year when she held off for a few days on sending impeachment articles to the Senate. So there are two ways that progressives could use leverage, okay? Number one, the progressives can say that they will not vote in favor of the bipartisan bill unless there is a committed path forward for the reconciliation bill.

And they claim there are a hundred members who are willing to flex that muscle. And then the other potential save could be Nancy Pelosi. And I know this is the area where I probably feel the most shaky. But Nancy Pelosi can hold on to the bipartisan infrastructure bill until she has both. pieces of legislation ready to go for President Joe Biden to sign. Now, I want to get to Representative Quayar because he's the conservative Democrat who should have been defeated the last time he was challenged by a wonderful progressive. But here's what he had to say. He said, quote, we've got at least 10, 12 Republicans, he said, and the progressives will fall in line.

They're going to support the president. I feel very confident. But as David Day in tweets, That's not necessarily a big deal. In fact, it's kind of laughable when you consider the number of progressives versus the number of Republicans who allegedly would vote along with Democrats in the bipartisan bill. On the GOP side, 10 to 12 is not at all impressive. More GOP senators voted for the bill, and there are four times as many House Republicans and also is likely an overcount for one reason named Donald Trump. Remember, Donald Trump does not want even the bipartisan infrastructure bill to pass,

because he doesn't want any wins for Joe Biden. He's planning to run for president again, and he doesn't want any members of the GOP to work with Joe Biden or hand him any type of victory, even if it's a victory for corporate donors. David Dayne also says, but let's humor Quayar and say they have 12 Republicans. That means 15 Democrats could sink the bipartisan infrastructure bill if reconciliation doesn't pass first. There are many more willing to do so and not just progressives. So that's a pretty good sign. And I just want to remind you all of what is on the line here, okay?

Why is it that we care so much more about getting the reconciliation bill passed? I already implied that it would actually materially benefit the lives of ordinary Americans. But how so? Well, the $3.5 trillion bill is the legislative vehicle that Democrats are using to pass President Joe Biden's most ambitious goals, which include a Medicare expansion, which would include hearing, vision, and dental, paid family leave, universal pre-K and, you know, pre-K, and an extension of the child tax credit to 2025. That was the child tax credit, of course, that was included in the coronavirus relief bill. and billions of dollars for clean energy and other climate initiatives. So all the important stuff that we need, that we want is in that reconciliation bill, which is why it's so important to pressure Democrats in the House who claim they're going to stand their ground, to continue standing their ground, to ensure that we get what we need in the passage of this reconciliation bill. And look, I'm always skeptical of Nancy Pelosi, but it seems like Pelosi is well aware of what's really going on.

And I have two more tweets to read to you that gives you a sense of what's happening in her mind as these debates play out. Pelosi calls the accommodation made to moderates yesterday setting a September 27th deadline for the infrastructure vote. A clarification considering surface transportation programs needed to be reauthorized by September. 30th. Remember, she committed to a September 27th vote and she says, quote, and so we're talking about a couple of days earlier. But here's the relevant statement from Nancy Pelosi because she knows what's really going on. That doesn't make her a good guy or bad guy. It's just very clear that she knows that these corporate Democrats are not actually interested in starting infrastructure projects that would benefit the ordinary American. No. Pelosi also acknowledges

that the dispute wasn't just about getting a vote on the infrastructure bill. In fact, she says, quote, there are those who would like to see the reconciliation be smaller, and some of that from the outside had an impact on some of the debate. No, no, no. They didn't have an impact on some of the debate. Those corporate donors had an impact on all of the debate. And that's the problem, that corporate interests have run amok that they actually govern this country and have been governing the country. And luckily, we have some progressive members in the House who are not funded in the corrupt way that the vast majority

of U.S. politicians are funded. And that's why we're relying on them to withhold their vote as a block to stand their ground and refuse to support the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless we get the reconciliation bill passed and ready to go. We got to take a quick break. When we come back, I'll tell you a little bit about members of Congress who thought it would be a great opportunity to do a PR stunt in Afghanistan, just as people are trying to flee. See you in a few minutes. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Kasparian with you. Let's get to our next story. Two members of Congress thought it would be a great

