The Young Turks - America Gets Sued

Episode Date: December 19, 2024

Palestinians file a lawsuit against the State Department over U.S. military aid to Israel. Marjorie Taylor Greene lashes out when confronted with a pointed question. Dick Durbin burns Manu Raju in a testy exchange over pay raises in Congress. Matt Gaetz is furious at the House Ethics Committee's decision to release their investigation into his conduct." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) 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. Up say, oh my God. Live from the Polymarket Studio in L.A. It's the Young Turks. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian, and there is so much news to get to today, literally news breaking all the way up to. the moment we were about to air.

So we're working on some of those breaking news stories as we speak. But we also have some stories, some big updates in regard to a government spending bill. It appears that there's already quite a bit of influence Donald Trump and Doge has over the passage of a government funding bill. And if they don't have a solution soon, the government will run out of funding over the weekend. So we'll get into all the details about that. Also on the show today, we're going to talk a little bit about what's currently happening in regard to Palestinians trying to fight back against what the United States is doing in funding the weaponry for Israel's war on Gaza. So we'll get to that at the top of the show.

And John Iderall is not feeling well today. So Wozni Lombre will be joining us for the second hour and the bonus episode. But as always, just want to say thank you for watching. Thank you for supporting the show. You can support the show for free by liking the stream and sharing it. You can also become a member by going to t-y-t.com slash join. You can become a member that way or you can hit the join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Supporting the show that way helps to keep us afloat in an incredibly difficult time for digital media.

I think it's being felt across the board right now with the, you know, I think it has a lot to do with how a lot of people are feeling on the left in regard to consuming news these days. Because, you know, things are looking kind of grim, a little bleak, but at least we have each other and we can work together on some solutions and the best path forward. So without further ado, let's start off with some international news and then we'll move on to domestic policy. For almost 30 years, the Leahy law has prohibited the United States from funding foreign security forces that violate human rights. Yet for decades, the United States has consistently ignored, persistent, and widespread abuses by the security forces of one country. Israel, Dawn, is taking

action. We are filing a lawsuit against the State Department to force it to finally enforce the Leahy law and end military aid to abusive units of the Israeli defense forces. It appears that there is at least one group that is attempting to fight back and get the United States government, particularly the State Department, to reconsider its refusal to follow a federal law in regard to supplying weapons to a country that has been carrying out war crimes and essentially ignoring international laws. And in this particular case, it's Israel. Now, Palestinian families are officially suing Anthony Blinken and the State Department over the United States' unconditional support for Israel's brutal military campaign in Gaza, which has now killed over 45,000 people. And there's been some more recent analysis showing the insane numbers of airstrikes that didn't even kill a single Hamas militant, but sure did kill a lot of civilians.

civilians. Now, the video that you just watched was made by a legal nonprofit called Democracy for the Arab World or Dawn, which helped bring the lawsuit forward. And it's a human rights advocacy group that was actually founded by Jamal Khashoggi. And if you're not familiar with him, or maybe you forgot who he was, he was the Washington Post journalist who was murdered by the Saudi government. Mohamed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, had ordered for his killing And unfortunately, that happened when he visited, you know, Istanbul, Turkey. But the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday of this week. And in it, here's what the plaintiffs accuse.

They accuse Anthony Blinken and the State Department of essentially breaking the United States' own law by continuing to supply Israel with these weapons. And so what they focus on specifically is a 1997 law known as the Lillian. Law. It was named after the former Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, and the text of the law goes as follows. No assistance shall be furnished under this act or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. Now, there's a former State Department official by the name of Charles Blaha, who actually worked at the department for 30 years and served as the director of human rights for the director of human rights office. But now he's advising the group bringing this lawsuit forward. And here he is explaining the Leahy law and exactly why it's being cited in this particular case. Take a look.

The Leahy Law, as you said, prohibits United States assistance to security force units that have committed gross violations of human rights. It's actually very surgical, and it prohibits U.S. assistance to the specific units that have committed the violations. The State Department has for years in its own human rights reports, including the 2023 reports for Israel, and for Gaza and the West Bank, set forth gross violations of human rights by Israeli security forces. Things like torture, extrajudicial killings, rape under color of law, enforced disappearances. These are allegations and credible reports set forth in the State Department's own human rights reports. And they go back years. Despite all that, the State Department has never once held any Israeli unit ineligible for assistance under the Leahy law.

