The Young Turks - AG Stephen Miller?! - May 13, 2025

Episode Date: May 14, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt Proposal cutting Medicaid aims for GOP middle ground. Stephen Miller & Trump’s lawyers are running the DOJ, according to a new report. Some conservatives call out Trump for taking $400M jet from Qatar. Dave Smith debates Douglas Murray on the “woke right” narrative. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian.

And for today's show, I will not be doing a solo hour. Jank Uyuger is running late, but he will be here very soon. However, I will be covering a really important update to possible Medicare cuts by the House GOP in the first segment. Later in the show, along with Jank Uger, we'll cover a whole host of other stories in the news today, including the absolute fury that President Donald Trump has been met with. in regard to the possibility of him accepting a $400 million plane from the Qatari Royals. It seems like there is bipartisan anger in regard to that very notion.

And it's really interesting because you don't see the same type of anger when it comes to other forms of government corruption. I mean, I remember the story about homeboy Henry Quayar up in Texas, a Democratic lawmaker, of course, allegedly taking bribes from Azerbaijan, whatever happened to that? Didn't really hear much about that. There wasn't all this anger and fury about a foreign government, bribing allegedly a member of Congress. Now, of course, Bob Menendez, a Democratic senator, ended up getting prosecuted and convicted for taking illegal bribes from, you know,

foreign countries and will now serve time in prison as a result of that. But that story didn't get nearly as much attention as this story involving the Katari Royals and their relationship with Trump. So we're going to get to all of that later in the show. First, though, I do want to talk a little bit about what the latest updates are on the House budget bill, which does, in fact, include some cuts to Medicaid. Let's get to it. Protesters representing healthcare workers, people with disabilities, and Planned Parenthood stormed the Rayburn building during a congressional hearing on potential Medicaid cuts

today. And as a result, Capitol Police are reporting that 26 people have been arrested for not taking part in the protest, but for disrupting the House hearing on the budget bill, the big, beautiful budget bill that Donald Trump is urging Congress to pass, which of course will include nearly $5 trillion in tax cuts. And to offset the cost of those tax cuts, we've been hearing over and over again that Congress will be cutting wasteful spending. Well, where do you think they're looking? They're looking at Medicaid, of course. Now, Medicaid is basically a state-run public health care program, but it is funded in large part by the federal government.

This was a huge part of the Affordable Care Act. It expanded Medicaid coverage in states by providing additional federal resources in order to do so. Now, of course, Medicaid appears to be on the chopping block to some extent for House Republicans, but they're trying to do it in a very tricky, Pizziky way. Let me explain how. What are the proposed cuts? Well, if you recall, the House's budget blueprint had directed the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in cuts over the next decade. Now, this also happens to be the committee that's in charge of B social programs like Medicaid. And so as a result, House Republicans have released their plan to cut Medicaid spending,

well, technically cut Medicaid spending. And I'll give you the caveats and the details in just a moment. But some fiscal hawks in the party are actually complaining that these proposed cuts don't go far enough. So what am I referring to? What do I mean when I say technically their cuts? Well, the dollar amount provided to states to expand their Medicaid or keep their Medicaid programs will remain the same. That's what they're alleging. However, it will include work requirements.

So if you are an individual who does not make enough money, does not have enough income in order to pay for your own private health insurance, or if you don't have a job that provides health insurance, maybe because you're working part-time, well, in order to qualify for Medicaid, the federal government, Republicans in the federal government specifically, want to ensure that able-bodied individuals are working in order to qualify. This will also include more frequent eligibility checks in order to ensure that people receiving these benefits are eligible to do so. And I should note, it doesn't lower the minimum share the federal government contributes to Medicaid in each state or the cap per person spending in the program. So this is the tricky-piziki way they are cutting Medicaid. What they're essentially doing is saying like, no, no, no, the dollar amount is going to be the same. It's just that we're going to make it harder for people to

be eligible for Medicaid. So people will be kicked off the rolls. And as a result of that, the federal government will be saving some resources. I just find it interesting that whenever it comes to cutting spending, the first thing on the chopping block tends to be programs that help the most vulnerable people in this country. Fellow Americans who desperately need health care coverage, but don't have the means or the money to be able to afford it. So as far as the work requirements go, let's get granular. Let's see what they're proposing here. The bill would require Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer, or attend school for 80 hours per month. Okay, so the requirement would apply to most able-bodied adults through

age 64 without dependence and includes exceptions for pregnant women, people with substance use disorders and others. Now, I need a little more clarity on this because what happens if you are searching for work but are unable to find work, something that might become more of a problem if Donald Trump does intend to move forward with some of the more astronomical tariffs that he is implementing on our trade partners, right? So if it's more costly to get the parts you need for your business, if it's more expensive to get the products you need to sell in your business, you're likely going to shut your business down, it's going to file for bankruptcy, or you're going to lay off workers. So that's just something to keep in mind.

All of these different proposed policies don't just stand alone in a vacuum. You have to look at the bigger picture, the current economic conditions, and what House Republicans are proposing here. So when Arkansas, by the way, briefly implemented work requirements for Medicaid recipients, one in four participants in that state, which amounted to about 18,000 people, lost their health care coverage. And that was the point. Okay, that was the point. So that is what the House Republicans are trying to do here. Just make it more difficult for people to be eligible for Medicaid benefits. So there's this assumption that Americans who need help from the social safety net are just

these lazy people who are unwilling to earn an income and take care of themselves. But I actually want to go to this analysis that was done by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Now KFF is not in any way associated with Kaiser, meaning like the healthcare system, the hospital. This is entirely separate, but they did an analysis to see, you know, what percentage of Americans are actually working while receiving these benefits? And by the way, they're eligible for the benefits, meaning they're working, but they're still not generating enough income to be able to afford health insurance on their own, which is why they're eligible for Medicaid.