opportunity, great time to travel to Afghanistan in an unauthorized trip to do a little bit of a PR stunt. Amid the chaos, by the way, as U.S. citizens are trying to flee the country, as Afghans are trying to flee the country, as people are trying to evacuate Afghanistan after the Taliban has taken full control of the country. But Representative Seth Moulton and Peter Mayer are not too happy about the fact that President Joe Biden has committed to sticking by the August 31st deadline of getting out of Afghanistan. So if you watch the media, corporate media in particular, if you listen to retired generals that get interviewed day in and day out on cable news, the war drums are still being beaten

by these people. They want to remain in Afghanistan. They think that it makes a lot more sense to extend that deadline. And that's exactly what Moulton and mayor. are arguing here. Now I want to note that this is a bipartisan effort. You have one Democrat, one Republican, taking this unauthorized trip. I mean, it was so ridiculous that even the Pentagon is speaking out against them. And I'll give you those statements in just a second. But first, a little context. Congressman Seth Moulton, a Democrat, and Congressman Peter Mayer, a Republican who served in Iraq, went to Kabul early Tuesday to see the chaos and evacuation efforts on the ground? Like, what are they gonna do about it, right? We know that it's chaos. We know that

people are desperately trying to get out of there. We know that we're trying to evacuate U.S. citizens and our allies. But what exactly are two members of Congress who spend most of their year on recess anyway gonna do in Kabul? Well, they're gonna do their PR stunt and urge the Biden administration to extend the deadline. So I'm gonna give you a statement that they put out following this trip, after talking with commanders on the ground and seeing the situation here, it is obvious that because we started the evacuation so late, that no matter what we do, we won't get everyone out on time, even by September 11th. I'm sure that date, I'm sure that date was just a coincidence.

Sadly and frustratingly, getting our people out depends on maintaining the current bizarre relationship with the Taliban. Washington should be ashamed of the position we put our service members in. So I want to be clear about something. The Taliban is keeping cool in terms of its reaction, response to the U.S., to troops on the ground, to people who are still there, as long as the U.S. government stands firm on that deadline, that August 31st deadline, which is why Joe Biden has repeatedly said that he's going to commit to it. I mean, here's his latest statement.

I want to go to this press conference that he recently gave because he keeps getting asked over and over again whether he's willing to extend it. Now, pay attention because there is a little bit of a caveat here. But here's his recent statement in regard to that deadline. We agree that we will continue to close our close cooperation to get people out as efficiently and safely as possible. We are currently on a pace to finish by August the 31st.

The sooner we can finish, the better. Each day of operations brings added risk to our troops. But the completion by August 31st depends upon the Taliban continuing to cooperate and allow access to the airport for those who were transporting out and no disruptions to our operations. In addition, I've asked the Pentagon and the State Department for contingency plans to adjust the timetable should that become necessary. Okay, so that caveat at the very end, a contingency plan in case things don't go the way that we expect. Biden is under the impression that we'll be able to evacuate all the necessary people by that deadline. But should there be any reason to extend the date, right? Maybe we need another week to get people out.

There needs to be negotiations with the Taliban. Like, understand what people like Moulton and mayor are saying right now, extend the deadline, extend the debt. We have the cooperation of the Taliban right now. And the reason why they're not fighting our troops who are there still, the reason why they're not, you know, using violence against us as we're attempting to evacuate people out of the country is because we have an agreement. And you have all these goons both here in the United States. And in this case, two members of Congress who took this unauthorized trip for PR purposes, urging Biden to go against what the agreement is. And then what happens when violence breaks out?

Oh, well, we're going to have to stay a little longer. Why don't we stay a little longer? We have to stay a little longer. Look at what the Taliban did tell us on the, you know, we didn't keep up with our part of the deal. And we decided that we would just ignore that deadline. And so they responded the way that they said that they would respond. And so now we just got to stay in Afghanistan and even longer to fight these dangerous people. It's like they're purposely and intentionally advocating for something that could lead to increased violence that could convince more people that we need to stay in Afghanistan.

Doesn't it seem like that's what's happening here? And by the way, we're trying to get people out of the country. So you have two members of Congress taking an unauthorized trip to Kabul. And guess what? They got to get back to the United States, right? And so they're going to take up space on a plane when they shouldn't have been there in the first place. So let's talk a little bit about the harm that they've caused. The visit by Moulton and mayor, which was not approved as part of the normal process for congressional fact-finding trips, served as a distraction for military and civilian staffers attempting to carry out frenzied rescue efforts. The two lawmakers began their journey to Kabul via a commercial flight to the UAE, paying for the tickets using their own funds, they allege. From there, they figured out a way onto an empty military flight going into Kabul. They landed at Hamid Karzai International Airport around 4 a.m. Washington time, according to a person familiar with their travel time.