I want to elaborate on what he said for a little bit because the story in the Middle East right now is so horrific that I can understand people wanting to memory whole certain news stories that we've done and certain elements of that war that we've brought up and covered with a lot of depth. And one of the things that I think a lot of people have forgotten is not long ago, just a few months ago, there were stories involving Palestinian detainees who were being sexually tortured and raped by Israeli prison guards. And when there was going to be consequences for the guards who carried out those rapes, there was a group of unhinged settlers who were viciously protesting the notion that those guards would face any

consequences for what they were doing. I mean, take a look at what's happening in Syria and the land that Israel is now just openly admitting they're going to double settlements in, the Golan Heights. That land doesn't belong to them. It is not internationally recognized as Israeli land. It is land that they have taken over. They're illegally occupying. And now they're planning on building double the amount of settlements in another country's land.

And we are supplying the bombs that Israel has been dropping not only in Gaza, but also previously in Lebanon, right? Not too long ago before there was a ceasefire. That's very fragile, by the way. And they use the same bombs against Syria. So with that in mind, let's get back to the lawsuit because it says the lawsuit was filed under the Administrative Procedures Act. And it comes after a State Department report in May found that it was reasonable to assess that Israel had violated international law in Gaza using weapons provided by the United States, but that it hadn't violated the terms of American weapons agreements. But Blahah cites the IDF's murder of Isunur Aigy, who we covered on this show in depth, as proof that, no, there have happened. been violations of international laws. There have been violations of the terms that have been

specified in the Leahy Act. So she was an American Turkish activist. This is literally an American citizen who was actually shot in the head while taking part in demonstrations, not in Gaza, but in the West Bank. Because since the beginning of this war, there has been this sense of entitlement, right? Some of these very far-right Israeli settlers have felt quite emboldened to go into the West Bank and essentially terrorize Palestinians in their own homes, drive them out of their own homes. People have died as a result of this. I mean, it has been absolutely brutal.

And so there had been some demonstrations. And in this particular case, having to do with these American Turkish activist, she ended up getting shot in the head. And, you know, what's amazing about that is, even though we're talking about an American citizen here, Biden administration couldn't be bought. to give a damn about it at all. Couldn't be bothered to go to her funeral. Couldn't be bothered to at least show a single ounce of empathy for what had happened.

But there are other examples as well, which include Israel blocking the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, something that our own government, by the way, has acknowledged. In fact, you guys remember that 30-day deadline that Biden had implemented, against Israel, essentially saying if you don't allow more aid into Gaza within 30 days, there will be consequences. Okay, well, the 30 days came and went. There were no consequences. And no one paying attention to this story was delusional enough to think that the Biden administration would actually carry out any consequences. Additional examples of Israel breaking international laws and committing war crimes,

killing of journalists and doctors, humanitarian aid workers, also forcibly displacing literally millions of Palestinians. So with Don's help, this lawsuit was filed by five Palestinians in Gaza. the West Bank and the United States. The lead plaintiff was a Gaza math teacher who has been displaced seven different times in this current war and has lost 20 family members. And so Ahmed Moore, who is a Palestinian-American writer,

is also a plaintiff and says this. My surviving family members in Gaza have been forcibly displaced four times since October, living in constant fear of indiscriminate Israeli attacks carried out with American weapons. The U.S. government's military assistance to these abusive Israeli forces, which our own laws prohibit, is enabling these Israeli harms to me and my family. Now, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, absurdly, okay, denies that the department has made unlawful exceptions for Israel. Here's what he had to say in April. Do we have a double

standard? The answer is no. Okay, but how are you going to say the answer is no when clearly there are much strict, way more strict standards being implemented on other countries that we provide arms to, including Ukraine, by the way. So why is that? Is Ukraine not our ally? Why is Ukraine different from Israel? Why is Israel special where this Leahy Act doesn't at all? all apply to the weapons that we are funneling over to a country that is very clearly committing war crimes. And by the way, I mean, Biden himself was caught saying that Israel was doing indiscriminate bombings. So they lie to you to your face. And behind closed doors, they say something entirely different. But they still carry out what the Israeli government wants,

which is endless supplies of the very bombs that are brutalizing people, wiping out entire Israeli families, I'm sorry, Palestinian families. It's just sick. And so a guardian investigation published in January found that top U.S. officials had quietly reviewed more than a dozen incidents of alleged gross violations of human rights by Israeli security forces since 2020, but implemented special bureaucratic measures that have ultimately preserved access to U.S. weapons for the allegedly responsible units. Again, that was by the Guardian. And there's more in April.