Well, let's take a look at this breakdown, this fun pie chart. So if you look at this, it'll show you that 64% of Medicaid recipients are working. And by the way, this data is from 2023, as you can see, work status and barriers to work among Medicaid adults, 2023. So it focuses specifically on adults. So that's 26.1 million people and 64% of them are actually working. They are employed.

44% of them are working at least 35 hours a week, which this analysis has considered full-time work. 20% of the individuals are actually working part-time. The rest are not working, though, due to illness or disability, school attendance, or because they're a caregiver to a loved one. Okay, I'm now learning firsthand just how labor intensive it is to take care of a loved one who has fallen ill. It's a difficult job to do. It's hard to balance a full-time job while doing that simultaneously. So I would like to live in a country that actually supports our fellow Americans as they're going through what could be the hardest period of their lives, taking care of a loved one who has fallen ill or is trying to recover from a serious injury. So the data on whether this will save money, by the way, is mixed.

And I think it's really important to know that. So a 2023 analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that imposing work rules on Medicaid recipients ages 1925 who are not parents or caregivers would would cut federal spending by an estimated $109 billion over the next 10 years. Wow, that sounds like a lot of money until you remember that the tax cuts that Trump implemented in 2017 cost our federal government a whopping $10 trillion. $10 trillion. That's insane.

Okay, and he wants to implement additional tax cuts, which will amount to close to $5 trillion. And so, you know, you look at this $109 billion over the next 10 years that would be saved allegedly through Medicaid cuts, drop in the bucket, but that's the analysis that looks pretty good for the case that Republicans are making. But as I mentioned, the data's mixed. So also in 2018, the CBO estimated that states would incur $65 billion in administrative costs over 10 years to implement and manage work requirements. Because remember, remember, if you're going to impose work requirements on Americans who want to qualify for Medicaid, well, you got to add to the bureaucracy, bro. Okay, who is going to check to make sure these people are working?

You're going to have to hire people. That onus, by the way, will be placed on the states. So the federal government is going to force the states to incur additional costs in order to carry out this work requirement policy for Medicaid, which is just a being used as a ridiculous facade in saving money to justify additional tax cuts. Okay, got it. So here are the other ways the Republicans in the House plan to save money by cutting eligibility to Medicaid. So the legislation seeks to ensure only those who are eligible remain on Medicaid

roles, delaying Biden-era rules on looser eligibility checks and blocking federal funds for Medicaid recipients whose citizenship or immigration status is. unverified. So the bill would also reduce federal Medicaid payments to states that provide health care coverage for immigrants in the country illegally. So look, this is going to be a huge problem for states like California and New York, which have proudly provided Medicaid coverage to individuals in the country illegally. And so I want to give you an example of California because California actually isn't a little bit of trouble financially as we speak. We've lost a huge portion of our tax base, which has left the state to find more affordable

places to live, obviously, at the same time, because of all these nonprofit grifts that have popped up since 2020, you know, we have lost tens of billions of dollars in funding that was allocated specifically to build housing and help the homeless. That money is still unaccounted for is unbelievable that there hasn't been any justice with that massive loss of taxpayer resources. And so there have been budget shortfalls in recent years, L.A. specifically is dealing with a massive $1 billion budget shortfall. And so there have been some proposed cuts to all sorts of services in the state of California.

At the same time, look, it is true, providing health care to all, in including those who might not be documented is a costly endeavor. And so in 23, California expanded Medi-Cal, which is the state's Medicaid program to include all undocumented immigrants regardless of age. Now, the Newsom administration wrongly underestimated how much this would cost. He initially projected the cost would be $6.4 billion. However, in March, he requested state lawmakers approve an additional $2.8 billion loan to help cover for the state's soaring Medicaid costs. So that's just a little bit of a tangent. Out of everything that's being proposed in regard to saving money or doing cuts or making it more difficult to qualify for Medicaid, I would say this is the one area where Republicans have a little bit of a point. However, I also know that Republicans are very heavy-handed in wanting to make it

very difficult for people to qualify or be eligible for Medicaid. So I would rather them not touch Medicaid at all. But let me continue with the other things they want to do. So the proposal would also require some able-bodied Medicaid recipients, those making more than 100% of the federal poverty level, or wow, a whopping 15,000. $1,650 for a single adult, I mean, live in the high life to pay for some of their coverage. Okay, this is ridiculous. $15,600 is not enough money to live without having to worry about paying for part of your health care coverage. I mean, the people that are being singled out here are the very Americans we should want our resources to go to.

These are the Americans who are living in poverty, these are the people we want to help. Like the audacity to specifically single out people making 15,600 bucks a year. Like, oh, you know, they can sacrifice a little money for their healthcare coverage. Can they? Can they? It's just so ridiculous. Let me give you the rest of that. So the contributions would be capped at $35 a service or 5% of an individual's income and wouldn't be required for primary, prenatal,

pediatric or emergency care. So with all of these, you know, granular details in mind, you can kind of understand why people are furious Americans who have been dealing with these horrible economic conditions, inflation, additional possible inflation as a result of this, you know, impending trade war that Trump has sparked with all of our trade partners. All of these things have screwed up Americans economically, financially. And so to add this layer to it is going to infuriate a lot of people across the political aisle. Because what the House Republicans are signaling to the American people right now is, yeah, those insanely wealthy people in this country, those corporations that already have an effective tax rate that's so low that they get a tax refund when they file for their taxes.