So senior administration officials are livid about this. Now, they won't go on the record, but they did speak to the Washington Post about how stupid this was. One of them saying, quote, it's as moronic as it is selfish. They're taking seats away from Americans and at-risk Afghans while putting our diplomats and service members at greater risk so they can have a moment in front of the cameras. Hey, how about you guys take a good, hard look at what's happening within our borders? I mean, you can't get members of Congress to do their jobs and to pass legislation to actually

benefit Americans within our borders. But they'll take a dangerous trip to Kabul just so they can continue beating war drums for a failed war. It's insane. Then you have some more statements from people who are frustrated by this. It's one of the most irresponsible things I've heard a lawmaker do said one diplomat familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss it. spoke on the condition of anonymity, it's absolutely, it absolutely deserves astonishment.

I'm sorry, admonishment. It absolutely deserves admonishment. And by the way, the congressman, of course, disagreed with this assessment. They're like, no, no, we didn't cause any problems. What we did, it wasn't a PR son at all. No, not at all. Here's the statement that they released following all the backlash. We have been on the other side of this argument while we were serving and it just isn't accurate. Trust us, the professionals on the ground are focused on the mission. Many thanked us for coming. Really, I haven't heard a single person thank these congressmen for showing up to do their little PR stunt, not one. You would think maybe someone would jump in and give them credit for the brave thing that they did, you know, pushing the Biden

administration to continue remaining in Afghanistan in an unpopular failed war that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, that has cost the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. service members, that has cost the U.S. taxpayer over $2 trillion. They want more. They want more. And why is it? I don't know, there might be an issue with some campaign funding. which I'll get to in just a second.

But I want to also just note that the Taliban has vowed to impose consequences if the U.S. operations extend beyond that date. So do you guys understand why Biden can't just unilaterally decide that he's going to extend the deadline or remain in Afghanistan? Whether we like it or not, the Taliban now controls Afghanistan. We need them to cooperate with us in order to get people out of the country. safely. But it seems like these congressmen aren't really interested in that. They might be interested in what war profiteers want. Why don't we take a look at the funding

that Seth Moulton has received from defense lobbyists from 2013 to 2022. 2022, of course, midterm election. So he's already getting funding for that campaign. $206,241. And by the way, that's the non-dark money that. that's been funneled into his campaign coffers since 2013. That doesn't even account for the dark money that we don't know about. But I'm sure that doesn't play a role at all for why Seth Moulton wants to remain in Afghanistan, wants to extend this deadline, which he knows is gonna lead to violence, which could threaten the lives of US officials, service members, and staffers.

People were trying to get US citizens and Afghan allies out of that country. country. And you know, mayor hasn't been around for long. He's been around for a few years. So he's received a little bit of money from the defense industry to the tune of $3,211. But who knows how much dark money he's taken in? That's the Republican congressman who showed up. But either way, this was an incredibly irresponsible, stupid PR stunt. Everyone sees it for what it is. They're not heroes, it's not a fact-finding mission. It was a way to make it appear as if they're willing to risk their lives. to do the right thing, when in reality, they're just standing in the way of operations meant to help people get out of the country while doing the bidding of the war profiteers

who convinced the U.S. government to remain in that failed war for 20 years in the first place. It's just absolutely pathetic. Well, let's move on to our next story, because there are other war profiteers that need to be discussed, Eric Prince being one of them. War profiteers like Eric Prince would never allow a good crisis to go to waste. As Afghans desperately tried to leave Afghanistan following the Taliban taking hold of the country, Prince actually sees a decent opportunity for profit making, for pretending as if he's going to try to help people when in reality he's looking to fatten his pockets and make a little bit of a profit. So Eric Prince, the American defense contractor, said he's offering people seats on a chartered plane out of Kabul for the low, low price of $6,500 per person.