A coalition of 185 lawyers in both the Biden administration and private sector argued that they believe Israel's military actions likely violate U.S. humanitarian laws, a claim later repeated by 20 White House staffers who dissented in November. And yet despite widespread evidence of human rights violations, we continue funding Israel's military. the United States remains Israel's biggest armed supplier with Washington spending at least $17.9 billion on military aid for Israel in the first year of the country's offensive in Gaza, according to a report for Brown University's costs of war project. Right now as we speak, there is a battle going on in the House of Representatives in regard to a government funding bill. If they don't get a government funding bill passed, government starts to shut down

beginning this upcoming weekend, okay? And what you're hearing from some lawmakers, you know, members of Doge, including Elon Musk, and Donald Trump himself is, no, no, this government funding bill, it spends too much money, too much money. Because when it comes to Americans, right, when it comes to keeping government agencies, funded and functioning, it's too much money. It's just too much money. But no one ever asks any questions about whether funding weapons of death, destruction, weapons of war, on behalf of Israel so they can carry out human rights abuses, whether maybe that's too much money.

Now, of course, we ask that question here all the time. But there's very little debate, guys, in Congress when it comes to defense funding and when it comes to funding anything that Israel needs in its offensive wars against the Palestinians. Now, there's a difference between offensive weaponry and defensive weaponry, and I've said in the past, and I've gotten a lot of heat for this,

that I actually don't have a problem funding defensive weaponry, you know, things like the Iron Dome. But at this point, after more than a year of this brutal military campaign in Gaza, after Israel has already halved that tiny strip of land, Gaza, and essentially pushed out Palestinians to the southern end of the Gaza strip, and basically said, well, Israel is now going to be in full control of the entirety of this strip of land. But Palestinians aren't even allowed to go back to northern Gaza. We control that now. We own that now.

That's what Israel is saying. They're just openly saying it. And we're all supposed to pretend like that's okay. And when there's retaliation against Americans, whether it's American troops in the Middle East, whether it's an attempted terrorist attack against Americans on our own soil, what is the discourse? What can we expect?

these dirty, terrible Muslims, it's because they're evil and they hate our freedoms. Or could it be that our actions, on behalf of defense contractors, weapons manufacturers, and yes, lobbies like APEC, our actions have caused so much pain, so much death, so many humanitarian rights violations in the Middle East. Do we deserve that hostility? We as the American people, I don't think we do. What's frustrating is it feels like we have no control over our own government when it comes to this issue. Now, every year we give them a lump sum of $3 billion to use however they please,

which, as Blaha explains here, is massively problematic. So take a look. We don't know all the places it goes. We don't know the units it goes to. And that's a problem because the Leahy law requires vetting units. In that situation where we can't trace the units to which the assistance is going, the law requires the State Department to give the countries in question, and Israel is one of those, there are a few others,

to give the countries in question a list, a list of ineligible units. State Department has never done that. That has been the law since 2019, and in five years, five years, the State Department has never given Israel a list of ineligible units. It's given lists to the other countries that this law applies to, but not to Israel. I really appreciate him highlighting that double standard because we lose the moral high ground as a country, as a government, especially when you hear the U.S. government justify actions against an adversary because they're carrying out humanitarian rights violations.

I don't believe for a second that the majority of individuals who make up our federal government give a damn about human rights violations, about the lack of humanitarian aid going into, I don't think they care at all. They don't care about any of it. They don't care about which country is doing it. They just care about making arguments and tying it to situations that are convenient for them. Human rights abuses is the go-to line when our lawmakers want to justify going after a country or providing military support for a country against one of our enemies. But when push comes to shove, if you really ask them what they genuinely have concerns about, it's never human rights abuses. Because you can't support what the current Israeli government and the current

Israeli military is carrying out. You can't justify that and say that you care about protecting people from human rights abuses. We are aiding it, we're abetting it. And as we nickel and dime, our own American people, there's no end in sight when it comes to the billions of that we'll send over to Israel. It's unacceptable. And I love that there's finally a group that's fighting back against it. We'll see if it goes anywhere. But at least there's a glimmer of hope that, you know, there's some cop on the beat.

There's one organization that's trying to fight back. All right. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about what's happening with the government funding bill. And we'll also talk about Social Security. It looks like the Doge committee in the House has had its first meeting. And they were asked, are you guys eyeing cuts to Social Security? Come right back. I'll give you the answer.

Welcome back to the show, everyone. I'm Anna Casparian, and you're watching The Young Turks Woman A-F. Gifted 10 TYT memberships. Thank you so much, Women A.F. We appreciate your support. Thank you for helping to keep us afloat in this super challenging time for digital media, especially for people hosting and presenting left-wing stories. You know, a lot of people right now are tuning out because of how, I think partly because

of the holidays, but, you know, after losing an election, you know, Democrats kind of want to take a break, and I totally understand that. But for all of you who have continued watching and supporting, we thank you so, so much. Now, without further ado, let's get to our next story, which is an important one because it has to do with the job that we're seeing the members of Congress do right now. I mean, people look at the performance of Congress, say, why should we give them more money? What about the media? Think about that for a second. We're not paid by public money. I know you're not, but I mean, half of your listeners are not there anymore.