Yeah, those people, we want to help them out more. But all those Americans who are earning $15,650 a year, nah, you know, we think they're lazy bums and they should pay more for their health insurance. There will be political repercussions to this, and they deserve it if this actually comes to pass. So look, more than 70 million people in this country rely on Medicaid. for health care, 70 million. You wanna mess with those people and you think you're gonna get away with it? All right, have at it, midterms are coming.

Midterms are coming, they're coming, it's coming faster than the white walkers, okay? Midterms are coming and if they want to mess with Americans who have been living in these economic conditions and who need a little bit of help in order to get preventative health care, to see a doctor, Okay, just don't cry when you see the consequences. So look, the House Energy and Committee and Commerce Committee chair, his name is Brett Guthrie. In an interview cast the changes as slowing down runaway growth in Medicaid rather than cuts. He's saying they're not cuts, although the whole point is to drop people from Medicaid. He also admitted that while the more moderate members of the GOP will probably favor this approach,

the fiscal hawks in the Republican Party will not, will not appreciate this. They want more cuts. And if you're wondering, has there been any analysis in regard to the impact this would have on Medicaid recipients? Well, yes, in fact, Democrats requested that the nonpartisan congressional budget office do an analysis to see how many Americans could be pushed off of Medicaid as a result, if this passes, by the way. And that analysis showed that the bill would lead to about 8.6 million people losing insurance.

And Guthrie says, I think the people who will have the most difficult time with it would be that it doesn't go far enough. So according to the fiscal hawks in the Republican Party, 8.6 million Americans losing Medicaid coverage doesn't go far enough. We should cut deeper. Bread and butter issues matter the most to Americans, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. The reason why Donald Trump throughout the years since 2016 has been able to increase his support among various demographics in the electorate is because he pays lip service to those economic frustrations.

Now, these are the House Republicans. This is what they want to do. The question is, what does Trump want to do? Because he has said repeatedly, he doesn't want to cut these services, because he understands how politically unpopular it would be to do so. So I'm waiting on Trump. I'm waiting to hear what he has to say. Because if you think cutting Medicaid eligibility is the right way to go about

another massive tax cut handout to your rich buddies, and there will be any consequences to it. You've got another thing coming. There will be consequences. There will be blood. Just not in the form of a nurse drawing blood from a patient who needs to see if there's anything wrong with them, who might need preventative care. Because, you know, they might not be able to afford it or pay the $35 a month to qualify for Medicaid because they're living high on the hog with $15,600 in yearly earnings. This is pathetic. We'll be right back. Baldassarro, you're awesome for signing up. We appreciate you guys and Harry Keely, thank you guys.

Well, I love doing this show with you guys. So we got Operation Joy tonight for the members. You guys are gonna love those happy stories who in the midst of the biggest darkness that people have seen for a long time. We bring you light through our, you guys, through our actual audience, members, viewers, et cetera. And check out t.com slash joy where a lot of those stories are and share your own story. You don't have to be a member.

Later in the show, we're gonna bring you a dusty John, a Dusty Johnson. That's a real name. Okay, all right, that's what happened today, apparently. All right, also later today, the story I'm most animated about, look, I know we've been over a hundred times, but mainstream media just figured out Biden's too old. And so we're going to talk about that, and we're going to talk about other older Democrats. And our, speaking of t.com, our poll there, our daily poll there is, should we respect senior Democratic leaders like James Clyburn? I have strong opinions on that, okay? But a lot of people think, of course, you do respect. So we'll see. All right, Caspar, what's next?

Oh, there is chaos in the DOJ. Let's get to it. Honestly, every single day, Pam Blondie is on Fox News. She's on Fox News more than she does her job and other people are starting to realize it. And that might be by design. But Pam Bondi is not happy about it. So it turns out that, well, last week, Laura Lumer, as you just heard, fumed at Attorney General Pam Bondi for, spending all of her time doing these Fox News appearances. But according to a new report by the New York Times, Bondi really does see her media touring as part of her job. The problem is it's kind of become her only job according to this report. So the same report explains that Pam Bondi

is more of a mouth piece or I guess like the outward facing representative of the DOJ as opposed to the person calling the shots. That's like really the thesis of this whole piece. And that really does raise an important question, Jenk. If it's not Pam Bondi serving as DOJ or as the Attorney General in the Department of Justice, who is calling the shots? Yeah, well, we have some answers to that as this story's going to reveal. But I'm torn on this story. So it's I'm not torn in terms of the policy or substance. No, it's a disaster at DOJ.

It's as bad as you could have imagined. But is it true that a lot of the job is optics and that the Democrats didn't understand that? Yes, that part is true, okay? That comes at the very end. But first, let's find out who's actually in charge of the Justice Department and making the decisions. As you'll see, it's a person who's not even a lawyer. Well, we'll get to that shortly actually. shortly actually. But before we get to who the person calling the shots happens to be,

the piece titled as White House Steers Justice Department, Bondi embraces role of TV messenger. So for this piece, the time spoke to 20 current and former officials and reported that Bondi sees her role as that of a surrogate, a faithful executor and high volume messenger compelled to seed ground, to empowered players in the West Wing, and in her own building, who exercise significant authority that rivals her own. She does not appear to have played a major role in creating overall strategies, focusing on aligning her department with the game plan and framing attacks on opponents, current and former officials said.