He is such a good guy, everybody. He's just looking out for the Afghans who are trying to get out of the country. Again, low, low price of $6,500. Now, Prince, whose black water guards were convicted of killing civilians in 2014 while providing security for Americans during the Iraq war, said he was charging each passenger $6,500 to get them safely into the airport and on a plane, and it would cost extra to get people who have been trapped in their homes to the airport. But here's the problem with Eric Prince. He's, he doesn't have a great track record, especially when it comes to protecting people, offering support to

civilians on the ground. I mean, this is a man who has been the head of a private mercenary group that has caused untold damage in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He certainly didn't want to pull out of Afghanistan. In fact, back in 2019, during an interview with Medi Hassan, he was openly disagreeing with Donald Trump's decision to begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan. Let me remind you a little of that. Sorry about that. Sorry about that. All right.

That was a curveball to our crew. I apologize. So I'll wait until we get that video. You guys let me know when it's ready. So it's C3. That's the video we're going to go to first. But you know, he was one of the people who was very vocal in being against pulling troops out of Afghanistan because he's been profiting off of these types of wars.

Here's the conversation with Medi Hassan. Whether it's drawing down from Syria or drawing down from Afghanistan, the president's going to make it happen. Do you support that? I don't. Here's the thing. If the United States leaves Afghanistan withdraws in either troop support or monetary support, you will have a moment like Saigon in 1975 with helicopters after to lift people off the roof

of the U.S. embassy. It will be that bad. You might say you're not really trying to end the war in Afghanistan, then you just want to replace it with your own kind of war. No, I do want to end the war by giving the Afghan forces the means to survive and to be much more offense. Again, if you provide mentors and you provide air support and logistic support to those units, they can actually get out and get after the enemy. But Eric Prince has never actually followed through on what he claims to want to accomplish. He says the objective is one thing. But when you see how he and his, essentially his employees are on the ground, whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq, their brutality towards civilians was so bad that some of them were convicted for that brutality.

Now, this is a story that TYT has been covering for many, many years, and I'm going to take you to a few older videos, both featuring Jank Yugar. So the first one is Jank reporting on the Blackwater Crimes in Iraq. This is a video from 2012. Jenk gives you updates on some of what they engaged in. They have such an enormous disregard for the civilians that we were there to quote unquote liberate. And the whole idea is we're the big bad Americans, the laws don't apply to us, get out of our way. And then, gee, I wonder why the Iraqis hated us. You're not convinced yet?

Wait to see the second video. Right in the beginning. One of these guys is going to run over a civilian and then everybody's just going to roll on by like nothing happened. Oh my god, oh my god. You just... And they just keep on rolling. Gee, I wonder why the Iraqis didn't like us. I can't quite figure it out.

Maybe it was our enormous disregard for their lives. They killed so many innocent civilians and so many innocent civilians. in civilians in so many different areas with such little regard for civilian life, that they became an embarrassment. So what was their answer to that? No, that's okay. We're just going to change our name. They changed it from Blackwater to Z, and then that didn't work.

So then they changed it to academia. Wow, that sounds so smart. And then they sold to another contractor, Triple Canopy. And now they have changed the name of the entire company to Constellus Holdings. You see, if you change the name four or five times, then the company becomes much better. And of course, the company did not become much better. In fact, when Blackwater, when Eric Prince's group was being investigated, they decided we're going to go ahead and threaten the lives of U.S. officials who are doing the investigation. Watch. State Department puts Gene Richter on the case and says, hey, look, we got all these reports about Blackwater ripping us.

us off, unsafe conditions, let alone what they're doing to the Iraqis. But we're worried about what they're doing to us, to our troops, to our reputation, to our relationship with Iraq, and our money, right? So Gene Richter goes and starts to interview, for example, Dean Carroll, who's the project manager for Blackwater. He runs Blackwater in Iraq at that time in 2007. And here's what Daniel Carroll apparently told him, that he could kill me at that very moment and no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq.

Yeah, threatening U.S. investigators as they were looking into the behavior of the very people on the ground who Eric Prince claims just want to help out, just want to offer security to U.S. troops. In this case, with the latest story, just want to help evacuate Afghans from Afghanistan. Again, for the low, low price of $6,500, extra fees, of course, if they need to get Afghans safely from their home to the airport. But he doesn't actually care about helping anyone other than himself. I mean, this is what war profiteers actually want. They just want to find ways to make money off of these conflicts, which is why, you know, he wasn't actually in favor of taking troops out of Afghanistan. He's not.