You're still getting the same paycheck? I got to admit that was a sick burn. It really was. So the person you just heard from was Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat. He didn't like the line of questioning coming from CNN reporter Manu Raju. And at the center of this, you know, little tiff that you saw on camera is the bill that is at least attempting to fund the government. It doesn't seem like it's going to go anywhere, though. so I want to give you that update real quick, but basically congressional leaders decided to include

a provision in the initial iteration of the government spending package. And it would give lawmakers their first pay raise since 2009. Now, look, if you're a private sector worker, you haven't gotten a raise since 2009, you're going to be real upset. You're going to be real upset. Okay. But this story is complicated because we're talking about members of Congress who trade individual stocks, enrich themselves based on insider information. There is no law banning them from doing that, really. Okay. And a lot of members of Congress end up getting real rich as they're in the halls of power. And they're only supposed to be collecting a $174,000 salary. Where's the rest of that money coming from? How do you guys

become like multi-millionaires. So we'll get to all of that in just a minute, but first, some of the details about this provision. So language blocking an automatic pay increase that has been included in past government funding bills is now absent from this stopgap bill. Again, the stopgap bill is the government funding bill that would at least keep the government funded and running for a limited period of time. But for 15 years, lawmakers have included language in spending bills and CRs, continuing resolutions, to explicitly ban member pay increases tied to cost of living increases that would otherwise be automatic under a previous law.

It was a 1998 statute. So if they were to pass the government funding bill, the continuing resolution, with the provision allowing for a raise for members of Congress. What would that look like? What would that raise look like? Well, look, we don't have the initial bill in front of us. They're obviously still negotiating it. And in fact, Donald Trump and Elon Musk looked at the continuing resolution and felt that it spent too much money. And so it appears that now House Speaker Mike Johnson is going to scrap that CR bill. But what they had initially wanted to do, with this particular provision meant to give members of Congress a raise was rank and file lawmakers

in both chambers currently earn $174,000 in annual salary, with those in leadership earning a little more. The maximum potential member pay adjustment in January of 2025 under the Stopgap spending bill would be 3.8%, which would result in a salary of $180,600. It would be an increase of $6,000.000. It would be an increase of $6,000. $1,600 for their yearly salary. So I just want to stop here and say the way that this is being written about in the media, in like legacy media outlets, bothers me because they seem to be siding with the members of Congress and they seem to make the case that that salary is not enough money for people to survive.

And so they make arguments about, well, housing's very expensive and, you know, members of Congress have to split their time between their district and Washington, D.C., so they need two different places to live. That's, you know what? That's a legitimate argument to make. But I'm pretty sure you can find an apartment to rent. I'm pretty sure, you know what? Especially Democrats, right?

Democrats never like to attack their colleagues. They're all buddy-buddy. So why don't you guys find roommates amongst yourselves? Why don't you do what the American people have been forced to do? in finding a one-bedroom apartment building these like makeshift walls so like five or six people can live in the same space and save money because rent is too damn high. Like hearing members of Congress whine about the cost of housing is infuriating because guess who has the power to do something about the cost of housing?

They can't be bothered to pass a single bill banning private equity firms from buying up residential real estate in our incredibly limited supply of housing. And they're going to sit here and they're going to whine and cry about the cost of housing, please. So look, I have so little sympathy for Congress because they haven't been working on behalf of the American people. Right? So that's where the frustration comes from. And the frustration also comes from the fact that they are making a lot more money than the vast majority of American workers. And they have the audacity to whine about the cost of housing. Again, something that they have the power to do something about, but aren't doing something about. Now, again, this bill that the provision would be in is known as the continuing resolution or CR and it funds the government. So there will be a government shutdown. If something isn't passed by Friday. And currently, things aren't looking good, all right? It's Wednesday. Friday is two days from now.

And it appears that they have scrapped this version of the continuing resolution based on the pressure that they've received from Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And so not every lawmaker, by the way, is in favor of a pay raise. They don't think it's a good idea. And it's specifically lawmakers in competitive districts who are worried that giving themselves a raise would make them look bad. So Democratic Congressman Jared Golden argues this. Members of Congress earn more than 90% of Americans. If any of my colleagues can't afford to live on that income, they should find another line of work. And by the way, a few other details

about the generous compensation that our members of Congress get. They don't have to worry about healthcare. Their public sector job, right, that they've been elected to, of course, gives them health care. Real nice benefits. How many Americans out there are cobbling together multiple part-time jobs? And as a result of having nothing but part-time jobs, because stable, full-time work that pays well and has good benefits isn't as available as the Biden administration would like you to think. But because they're working a bunch of multi a bunch of part-time jobs, they don't get health insurance in some cases, in a lot of cases. They don't get the same benefits as a full-time employee. And so that takes us back to Dick Durbin and his confrontation with CNN's