So Media Matters for America says that during President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office. Bondi appeared on Fox and Fox business 24 times, which is a lot. That's every other day almost. And so here's a look at some of her appearances. You said last week that you have the Epstein files on your desk is when can we see them and what's taking so long to release them? I do. I think tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office. Yes, that over the weekend, maybe rebuild and reopen Alcatraz, put him there in the middle of the Pacific Ocean someplace. I'm all for that, all for that, and I think it will be a cost savings.

She must apologize immediately, not only to all Texans, but to our country, to the American shareholders of Tesla. President Trump won the popular vote by an overwhelming majority. One grain of fentanyl. I put it in here to show you earlier. You can barely see it. It looks like one grain. This is salt, not fentanyl. One grain is all it takes to kill an American citizen. Your tax dollars hard at work, ladies and gentlemen. Now, again, the big question is, if she's just doing media appearances,

and that's really the only role that she has within the Department of Justice, who's calling the shots, it turns out it's Stephen Miller. Yeah, well, well, well. All right, so first of all, we've got a poll in the live chat. what's worse, having Pam Bondi in charge or Stephen Miller in charge? I have thoughts on that as well. And so already Miller is worse. I totally agree. Watch the show live 6 to 8 p.m. Eastern and be part of the show here.

All right. So first of all, on those appearances, two thoughts on it. Number one, it's embarrassing. Like when you go out there and you are so over the top like she is, like he won with a great majority. Like he won by two points, okay, which for Republicans is like a minor miracle, because they almost never win the popular vote in the national election. But don't pretend that it was like 60% and everybody's falling at his feet, especially when his polling is at 39%, 40% in that ballpark right now. So it's on the other hand, this is the problem with the Republican and Democratic parties. They have completely divergent problems, okay, but at the same time serving the same purpose.

So Merrick Garland didn't know what a television camera was. one, doesn't understand what a microphone was, couldn't make his case if his life depended on it, and slept in a, he was Rip Van Binkle, if you remember that old story, like just sitting in a sleep in a cave somewhere. That's terrible, that's terrible, you gotta go and be aggressive and make your case, etc. She on the other hand, all she does is TV and she just comes on and she's like, oh my God, I don't know if you know, but Donald Trump is a great person to ever live, you're like, oh, Jesus Christ, man.

I just look, I get that the heads of federal government agencies, bureaucrats, and even elected lawmakers, especially elected lawmakersers, lie. That's what they do. They're liars, right? And so I'm not shocked that she went on Fox News and lied about the Epstein files. But it was just such a brazen, specific lie. Yeah. Like tomorrow, Jesse Waters, you're going to see the Epstein. Did we see the Epstein files, though? No, but here's the thing, Anna, and I think that's one of the really interesting parts of the story.

And I'm very curious to see if it's going to then land on Stephen Miller's shoulders, okay? Because in the old days, if you were a Democrat who lied, oh, Joe Biden's young and dynamic, mainstream media would be like, Bravo, yeah, Joe Biden's the youngest person who's ever lived, right? And then with Trump team for the MAGA crew, if you said Donald Trump is eight feet tall and shoots the lightning bolt, out of his arse, right? They would be like, of course he does, of course he does, right? And no one, and so you could tell any lie you want, if you were a Democrat or a Republican,

and you would have a squadron of people in media go, it's absolutely true, he's eight foot tall, and he's young, blah, blah, so now Pam Button is getting caught in with new media at the helm and the situation is a little bit different. And so what do we tell you guys here on The Young Turks? I said, look, I've been all over these shows and they're gonna splinter because they don't agree.

So what got, why did Pam Bondi get caught? Did they get, did she get caught by the New York Times? This is a really good story. It has really interesting details we didn't know like Stephen Miller's in charge, et cetera, and we'll get to more of those in a second. But no, she got caught by the right wing guys and why? Because she was kissing Trump says, no, they don't mind that at all, right? No, because she said that obscene files would be there and they weren't there.

And when they caught her and they're super mad about it, she's like, I don't get it. I lie 24-7, I took like 25,000. $1,000 from Donald Trump and dropped a case against them. And no one minded. I mean, I made $3 million with another deal I made with Trump. No one minded, we, why are you guys minding all of a sudden when I'm lying? I'm supposed to lie.

That's, I think that's a reaction. Yeah, and look, honestly, the release of the Epstein files is a priority for Trump supporters, for MAGA. That is something that they wanted. That is something that Trump promised to do for them. And so it is a, I mean, it took balls to engage in that very specific lie, right? Yeah, but she didn't know, I'm telling you, she didn't know that she was gonna get caught by her own side. In fact, nobody knew that, like other than us, I'm being honest, right? You could get me for it, but it's true, like if you ask the Democrats, or is Maga gonna catch Trump's ass-kissing Attorney General?

Every Democrat would have said, no way, Maga will never turn on the Attorney General, as long as she's He's got Trump on his corner and no Republican would have believed it, et cetera. But you can say, all right, now, what I'm curious about is this Stephen Miller then, like is he involved and not releasing the Epstein files? Maybe. And that's a really important question. Is Stephen Miller going to get caught? Or are they going to give him a free pass?