in favor of ending any kind of war because war is what his business revolves around. But it's not just about Eric Prince, it's about all the private defense contractors who have perpetuated endless wars. They're the ones who have convinced lawmakers to keep increasing the defense budget because that is the easiest way to redistribute wealth from U.S. taxpayers to wealthy defense contractors, to people who are already billionaires, who have made their wealth off of the deaths of civilians in these countries, in the Middle East, and who of course have no interest in ending any of this, right? They don't want it, which is why we're on to the next. I mean, look, the rhetoric that we're hearing in regard to China is something that we should

be paying very close attention to. Number one, we need to collaborate with and work with countries like China in order to combat climate change. So diplomatic efforts should always take priority over, you know, the Cold War rhetoric that we're hearing right now. But what we're doing in response to China is arming countries that don't have such a great relationship with the country, with China. So we're doing record weapon sales in Japan, in India, and what does that do? I mean, we already know what increasing weapons in various countries has done in the past.

It's only destabilized regions of the world. It's usually come back to haunt us. The very people that we end up arming, turn around and become threats to U.S. national security. But this is all very intentional. Weapons manufacturers make money. Later, defense contractors make money with government grants and government deals to fight these wars. It's all so incredibly disgusting. And to see someone like Eric Prince who does not value human lives at all claim that he wants to help Afghans evacuate,

I mean, all you could really do is roll your eyes at that. These people are goons and they never put themselves on the front lines or risk their own lives in the name of any national security or freeing people of a country that needs democracy. They don't care about any of that. It's all about the money. All right, let's take a quick break. When we come back, I promise I will not throw curveballs at the crew and toss to videos they don't expect.

But we will have some fun because remember Jacob Wall? He's back in the news today and I love it. You don't want to miss the details on that story. Come right back. up everyone, Edwin Umania on the ones and twos, DJ Edwin. You want DJ Edwin or DJ Umania? Which one you like? Oh, Umania, all right, DJ Umania, okay?

And you gotta have the Enya on the name. You gotta keep it fancy. Well look, we've got some fun news today. And you know I love an opportunity to talk about Jacob Wall. He's back in the news and I love what the FCC is proposing here. So let's get right to it. Notorious right wing clown boy, Jacob Wall, and his partner are now facing one of the largest FCC fines regarding robocalls in U.S. history. And the robocalls that they were behind had to do with suppressing the vote for the general election in 2020.

Now, the FCC is proposing to fine conservative conspiracy theorist Jacob Wall and Jack Berkman. More than $5.1 million for allegedly coordinating more than 1,000 unlawful robocalls aimed at swaying last year's presidential election. So the apparent violations were part of what these goons were doing to suppress the vote ahead of November 3rd. They were trying to discourage people from voting by mail. The unlawful robocalls included recorded messages telling people that voting by mail would mean their personal information. will be part of a public database that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts. Now, of course, the calls are illegal.

Attempting to suppress the vote in this way is illegal. And so the FCC, apparently the board members of the FCC, have voted unanimously to fine these individuals, the amount that I just mentioned, $5.1 million. Now, this was a multi-state effort. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel had charged Wall and Berkman for activities tied to such voter suppression robocalls back in October, citing robocalls originating with the men affecting not only her state, but also New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. New York officials similarly sought to take action earlier this year. And I do want to note that this is not final. So both Wall and Berkman can appeal this.

They have a chance to refute the proposed FCC punishment. The FCC noted Berkman and Wall had previously admitted, though, to the Robocall campaign under oath. But what I want to understand, this is the part that like boggles my mind. Remember, one of the things that they tried to do, one of their little schemes was, again, Robert Mueller, right? Like they apparently like paid a woman to allege that there was sexual misconduct. That sexual misconduct had taken place, it was complete and utter garbage, there was no truth behind it. I mean, them paying the woman was the allegation, but the woman had alleged that sexual misconduct was supposed to allege that sexual misconduct happened.

So they held this press conference to, I guess, repeat these claims and they made complete nutter fools out of themselves. I don't understand how they didn't end up in prison after that scheme. But we did get a little bit of a present as a result of that. And it was the press conference itself. I want to remind you all of what that press conference looked like. Rather than double checking and saying, wait a second, was he only at jury duty? Sometimes people go to jury duty, but they're also somewhere else.

Was he only a jury duty? No, instead of, oh, hang on. Hang on, it's not funny. This is not a laughing matter. So you're 20 years old, Jacob, right? You're 20 years old. Describe to me your investigative experience. And when did you get this honorary Harvard Law degree?