Manu Raju. Because look, I think there is a case to be made that media figures have failed the American people as well. But I'm really not dig in the fact that Senator Durbin seems aloof when it comes to the failures of our lawmakers. Let's watch. Do you guys deserve a pay raise? Well, that's news to me. It's good news. You know, what has it been? 10 years or 14 years and no COLA? No change at all. I think it's about time. Something's something. You support getting giving yourself the parents. It is. How would I not know about the money? But I mean, people look at the performance of Congress, say, why should we give them more money? What about the media? Think about that for a second.

We're not paid by public money. I know you're not, but I mean, half of your listeners are not there anymore. You're still getting the same paycheck? What's going on? Well, I mean, you're taxpayer money. I mean, you guys deserve it, right? Look, I got to say, it would have been a perfect, perfect insult to Manu Raju. if members of Congress weren't enriching themselves while in office. You know, and I would make a deal. I would make a deal with members of Congress.

I think, yeah, sure, you can definitely include a provision in the government funding bill that, you know, every year adjusts your pay with inflation. I'm okay with that if and only if they pass legislation banning members of Congress, and their immediate family members from trading individual stocks. If they're willing to pass that bill, which, by the way, hilariously, Joe Biden came out and said he would be in favor of that. Oh, nice. I'm glad that you're saying that, like, super late in the game. But okay, thanks.

But if they pass that kind of legislation, then I justify it, the pay rates for members of Congress. But right now, I'm not buying for a second that our lawmakers are destitute. If anything, their inaction and their lack of concern for the American people has led to countless Americans finding themselves destitute. And that's where the shame really lies. Anyway, let's go to one more story before we go to break. I wanted to talk a little bit about social security. And it's super important to keep our eye on the ball when it comes to protecting social security. Because some interesting interactions happened in the halls of Congress recently.

And I think you should know about it. You should watch it. In fact, here it is. We're going to just keep asking members of the caucus. as they come in. Sir, can we get a pledge to stand with President Trump against cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits? I think, you know what, when we look to reduce our national debt, I think these should be on the table. So I am a strong advocate of discussing this and reevaluing them. And I do believe

at the end of the day, there will be some cuts. There cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Yes. And that's on the table in the Doge caucus right now. Well, we're about to find out. Okay. Thank you so much. There you have a member of the Doge Committee, the Doge Caucus, fully supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The gentleman you just heard from is Alex Lawson, who's actually the executive director for Social Security Works. And he confronted a number of Republican lawmakers as they were entering the first ever Doge Caucus meeting. Now, of course, these are members of the House who are going to work alongside the, the Department of Government Efficiency,

which is being run by Elon Musk and Vivek Brahmuswamy, in order to find inefficiencies in our government spending to cut. And so I love that Lawson asked all of these Republican lawmakers, hey, are you guys eyeing Social Security? Is that what's happening now? Now, most lawmakers pretended he didn't exist. They didn't want to answer a question because, after all, Social Security is the third rail. it is tremendously popular across the political spectrum,

and I'll give you evidence of that in just a minute. But I want to commend Republican Congressman Greg Lopez for his transparency, for how candid he's willing to be, in regard to his priorities, in cutting something that we Americans pay for in every single pay cycle. Look at your pay stub. It'll show you how much of your money, how much of your earnings went to Social Security.

It'll show you how much of your earnings went to Medicare. These are things that we fund and these are things that go to a specific or specific trusts. So what you heard from Greg Lopez there, the Republican congressman, was a lie as well because he tried to tie these universal social safety net programs, Social Security, Medicare, to government spending when this has nothing to do with government spending bills or anything like that. Okay, again, we pay into Social Security and Medicare and each of them have their own trust of funds that are utilized to pay out benefits to those who qualify for these programs.

Now, with that in mind, what's also interesting is Representative Lopez's statement and how it conflicts with what Trump's been saying, you know, not just the, on the campaign trail, but even as recently as this week during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago. What does Trump have to say about Social Security? Well, take a look at this. Through the Department of Government Deficiency, Elon Musk has been working very hard with various people,

including Vivek, will go to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars of wasted fraud, and I can only tell you, I'll give you a little early report, they're finding things that you wouldn't even believe. so we're looking to save maybe two trillion dollars and it'll have no impact actually it'll make life better but it'll have no impact on people it's not like where we will never cut social security things like that and if you guys can recall Donald Trump also campaigned on protecting social security as well saying at a rally this past July I will not cut one penny from social