We'll see, we'll see, but I do want to remind everyone of who Stephen Miller is. So let's go to the very last video here. This is J3. This is the guy who's calling the shots in the Department of Justice. Let me also just say, since we're addressing the subject of style, the most stylish president and first lady in our lifetimes are Donald Trump and Melania Trump and Melania Trump. Donald Trump's a style icon. He changed American fashion in The Apprentice. People spent the next 10 years trying to dress like Donald Trump. So if anybody deserves a puff piece on their sense of style, it's Donald Trump and the first lady. Joe Biden, to the point that might be made so well, looks like a walking corpse.

The only style article that should be written about Joe Biden is how you've mastered the art of looking embalmed. The scales of justice look great. So he is not a lawyer, but he, you know, it was clear from the start that Miller, who is not a lawyer, would exercise control inside the department current and former Trump aide said. So look, there are two, two more power players in the Trump administration, or I should say in Trump's Department of Justice, and they actually happen to be Trump's personal lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emile Bov, the third who serve as Pam Bondi's top two subordinates.

Now according to the times, they oversee the day to day operations of the department. And Bondi was deeply displeased by the arrangement and told friends it undermined control over her own organization. It made no difference. She has tried to adapt and has become close to Bov, a stoic enforcer who she refers to as sweet Emil, meal, according to several officials. Now, one example of Bondi's limited power has to do with the January 6th pardons, which is a really interesting revelation from the story. So she apparently only wanted pardons to be issued to the nonviolent individuals who had either been convicted or charged. The time reports that Bondi was blindsided by Trump's decision to just pardon everybody, blanket pardon,

including the violent rioters, including the individuals who assaulted police officers. It's all caught on camera. So here's how the Trump administration responded to the Times' report. Chad Mazzle, the attorney generals, the attorney general's chief of staff, said close coordination with the West Wing

was essential to fight a liberal department workforce. President Biden, he argued, did not need to exert such control because most career staff members we're already willing to blindly implement his agenda. Jank. Yeah, so this story is filled with like unbearable details of how these guys operate. And I know, so this portion, Mosomaga doesn't know, I don't know if they'll ever know, right? But it's important for all of us to know.

And it's the most important for independence to know. So the part of the story that bothered me the most is Pam Bondi goes into a meeting with one of her top lawyers. And in that room, they haven't yet changed Biden and Kamala Harris's and Merrick Garland's pictures, right? They've only been there a couple of months. It's an oversight. It's not nobody's trying to do anything with it, right? So she sees and she goes, oh, you should change those pictures. So far, no problem, okay, she's, you know, they should change the pictures.

She walks out of the room, fires the guy. Like, like immediately? Immediately, fires them. That's hilarious. That's hilarious. I'm not, I'm not sanctioning it. I don't think it's a good thing. It's just like it's unbelievably ridiculous and egotistical to do that.

Yeah, who cares? So because to them, the law is totally irrelevant. Serving the average American voter is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how hard you kiss Trump's ass. And this is really, it's as an American citizen, it's unbearable. The Department of Justice is supposed to be independent of the White House. It's supposed to be that no one is above the law and that we're all treated equally. And justice for all, you remember that, right?

Here they're brazen about it. They're like if you even unwittingly, subconsciously, slight Donald Trump by having the wrong picture up on your wall or whatever it might be. You look at me kind of funny. You're fired, you're fired. I talked to somebody at a young Turks meeting greet in Chicago today. We works at the government. He's like, nobody looks at each other anymore in the government offices.

We're all so scared. And we go into work, we keep our head down, and we try not to get fired. You don't know what you're gonna get fired for. How is that different from most people working for corporations? Well, no, I hear you, but they go and do their jobs, right? Yeah, I get it, yeah. And they're not worried about it, like Gestapo-like government officials, and not just like, hey, are you doing something liberal or are you doing something extreme from the past

or something? No, are you sufficiently loyal to the dear leader? This is how a communist dictatorship runs, this is how you get the tyranny of government, etc. So now, speaking of tyranny, we go back. to Stephen Miller, so the only thing worse than Pam Bonding, whose only job is apparently is puckering up for Trump, is Miller who just said a couple of days ago that we should suspend the writ of habeas corpus. How neocon of him, by the way.

First of all, yeah, that is a neocon position, that's right. And so Stephen Miller is not a lawyer, and he goes, oh, I know, I know, yeah, it's an invasion. Yeah, that's what it is. But wait, is it an invasion or did you close the border? Because I thought you were bragging about closing the border a minute ago. And if the border is closed, how is it an invasion? It's only been used four times every time in actual war circumstances, right? This is not a war circumstance at all, right?

But they're like, oh, there is an invasion of their country. We are going to suspend it. So if you don't know what that is, is the reason why it's cornerstone of our Constitution and Western civilization is, in the old days, tyrannical governments and king, would just grab somebody up off their property and they'd lock them up and they'd lock them up forever. And people say, where'd he go? So I don't care, I don't have to show you, I'm king, I could be as tyrannical as I like. And then through the Magna Carta, the lords originally got the right to say, hey, you have

to show me to a judge. If you're gonna arrest someone, you have to show them to a judge and say why you arrested them. If you don't have that, we're back in the dark ages. We're back to total dictatorships, right? And guys, look, just to give you a sense of how backwards this is and how ridiculous this is, I remember during the Bush administration, he actually did suspend habeas corpus specifically for suspected terrorists. And just like we're hearing today with Trump supporters who are totally on board with doing

