The Young Turks - Artificial Beauty

Episode Date: April 20, 2024

Israel launches airstrikes on Iran after vowing retaliation. Trump rages about his criminal case as jury selection concludes. Man sets himself on fire near Trump’s trial courthouse. Turning Point USA official busted for alleged voter fraud. Fake women will compete in the first ever AI beauty pageant." HOST: Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur),John Iadarola (@johniadarola), Francesca Fiorentini (@franifio) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. Three-by-Tee. 3x3, 319, 3x3, 3x3, 3x3, 3x3, 3x53,000, Cipa3, Cipa 3rd Drop it. Drop it. Power, power, power panel.

I almost went to your reverend on the drop and so I wheeled it back in. So Jake Uger, John Idaola, Francesca Fiorentini, Francesco, of course, the host of the bituation room that is a podcast on the TYT Network. And of course, John is the host of Damage Report. All right, we got Wild and Woolley show for you guys. At some point, I might agree with an alt-right character. I might agree with Matt Gates a little bit. Okay, all right. So, and I might give Israel credit.

What is going on on tonight's show? Well, let's find out, John. We're in the bizarro world. It's woolly. Anyway, I hope it's not the alt-right thing I'm thinking. I'm going to be watching the second hour now, just dreading when you finally reveal that. But before we get to that cause for dread, we have a different potential cause for dread. So let's launch it in this first topic.

Late last night, the conflict between Israel and Iran continued into its newest phase, with Israeli aircraft launching at least three missiles at the city of Isfahan, which is home to nuclear facilities as well as an air base. Now, in addition to the missiles that were fired, Israeli officials have talked about using explosive drones in the attack, which they have used in similar sorts of attacks in the past. Now, the good news coming out of this is that despite the fact that they were just attacked, and in their territory, Iran appears to be making all of the sorts of moves and making

all the sorts of statements that you would make if that was probably going to be it for now, which is certainly good news if you want to avoid World War III. And at this point, we don't know much about the damage that was done by these missiles or by the drones. The Iranian state-run news agency said earlier today that its reporters hadn't seen any large-scale damage or explosions anywhere in the country and that no incidents were reported at Iran's nuclear facilities. Flight restrictions imposed overnight by Iran were lifted in the morning, and that could very well be true. Of course, it is state-run media, so not necessarily the case, but it seems consistent with what others are saying. And interestingly, in the immediate aftermath of the

strike, Iranian media and officials described a small number of explosions. They described it internally as an attack by infiltrators rather than by Israel, and that that obviated the need for retaliation, which is interesting. One lawmaker called the strike ridiculous, saying it showed that Israel is, quote, content with these ineffective actions, and a former foreign minister referred to them as fireworks. Oh, buddy. Firewarks. So you could you could say that's That's bluster, but if it's bluster, that's like, hey, everyone, this was irrelevant. Let's not strike back and continue this through a couple more rounds. Then I think most people will consider that to be a win.

We have more on this, more communications, and more potential consequences. But, Jank, I wanted to go to you for reactions. I know that you produced a live video right as it was happening. But now with more info, what do you think? Yeah, so that's the fog of war, what happens in the first couple of hours? hours for its 24 hours is not, you know, you've got to take it with a grain of salt. So last night I was livid about the idea of Israeli strikes on Iran because they had promised theoretically they had promised Biden behind the scenes that they wouldn't do it.

Maybe Biden might have exchanged no strikes against Iran for a horrible humanitarian catastrophe invasion of Rafa. And so we'll see if that is actually true and that invasion, that assault on Rafa is imminent. But now that we've seen how it's gone back and forth, I'm thrilled to report to you guys that I think the disaster has been averted and that Israel might have actually done the right thing here. And so any strike is wrong to begin with. So I'm not giving them full credit. I would have preferred no strike at all for sure. Because any strike risks further retaliation and then in getting us into a cycle of violence, which leads to a disastrous

war. But if you were going to do a strike, this is how I would have wanted it, which is a relatively light strike, not on a nuclear facility, but in Ishfahan to make sure the Iranians know that we could strike your nuclear facilities if we wanted to. Look at how close we came to them. It appears no one hurt. That's critical. So Israel knows how to do a devastating strike. This is not a devastating strike. And so then Iran's reaction is also very important. Do they take it as that's it, we're going to war because they had said before any strike, he's going to be with maximum force, right? And now them dismissing it as fireworks is terrific news. And saying that it's infiltrators is terrific news. Because you want them to be able to say to

their domestic audience, it wasn't really Israel. Don't sweat it. And so, because we don't want Iran to retaliate and get into a further cycle of violence, more indications that it was a light tap, Israel not taking credit for it, because if they take credit for it, that it embarrasses Iran and they're going to have to be forced into retaliating. But America's saying, yes, it was Israel. So that's their way of saying, don't worry, Israel did it. They struck back, good enough, right? without Israel claiming it. So Iran can say, well, maybe it wasn't Israel. That's the military diplomacy here.