security or Medicare. Now look, considering the fact that 72 million Americans rely on social security, one can understand Donald Trump's approach in promising over and over again that he won't cut social security. And take a look at how the American public feels about these programs. So Pew Research put out a poll just this past June showing that 79% say social security benefits should not be reduced in any way. When you have a number that high, you've got Democrats and Republicans wanting to protect social security. It's not just Democrats and it's not just independence. And you want to know why? Everyone who is in support of this program, they all know that we're paying for it. We're funding it. Okay? We see the money coming

out of our paychecks. And so, yeah, we are entitled to it because it is something that we have paid into. And what about raising the retirement age? That's a typical trick that you'll hear from some Republicans in regard to fixing our social security. You know, it's not going to be solvent. You know, they'll engage in all this fear mongering. By the way, the whole solvency issue, very easy to solve. I'll get to that in a minute. But a Quinnipiac University national poll of adults found that 78% of respondents are opposed to proposals that would raise the full retirement age for Social Security benefits from 67 to 70. Opposition remained firm, even when respondents were asked whether they would support raising the full retirement age if it meant benefits would last

longer, with 30% in favor and 67% against the move. Again, there's a reason why this is considered the third rail. And I mean, it's so incredibly obvious that social security is the third rail of politics. When you look at how Republicans reacted to President Joe Biden during his state of the union address, where he pointed to the Republican Party and essentially said their eyeing cuts to Social Security, they knew that it would not play well with the American public. And so they had this reaction. Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage. I get it. Unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans. Some Republicans

want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I'm not saying it's a majority. Let me give you anybody who doubts it. Contact my office. I'll give you a copy. I'll give you a copy of the proposal. You see Kevin McCarthy sitting right behind Joe Biden. That was the week or so that Kevin McCarthy was Speaker of the House before he was ousted. She's shaking his head because he knows it's not popular to go after Social Security, to pursue cuts to Social Security, or to increase the full retirement age for when people will qualify for Social Security benefits. And I do want to just address a common argument. that you hear in regard to Donald Trump's first term, because on the campaign trail, Kamala Harris

and Tim Walls kept talking about how Donald Trump actually did target Social Security and Medicare for cuts. And he did so through the White House budget. So the White House, of course, puts out its own budget proposal. And members of Congress, certainly members that are aligned with the president, politically speaking, will consider that as like a guide of drawing up legislation. Well, Donald Trump's budget proposals didn't exactly call for cuts to Social Security. So I looked into this because I believe that line myself, and I was curious how much accuracy is there behind it. And it's not quite accurate to say that. So Washington Post had reported that Trump kept his promise not to touch retirement benefits, bucking long-time efforts by Republicans

to raise the retirement age. But Trump did seek, without success, to reduce spending for Social Security disability insurance, as well as supplemental security income, which is administered by the Social Security Administration. Okay, so that still sounds bad to me. I would not want to cut funding for those programs. But what kind of reductions are we talking about here? And so the post continues to write that the reductions generally were intended to make the program more efficient, such as eliminating double payments of both unemployment insurance and disability, which were also sought by Obama. Now, Trump kept his promise not to mess with retirement and survivor benefits, which is the core of social security. So I just wanted to give you the details

on that because Trump does tend to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He lies as well. He's a politician. He says he's going to do something or he's not going to do something and then he carries it out. And so in this case, for the most part, he actually does. did stay true to his promise to not touch Social Security or cut Social Security benefits. But Trump isn't exactly like the conservative Republicans who fill the walls of Congress. These are the people who have been wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits literally for decades. And I don't know if it's because they genuinely want to do it or because their corporate donors want to scrap these programs entirely or privatize these programs entirely.

They don't want to pay payroll taxes, which help fund social security benefits. They don't want to deal with a yearly increase on the social security, you know, it's an income cap on social security taxation. And so every year that cap goes up higher and higher, meaning a larger sum of your income, ends up getting taxed specifically for social security. After you meet that threshold, any income that you make after that amount is not tax. for social security. So the argument from the left is why don't we raise that cap, right? Make that threshold much, much higher. So more income is taxed specifically for social security to keep it solvent. If there's a big concern about solvency, then we know how to fix it. But that's the thing. We're talking about if you're just a normal middle class American,

the entirety of your income is taxed for social security. If you are very wealthy, it is not the entirety of your income. Okay, there is a cap at around like $166,000. So with that in mind, let's talk a little bit about this tension that might play out between Donald Trump and the conservative Republicans who are now part and parcel of the House Doge committee or caucus. Okay. So Alex Lawson approached Marjorie Taylor Green to ask her, you know, so what's up? you're about to enter this first Doge meeting, are you guys going to cut social security? Because here's a flyer that Donald Trump's campaign was blanketing the country with, promising that he would not cut social security benefits.