away with habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants, at the time during the Bush administration, the big argument was, well, we're suspending habeas corpus for suspected terrorists, no, no, but you need due process when the federal government unilaterally points to you or points to anybody and claims that they're terrorists, you should be able to have your day in court and force the federal government to provide evidence showing that you are suspect, that you are actually engaged in terrorist activities. Okay, by the way, the Supreme Court struck it down. I think it took about a year, but the Supreme Court finally did strike it down. So the idea of suspending habeas corpus, people think like, they're foreigners, who

cares? They have no rights. First of all, they do have rights. This has been established by the Supreme Court multiple times. Our constitutional rights extend to people who are in the country but are undocumented. Okay, and by the way, who's to say the federal government can't accuse someone who is an American citizen, engage in a case of mistaken identity, accuse that person of being in the country illegally, accuse that person of allegedly being a gang member. And if you just suspend habeas corpus in regard to those people, those American citizens wouldn't have their day in court. Yeah, so last things here. So going along with what Anna was saying, Supreme Court has ruled for 200 years that are the rights in the Constitution

apply to people that are in this country, whether they're citizens or not citizens. So you can say you don't agree with that, okay, but once you take that right away from citizens or non-citizens, You erode your own rights, because the Supreme Court has said they are the same rights. Okay, so now if you say, well, no, they should set a new standard and non-citizens should have no rights at all. I don't care about 200 years of American history or Supreme Court decisions, and it should only be for citizens. Okay, well, now you're under the second problem with due process and rid of habeas corpus. If they don't have to present you to a court, you could scream from inside a dungeon in Louisiana or El Salvador. door, but I'm a citizen, but I'm a citizen, and they won't hear you because they never

had to present you to a court. Exactly. Look, I'll give you another specific example. My husband was born in the United States, okay, in Miami. He has a name that is shared by many drug cartel members apparently. And I didn't know this until I finally gathered the courage to ask customs. And, you know, when you, when you fly back to the United States from a foreign country, you have to go through customs. And every single time, they pull him to a separate room and interrogate him. And look, it sucks that he's being interrogated. But I got to go. I've got things to do. So like, why are you guys wasting my time? What's going? I'm kidding. But like seriously, like, why are they doing this every time? Simply because his name is Christian

Lopez. And they admitted this to me. His name's Christian Lopez. There are a lot of like wanted cartel members with that name. So we have to interrogate him. Well, what if a mistake is made? And there's mistaken identity and he gets accused of being one of those cartel members. Yeah, first of all, A, there could be mistakes. There have already been mistakes. Right, right? And what there's no, the Trump administration, Biden administration, any administration is going to be perfect and never make a mistake. No, that doesn't make any sense. That's why we have habeas corpus. That's why we have due process. And it could be not just mistakes. I mean, you got your husband, my nephew was pulled over by customs and border enforcement coming back

into the country just a couple of days ago. He's an American citizen. He was born here. And they started questioning him about his views on Israel and on Trump. First of all, his views on Trump and Israel, his views on anything is irrelevant. He's a U.S. citizen, right? But now, wait a minute. Left wing, right wing, middle wing, if you got the wrong view on Israel and you're a citizen, but they decide, oopsie dopsy, we just sent you away. And I don't have to present any evidence to a court. What are you going to do? What are you going to do? I'll tell you what you're gonna do, you're gonna say, oh my God, this is a tyrannical government I was worried about. Exactly, exactly. And guess what they're doing, brother, they're treading on you.

You told them, don't tread on me. And here they are treading all over you and all over all of us. Exactly. Here at TYT, we believe no step on snake. Snick. Snick. All right. We got to take a break. When we come back, a lot more to get to. We'll talk about the proposed American land crab in Gaza. We'll also talk about, in my opinion, a fantastic interview between Dave Smith and Tucker Carlson. What? Yes, I'm going to show you the snippets. You're going to love it.

Don't miss it. We'll be right back. All right, back on TYT, Jank, and Anna with you guys, more news. You know, Jank, all of a sudden, politicians from both sides of the political aisle really concerned about foreign corruption of our politicians, super worried about it. Wow, okay, well, let's give you the details. I'm not a fan of Qatar. I also think that the plane poses significant espionizing.

espionage and surveillance problems. So we'll see how this issue plays out, but but I certainly have concerns. Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who you just heard from, is far from the only politician or even the only Republican who's speaking out against their king, Donald Trump, for considering accepting a $400 million plane to essentially serve as Air Force One that would be gifted by the. Qatari Royals, apparently all of a sudden you have all these conservatives who are worried about government corruption. In fact, conservative media personalities, representatives and senators who seem to totally be okay with corruption in all other forms, suddenly have this issue with Qatar bribing one of our politicians, in this case the president of the United States.

Others are defending Trump, but we'll get to them later, Jank. Yeah, so the shock to find gambling. in this establishment. So it turns out that maybe other countries are trying to influence them. I wonder if the top lobbying group in the country that has the word Israel in its name is mentioned by any of these people. Oh, that's so weird. None of them mention it. And neither does the media. The media that's now saying, I can't believe Biden lied to us. It turns out he was old. What are we reporters? How could we figure that out? Is that is going to say one day, when they get caught on A-PAC and the fact that they never, ever, ever covered the fact

that A-PAC was the number one donor in the selection cycle, et cetera, they will then say, I didn't know, it turns out that this lobbying group was for Israel, all I knew about was bad Qatar, bad Qatar. So we're gonna give you all those details, but as we give you these folks who are pretending to care about this, I will need you to remember that Qatar is home to the forward headquarters of United States Central Command in the Middle East. And it also has combined air operations center for the United States in Qatar. So Qatar is an actual ally that actually allows bases in their country. And it has greeted us with open arms throughout.