It's a figure of, it's a figure of speech. Okay. Okay, so you're 20 years old. What is your investigative? Where's your background and it's a professional investigation? Like I said, I've done a handful of matters. I've done a handful of matters like this over the years. My, you know, my mission here is not.

to establish a narrative, it's not to follow an agenda. It's to bring forth, it's a, hang on, hang on, it's, excuse me, it's to bring forth the facts and let the facts speak for themselves and that's what we've done here. The gentleman in the back. Yes, sir. Are you both prepared for federal prison? I mean, are you both prepared for federal prison is the right question. What I want to know is how they're, how they weren't in prison before they did the robocross. they did the robocall scam because it's insane how much they've, it seems like they've gotten

away with. Now look, to be fair, I'm sure that they've been investigated, their process of being investigated. But imagine, imagine the feds investigating you for your alleged crime, but you're still like running around town committing more crimes. Like that's what white privilege is everyone. That's what white privilege is. Like when you're asking like, oh, what's white privilege? I don't know what that is. It's when Jacob Wall, a 20 year old criminal, is running around committing more crimes as he's being investigated by the feds for the original crime. Mickey C., the Silver Hair Dragon writes in and says, how has Jacob Wall not been in prison repeatedly given the number of grifts, false accusations, slander, hiring women to claim Fauci, Mueller, and others were sexual predators, on and on. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what the answer to that is.

But I do know the FCC is planning on finding him $5.1 million for trying to suppress the vote, for giving voters false information to scare them away from voting. That's the kind of person Jacob Wallace. Imagine being a guy in your early 20s who engages in that type of garbage. Yeah, he deserves to be in prison. Berkman deserves to be in prison as well. And the fact that they've been emboldened to the point where they can just continue playing these games. You play stupid games, you're supposed to win stupid prizes. So their prize should be

prison. And I'm not even one of these like tough on crime people. But obviously, they think that they're above the law. And so the FCC fine is great, but they do deserve time behind bars for what they've been doing. All right, let's do one more story before John Iderola joins me for the second hour. And this one is not as fun as the Jacob Wall story, unfortunately. The American Medical Association is calling for vaccine mandates as the spike in new coronavirus cases among unvaccinated Americans becomes more and more dire by the day. In fact, they released a statement arguing that the simple fact is unless a significant percentage of our population is vaccinated against COVID-19, we could be stuck fighting

this virus for many more months or even years to come. Now is the time for the public and private sectors to come together, listen to the science, and mandate vaccination. In fact, airlines like Delta are planning on penalizing their employees if they refuse to get vaccinated. They're like, look, yeah, you know, we live in a free country and everything, and you don't have to get vaccinated if you don't want to. But you're going to have to get tested regularly, and we're going to charge you an additional $200 a month for your health insurance premium. What do you think about that? So look, there are coercive methods that are being used right now to get people vaccinated. Some companies aren't playing those games. Some companies are

just like, yo, you need to be vaccinated. If you don't want to get the vaccine, then we can't, we can't employ you, which is also coercive. So I don't think that we should lie about the fact that it's coercive, but I think that the vaccine mandates make sense because you want to keep your employees safe. And if some of your employees refuse to get vaccinated, well, that creates an unsafe situation. And look, at the end of the day, companies don't want any liability issues. So if you have someone who's unvaccinated, if you have people spreading a virus to people who are unvaccinated within the company, not only is that going to hurt productivity and profits, which they care a lot about, of course, it could become a liability down the line.

So that's part of the reason why the private sector is implementing coercive methods to get people to get the vaccine. But when it comes to the federal government, as we know, there are no vaccine mandates. And when it comes to some red states, there have been some pretty serious ramifications for the intentional disinformation that people have been consuming. But more importantly, some of the actions that have been taking place that have been taken by governors in the form of mask mandates, mandate bans and what have you. So let's go to Arkansas because I'd like to give you guys an update on how dire the situation is in that state. So Governor Asa Hutchinson announced that Arkansas on Tuesday ran out of intensive care unit

beds for COVID-19 patients for the first time. For the first time since the coronavirus pandemic began, the state's ICU capacity for COVID patients barely eased hours after Hutchinson's announcement with only the one hospital in southeast Arkansas showing availability. So if you are incredibly sick, you, you are unvaccinated in Arkansas and you happen to get COVID and you need to be hospitalized, you need an ICU bed, you might be out of luck. Now they're trying to figure out makeshift situations, they're trying to figure out what to do in order to increase the number of ICU beds. But But right now, they're scrambling.