This is Trump's flyer. So what is it? Are you going to go along with Trump or are you going to go against Trump and try to go after social security? Let's see what her answer was. Congresswoman. He's funded by a Democrat patent. 100% of Democrats is only here to make...

No, we're bipartisan. Trump, no, you're not. We looked you up. You are 100% funded by Democrats. You donate to Democrats. You're out here asking questions. What is the question? All of your questions.

This is a mailing from... This is Donald Trump. Trump, we all campaigned on protecting senior social security. You can't lie about it. See, yeah, this is your political agenda. You know what? We don't care. That's Donald Trump.

That's Donald Trump's mailing. No, you are, you're not media. That's Donald Trump's mailing. This point here is for Democrat ads to attack Republicans. Okay, but Marjorie Green, you make it way too easy to attack you when you act like that. Because if you don't intend to target Social Security, you could just be a normal person and say, no, we're not going after Social Security. We want to protect it. But here's the thing.

Does she want to protect Social Security? Because previous speeches that she's given imply that she's not really a fan of the Social Safety Net programs. And she has listed Social Security as one of those programs. In fact, here's one of those speeches. His big socialist programs were the great society. The great society were big government programs to address. education, medical care, urban problems, rural poverty, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and Big Labor and Labor Unions.

Earlier in her speech, she talked about these big government programs like Social Security, which of course was not part of LBJ's great society program, but was secured through policies implemented by FDR Roosevelt. So I don't trust typical conservative Republicans because they have shown us who they are when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. They have attempted to cut it forever. And so I'm not going to buy for a second that congressional lawmakers who have had their eyes on cutting Social Security and Medicare are somehow going to be hands off now.

But the real question is, what exactly can we expect from Donald Trump? So let's say they do pass legislation. Because remember, Republicans do have a slim majority in the House and the Senate. It's not impossible for them to attempt to pass cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But if that bill reaches Donald Trump's desk, what is he going to do? Is he going to sign it? or is he going to fight back against it? And unfortunately, Elon Musk is starting to make it abundantly clear that he does feel that

Social Security should be a target. He shared a thread on X that was specifically attacking Social Security as a tax plan that falls under the many deceptive sales techniques the United States government used on the American people. It is a policy that requires taxing people, but it requires taxing people for a wildly popular universal social safety net program that was specifically implemented to keep elderly people off the streets. That's why it's the third rail in politics. That's why with all of these Republicans, with all of these corporate donors funding these Republicans, they've been unable to pass. to social security or to privatize social security.

But we're in this wait and see mode. We don't know what's going to happen. And so we're going to stay on the story. We're going to wait and see. And if Trump reneges on his promise, we're going to keep him honest. And we're going to definitely call him out on this show. So with that in mind, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll do one more story and then bring was in.

Welcome back to the show, everyone. We have a comment from Make It Makes Sense in regard to the congressional salaries and whether or not they deserve a pay raise. So Make It Make Sense says, this is crazy, left, right, and center. I think we all agree they should be paid the median income of their constituents. Maybe they will start caring about the people they represent for once. I mean, that's a novel idea for sure. But honestly, I think a big win would be legislation banning them from trading individual stocks. And if they were willing to do that, then I would have no problem with them getting a pay raise. Okay? But again, how many of these people go into Congress? They're not wealthy.

They're not millionaires. And then by earning a $174,000 salary, they somehow become millionaires? Like, how does that make sense? Could it be that, you know, by outperforming the stock market or outperforming like the best portfolios that are put together by the best hedge fund managers, like maybe they're doing something really shady. Maybe there's some corruption involved with, you know, being personally invested in corporations and companies that they're supposed to be deciding legislation about.

So that matters to me a lot. I really think it's important for them to pass that ban, but also it's not a good look to complain about housing prices for themselves, while they know that the majority of Americans have been struggling with the housing crisis, and they have done nothing about it. All right, let's go to this big update on Matt Gates. CNN has confirmed that a House panel took a secret vote to release the ethics report on former Congressman, Matt Gates. You'll remember that investigation looked into allegations of sexual misconduct, drug use, and possible bribes. It is now set to be made public, this investigation soon. We are told that this report is expected to be made public once this session of Congress ends and lawmakers leave Washington to return home.

The House Ethics Committee has reversed their decision, and now they plan to release their ethics report, detailing their investigation into former congressman Matt Gates, who did resign from Congress after Donald Trump had chosen him to serve as his attorney general. But when it became abundantly clear that he wasn't going to pass the smell test, he wasn't going to get through those Senate confirmation hearings, he decided to withdraw his ability to even go through that process and serve potentially as Trump's Attorney General. Now look, prior to the House Ethics Committee reversing their decision, back in November, the panel actually voted to not release the results of their investigation.