But they only took care of Trump. They didn't take care of Ted Cruz and all the media and all the other politicians. So, you know, whereas the APAC did. And all of a sudden that's why we have concern. So here's a quick compilation of various conservatives, various Republicans, who take issue with the notion that Trump should accept this gift from Qatar. Taking sacks of goodies from people who support Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Jazeera, all the rest. That's not America first. Like, please define America first in a way that says you should take sacks of cash from the Qatari royals who are behind Al Jazeera.

If you want President Trump's agenda to succeed, taking jets from Qatar is not the way. Taking real estate deals from Qatar is not the way. The largest obstacle to any administration is scandal. Obviously, we don't want to be straight up accepting any type of gift from any foreign government, certainly not, you know, one that can be viewed in a way that obviously has been presented here. I do think the jet probably sends a wrong signal to people, and I don't like the look or appearance of it. So I would hope that he would reject it. The Constitution specifically says you can't take gifts from foreign leaders.

I don't like it. There's a reason that people can't even buy me a steak dinner. It's not necessarily that you can prove that I've got an ethical problem. It's at the appearance of it doesn't look great. Yeah, you know, this is the kind of discussion that typically takes place on corporate media. You know, corporate media loves to cover political bribes 24-7. I mean, the real muck rakers are in the corporate press. And they like to have these conversations, Jank.

They really, they take issue with corruption. Yeah, so look, some folks are upset about the plane that have nothing to do with the hypocrisy on Israel, right? So I'm included among them. I don't think you should take the plane. I don't know why in other country is giving us Air Force One. That seems dangerous. And the fact that Trump is going to keep it after the election is ridiculous. So why am I concerned about Ben Shapiro, Mark Levine, and all these other guys who are Israel first,

all of a sudden, finding out that there might be corruption in the establishment. Because they never said a word about any of the other corruption. They never said a word about all the lobbying, not just from APEC, but from Big Pharma and oil and the bankers and all these. They love that kind of corruption. They never said a word about Trump's meme coin until all of a sudden this plane issue comes up. all of a sudden Ben Shapiro finds out that Donald Trump is doing meme coin. They do complain about Soros, bribing politicians and all that. But when it comes to Trump, it was like bribe away.

And when it comes to all the politicians in our Congress, bribe away, no problem. They love that. So don't tell me that all of a sudden you don't like corruption. Now, and so if you don't know the background, Qatar is not, so they are on our side. They're trying to be neutral to the, you know, and if you whether you believe them or not, is It's a different question, but Israel perceives them as on the side of the Palestinians. And so since they're on the side of the Palestinians, every supporter of Israel here apparently got a memo, I don't know how, but like they all, or they already knew, right?

Because they, this is an issue they care deeply about, right? So they're like, oh, Qatar is now unduly influencing Trump. Yeah. Oh no way, no way, no Arabs allowed. No influence for any Arabs, anyone supporting Palestinians, that's it, turn on Trump. Everybody turn on Trump. And all of a sudden, there's a cacophony. And all of a sudden, every time you turn on TV, pick up any paper, all of a sudden

we care about Donald Trump's corruption. We've been covering it throughout. We told you all those stories, right? So we have the credibility to say, I don't like this plain thing. For all these Johnny come lately is that for the first time when Israel's interests are touched, catch feelings over corruption, don't believe the hype, they don't mean a thing. Qatar is definitely on the Palestinian side. You had Hamas leadership living in Qatar, Qatar was harboring them.

I'm not saying that as if like, oh, we should be enemies with Qatar, no, I actually love the fact that there's a country in the Middle East that looks out for Palestinians to some extent. Yeah, and- Not harboring Hamas, but specifically that they actually give a damn about what's happening to Palestinian civilians. 100%. And to that point, what I was gonna say is that- Remember, Netanyahu funneled money to Hamas through Qatar.

Exactly. So like all of a sudden you found out that Qatar is housing the Hamas guys? No, you knew that all along and you were pretty happy with that all along. And oh, right, you had the memo saying that October 7th was going to happen and you didn't do anything. And then, oh, look at that. I had to destroy all of Gaza and try to occupy it. So no clean hands on Qatar at all when it comes to Netanyahu and the current Israeli government. So let's talk a little bit about Caitlin Collins' exchange with Representative Rich McCormick.

She was asking him whether or not he is comfortable with Trump accepting this $400 million gift. He deflected quite a bit and wanted to talk about Israel instead. Let's watch. This came up for a vote in Congress. Would you say yes to it? I don't think he's going to come down to a voting. It's not either. It's going to be illegal. I don't think Congress by the Constitution is in charge of a budget, not in which gifts the president can accept. I think that's a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a doctor. I'm in Congress. We're not going to vote on this. They'll come up whether it's acceptable or not that that's going to be remained to be seen. What I'm really worried about is the peace process. What's going on in Israel? Why it happened?

How do we mitigate that from happening again? But Congressman, actually, if you read the Amalian's clause, it says no person holding any office shall without the consent of Congress. except of any president, of any kind, whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. You're the reporter. Could you tell me if every gift we received in the Middle East have been voted on? Did I don't remember that at all? So I'm just asking for, for general purposes. I mean, typically presidents are not supposed to accept gifts from from. Is there? But I know, I know we have, though, historically, we've accepted gifts from all over the world. The question is, is there a monetary value on that? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.