It's a very difficult situation because so many people are hospitalized. So many people are getting sick in the state. Virus patients actually make up about half of the state's ICU beds. The number of virus patients in ICU's and on ventilators actually reached a new high in the state on Monday of this week. Arkansas, when it comes to vaccinations, ranks fifth in the country, I'm sorry, Arkansas ranks fifth in the country for new cases per capita, according to figures compiled. by Johns Hopkins University researchers, Arkansas has one of the lowest vaccination rates in

the country with 40% of the state's population fully vaccinated. So not even half of the state is fully vaccinated. And so the state on Tuesday reported more than 2,200 new virus cases and 45 new COVID-19 deaths. So to make matters worse, and this is an important part of the story that doesn't just impact Arkansas. Unfortunately now, we're seeing it impact all states because of, again, very intentional disinformation campaigns. What's making things more complicated is this whole ivermectin debate. There's this conspiracy theory that alleges that this livestock medications, typically a livestock medication meant to deworm livestock is actually effective in treating COVID, but you know, the government doesn't want you to know that. Big Pharma

doesn't want you to know that. And so they're hiding this information. None of that is true. Merck, a pharmaceutical company, produces Ivermectin. So to say that you should take Ivermectin because it's not a big pharma product is ridiculous. But more importantly, there are not studies proving that it works against COVID-19. And I want to, I want to explain some of the myths out there. I want to debunk them by showing you the evidence and the data. I want to start off with the context. So the state health department on Tuesday also issued an advisory warning people to not use livestock medication or medicine to try to treat COVID-19. The advisory follows an uptick and calls to the Arkansas Poison Control Center about people taking Ivermectin

intended for animal or livestock use. Now, is Ivermectin ever used for humans? Yes, in doses that are appropriate for humans and for a very specific purpose, if they have roundworm. Now, if you are a human who's suffering from that parasitic situation, then talk to your doctor because Ivermectin might be an option for you. But roundworm is different from COVID. Let me repeat that again. Roundworm, a parasite, is not the same thing as the coronavirus. And for anyone who's also alleging that the National Institutes of Health have done research on this,

the NIH has done research on this, that is not true. So there was a study published on the NIH website, which is a platform that publishes various studies, right? The study might exist on that platform, much like, I don't know, the TYT Facebook page exists on Facebook. That's not to say that TYT is Facebook, okay, or that TYT is a Facebook product. You get what I'm saying, NIH, the website is a platform where all these studies exist. People can read various studies. But here's the problem with the study that keeps getting cited. It was already rejected because of fraud.

And since it was a meta analysis, meaning that the study looked at various studies to come to a conclusion, many of those studies had sample sizes that were too small. So it was riddled with issues, I want to give you the details on that. So let's go to the next graphic. The National Institutes of Health, this is what they actually said, said in February that most of the studies related to ivermectin and the coronavirus, quote, had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and study outcome measures that were often unclear.

And when it comes to one of the study authors, he was asked, hey, what's going on? Is this a conspiracy? Are they trying to suppress the information that you're trying to get out there? Is that what's going on here? Dr. Andrew Hill responded to that and said this. Our meta-analysis of survival for Ivermectin had to be retracted after one of the main studies was suspected of medical fraud. With the revised version, there is no statistically significant survival benefit for Ivermectin.

So the original version should not be quoted. That was one of the study authors. The study, by the way, that keeps getting circulated online as some proof that Ivermectin is a treatment for COVID-19, it's not. And by the way, they're still studying it. So in the future, could they maybe fine that it could be effective? I don't know. The point is they're studying it.

As things stand today, your best bet in avoiding hospitalization or death as a result of COVID is getting the vaccine, which great news everybody, the Pfizer vaccine now has full approval by the FDA. So why would anyone take medication that's really meant for livestock? is not proven as a COVID-19 treatment when they could just get vaccinated by something that has full FDA approval. Don't be stupid, get vaccinated, and stop watching dumb content on YouTube. All right, let's take a break, and when we come back, John Iderola will join me for lots

of fun, including we need to weigh in on the Havana syndrome, this nonsense about Cuba using microwave something to harm U.S. diplomats. I think it's BS. I'll tell you why. Don't miss it. Lots of fun. 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 slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.