And what did they investigate exactly? Well, allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, sharing inappropriate images and videos on the House floor. There were literally Republican colleagues of his who were complaining about it to the press, misuse of state identification records, using campaign funds for personal use, and or accepting bribes, improper gratuity, or impermissible gifts. So those were all the different things that they investigated or looked into as part of this House Ethics Committee report. And we don't know what they found at all, but we're about to find out. Okay, so they haven't

released it yet. But apparently, they are planning on releasing it soon. During the time of the original vote, Gates was actually still in the running to be Trump's Attorney General. And he hadn't resigned from office immediately. But when he did resign as a lawmaker, you know, there were a lot of rumors flying around about why he did it. Like, hmm, is Matt Gates stepping down from his role as a Florida lawmaker in order to prevent the House Ethics Committee from releasing that report? And the reason why that rumor exists is because the House Ethics Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over a former member of Congress, right? They only have jurisdiction over a current sitting member of Congress.

But it turns out, it doesn't mean that they can't release the report. And it looks like they do want to release the report. And look, something that's become abundantly clear to me in regard to Matt Gates and his personal dynamics within Congress is that a lot of people hated him. Now, do I think they hated him for these misconduct allegations? Hell no. I mean, how many instances have we reported where a lawmaker did something super shady and especially on the right, they do have the tendency to circle the wagons, circle the wagons. But there's something about Matt Gates that really rubs Republicans the wrong way,

in addition to Democrats, obviously. But with Republicans, I think it has to do with some of the, the areas in which Matt Gates did the right thing, okay? And he is a mixed bag. Okay, there is some likelihood that these, you know, sexual misconduct allegations against him are damning. We have no idea. We have to wait and see. But putting that aside, his support of doing away with junk fees, you know, he lauded the FTC under the leadership of Lena Con for doing that. That was one of the more recent examples. He has tried to pass anti-corruption bills. He has tried to pass legislation along with progressive lawmakers that would ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks.

Oh, the corrupt politicians know like that. They don't like that. And so Matt Gates has kind of been congressional enemy number one. And now it's really becoming clearer that that's been the case. So with that in mind, there was also a full House vote to try to force the report's release. But previous to all of this, it failed due to one Republican who actually voted against releasing it and ultimately sending it back to the ethics panel this month. But that's when it seems some Republicans, for whatever reason, changed their minds. And so ultimately they did decide that they're going to release this report.

It remains unclear how the panel, which is made up of five Republicans and five Democrats voted, you know, how many Republicans voted in favor of this, how many, you know, Did any Democrats vote against it? I doubt it, but you never know. But Matt Gates obviously wasn't happy with this news and took to social media, X in particular, to kind of rant about what's going on. He says, I was charged with nothing, fully exonerated, not even a campaign finance violation. And the people investigating me hated me. I believe him on that last part.

I do think they hated him. I've had no chance to ever confront any accusers. I've never been charged. I've never been sued. Instead, House ethics will reportedly post a report online that I have no opportunity to debate or rebut as a former member of the body. In my single days, this is where it gets juicy, I often sent funds to women. I dated. Even some I never dated, but who asked? I dated several of these women for years. I never had sexual contact with someone under 18. So let me pause there for a second. I get that paying for sex work is still considered illegal, but I don't, if he did do that,

if he paid a sex worker to be intimate with, I don't care about that. I think sex work should be legalized and regulated, mostly because I think sex workers should be kept safe. And a lot of them are not safe because of the fact that it's illegal and they get exploited. Johns, they get exploited by, you know, pimps or whatever. And so I think the best path forward is actually legalizing it and regulating it and ensuring that people who decide to willingly, obviously, engage in sex work, have certain protections. That's where I stand on that issue. So for me, Matt Gates paying someone for sex, an adult who consents to it, I don't have a

problem with. But I do have a problem if there's any evidence indicating that he slept with someone under age. He's denying it. But again, we have to wait and see what this report says. Finally, he says, any claim that I have would be destroyed in court, which is why no such claim has ever made, was never made in court. And then he says, my 30s were an era of working very hard and playing hard too. It's embarrassing, though not criminal, that I probably partied, womanized, drank, and smoked more than I should have earlier in life. I live a different life now. So the report is expected to be made public as soon as this week, though the exact date is unknown. And if anything is worthy of talking about from that report on this show, we will

certainly do that. We'll see what it says. I mean, he says he's innocent. It seems like there are people who are really out for him. And so that's got to have some damning information. If there's been like this whole, you know, hot potato, do we release it? Do we not release it situation happening in Congress? So we'll wait and see. For now, let's take a break. We'll be right back.