He's correct. There have been other gifts given by foreign governments to, you know, our politicians. In some cases, our politicians have been prosecuted for accepting those obvious bribes. Bob Menendez, a former Democratic senator, comes to mind, right? He's faced some consequences for that. But let's go to one more representative. This is Ryan Zinke, who tried to defend Trump. I don't think it's a personal gift. I think it's government to government. But is that a workaround because he said it's going to go to the Trump presidential library after? Well, we'll see where it goes. So what do you think though? Are you forward against it? Where do you stand? Do you have any ethics concerns or constitutional concerns? Well, I'm glad Pam Bonnie stepped in and looked at it from a legal point of view, which is helpful. You know, again, I'll go back. This must be one heck of a complaint of a plank.

Remember who President Trump is? He's a billionaire businessman from, New York. He doesn't sleep in a sleep meg overnight. What he does, but even if it's a really nice plan, it's a great point. That doesn't take away the other ethics and- But I can see the point too, that is it a good look? Is it a good look to have a Qatari aircraft that now is the president? Does it provide a leverage over the Qataris? I don't think so with this president.

That was hilarious. That was hilarious. Listen, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And so if we're gonna, that Pandora's box jank has already been opened, okay? And I just find it so disgusting that the worry, the concern about a foreign government diluting the influence of Israel is what it took for various people to come out and criticize foreign corruption. Yeah, so preach it. I'm going to go off on that in a second. First, one of our members on t.yt.com, David Vissi said, if Israel gave Trump $400 million plane, it would be anti-Semitic to question.

100%, you know that that would be the argument. Of course, right? And so, and for the politicians and for the media, so here's how it works. If any other country gives the president a huge plane that is not, that doesn't harm Israel's interests, it would be, oh, okay, it's another story. It will run it for a little while, and then you'll never hear about it again. I mean, how do I know? Because I, to me, one of the most egregious cases was that guy who was being

investigated by the SEC and gave Trump $75 million into his media company, this fake media company. And so it's a digital media, they can't track it. And so the 75 million goes straight into Trump's pocket, right? It doesn't get any worse than that. That's a $75 million bribe to get out of a fraud case, right? And it barely made a peep in the national media. They don't care about corruption.

They love corruption. How many foreign leaders and foreign politicians have bought the membership to Mara Lago? Yeah, and by the way, the guy I'm talking about is Chinese. Yeah, how many of them have bought Trump's meme coin in order to, you know, exert their influence over our government, exert their influence over Donald Trump? Look, and it's not just about Trump guys. It's not just, I want to make that clear. This isn't just about the president of the United States accepting foreign bribes.

This has been a big problem across the board in our government. And there hasn't been this like fury over it until now. And that's why I'm frustrated. By the way, the American people, they're consistent on the matter of government corruption. Because even before this story, polling showed that doing something about corruption happened to be one of the top concerns for American voters. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. And so in regard to this specific issue,

UGov conducted a poll to see where the hearts and minds of Americans are, should Trump accept this $400 million bribe. And 30% say that it's acceptable for him to do so. But 47% say no unacceptable, whereas 23% don't really know how they feel about it yet. Not sure. Because there's, and why is it 47%? First of all, it should be, it should be 100%, he should not take the plane. Right? But the reason why there's a significant majority or plurality that is saying don't take the plane is because lots of different media are attacking at the same time.

You got mainstream media attacking. You got portions of right wing media attacking Fox News, other politicians, etc. So then it seems like everybody's unanimous, don't take the plane. And they create this amazing echo chamber. So back to the point about the hypocrisy. So guys, when, When the corruption was helping Israel, no one talked about the corruption. Now that the corruption for the first time might be slightly against Israel's interests, they're like, ah, corruption! No, no, no, no, mainstream media, you guys suck. You suck, you have no credibility at all to talk about anything. You can't notice all of these lobbies buying all of our politicians.

Okay, put aside foreign governments for a second. We can't negotiate drug prices at Medicare. It's the most anti-free market thing there is. You said direct attack on capitalism, right? It drives up drug prices. It's one of the top issues for Americans. Big Pharma has obviously purchased all of our politicians through campaign contributions, through junkets,

through a million other ways, through the revolving door. And mainstream media is like, what's corruption? I don't see it, I bet they did it because they had a real debate. And it turns out the people who want sky high drug prices, and for the big farmer to steal a couple of trillion dollars from the American people, they won that debate. And now you're talking me about corruption, okay? No, you guys love corruption, you're the number one benefactor of corruption because the money in politics goes to mainstream media ads.

So when you all of a sudden, when Israel's interests are touched, you find corruption, and And then you're outraged by it, I don't believe your outrage. I don't believe it at all. So, okay, let's all pretend, and you know what's gonna happen? If they get them to give the plane back or whatever, good, fine, they got to save for the 8th time, I don't want it, right? But they'll go right back to ignoring corruption and no one will notice a thing from here on out, as long as you don't touch Israel, the corruption is 100% fine, and in fact it's

celebrate it when it comes to Israel. Yes, our special ally with the most moral army. And then ya who comes and everybody gives standing ovation in Congress. And don't tell me they're not dogs of big pharma and A-PAC and every lobby that purchases every one of our politicians. So congratulations, you found one case of corruption. You guys are amazing reporters, amazing. Jesus Christ, man, do your goddamn job.

All right, we've got Dave Smith answering some questions from Tucker Carlson when we come back.