Like when you're using bombs as diplomacy, which is a very, very bizarre situation. Doesn't happen very often, but it has in the last two strikes, the one from Iran and the one from Israel. This is kind of how you wanted to go. If you said to me they're going to do a strike, how do you want to draw it up? I would have drawn it up exactly like this to avoid war.

war. So that's my honest take on it. I'm curious what you guys think. Francesco, what do you think? Yeah, I mean, I just like the idea that Iran could retaliate for this and then actually use firecrackers and there'd just be like those bang snaps, you know, and then pretty soon everyone just like, be you know, yay, crisis averted. Just gets smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller. That's just my cartoon brain working there. But what I actually think, two things, I think this tells us something about the power of Joe Biden and beyond Joe Biden, the power of the American presidency. The fact that Joe Biden, this was the first time that he basically said to Israel, no, in six months, we're not going to join you in any kind of offensive.

And look what Israel did. Instead of doing a bat, like a retaliating in a massive way, they did some bank snaps. They did, they did this, right? And so again, Biden has been saying, for six months that he doesn't have any control, what are you going to do? I don't know. And I'm mad, oh, mad. But then when push comes to shove and they say, we're not going to go with you on this, Israel retaliates like that. So you could give him credit. You could also say by the same token, if someone else were in the White House, who was all as much as Zionist as Biden is and then itching for a World War III, a John Bolton, you know, a John, Senator John Kennedy, where would that leave us now? And then finally,

We really do have to remember that the ongoing genocide in Gaza is exactly that ongoing. And this was always as, as it was meant to be, a distraction from Netanyahu's crimes. Yeah, really fast. You referenced there that there are obviously some political figures like John Bolton here. Domestically, that every time one of these things are done that seems designed to stop the conflict, they get incredibly mad. Well, there are those forces, certainly, in Iran and Israel as well, who are considering these to be inadequate. And I also, I want to clarify something, I think I might have misstated. I'm not even sure that I did. Honestly, I have dad brain.

I believe I said that Israeli officials said that explosive drones have been used. It was Iranian officials as part of, I believe, the cover story. I don't know that I even got that wrong, but just in case I don't want to spread misinformation. And what I'm about to say is probably, it's probably pedantic, it's probably irrelevant. But as we've talked about, I think for a Chesky, you and I talked about on TDR this morning, Anytime you say this started with X, that's probably propaganda because these conflicts go back so far. But I think it's safe to say that at least this round of the conflict began with the strike

on the embassy in Syria. And oh, by the way, Syria was also struck at the same time, basically simultaneously with Iran being struck. And so the strike happened and Iran felt compelled to respond. they responded similar to, in this case, in a way that seemed designed to not do much damage at all. And at least as far as I've seen, no Israeli died in that attack. And that could have been the end of it. It seemed designed to be the end of it. But it couldn't be the end of it. Because despite the fact that this round began with Israeli action that Iran responded to, they

had to respond, once again putting the ball in the court of the Iranians. And thankfully, And perhaps predictably, the Iranians did not want to go into a full war that could have drawn in the United States. So they did, you know, they don't appear to be responding. And of course, that could change. But right now that's what it looks like. And I just have to wonder, like, why did we have to have this last action? Like, why does, and maybe it doesn't matter, but why do we have to come out of this thinking that Iran was the bigger person in this? They are they are the one who's willing to be hit and not respond.

Like Israel could have done that. They could have been the responsible player. And look, they were responsible to some extent in that they seem to have designed this attack to once again allow the thing to fizzle out. And maybe it's pointless six months from now, I doubt we'll even remember. But they could have just ended it. Again, they started this most recent round. And so I don't know, maybe they felt emboldened by the fact that they have the bigger

alliance. They have the United States and even Jordan defending them. Saudi Arabia, I believe UAE perhaps, defending them against the missiles, certainly Jordan did. And so I just don't understand why it couldn't have ended one round earlier. Why did we have to roll the dice and potentially have damage to a nuclear facility or potentially have more civilians die than was planned and necessitate a response by Iran? Yeah, I think I have an answer to that. I think it's because they're playing poker and Iran has a weaker hand.

And they know it. So it's not like Iran couldn't do massive damage to Israel, America, and many other countries if we get into this huge disastrous war. They have a very capable military that would do massive damage. But almost everybody in leadership would probably die in Iran. So they know that. And so the one with the weaker hand is the one that doesn't retaliate when the other guy sends fireworks, right, or firecrackers.

So that's just the way that this works. So I'm okay with it. And so I like what Francesca say that at the end, it's gonna get lighter and lighter until they're doing like a slap fight like this. Yes. Like yes, I'll take it. I'll take the slap fight. And I think you're really right. No, just on that point, I think you're right.

And I also think it plays into Israel's narrative that they were the victims. In Israel's mind, in a lot of Western media's mind, this began when Iran sent 300 plus drones and missiles over to Israeli territory. Right? about the attack on the embassy in Damascus. And then some media outlets were like, oh, right, right, there was that thing. And to be fair, it was also the same day that seven humanitarian workers were killed by Israel.

But lastly, like this is part of a shadow war on Iran for decades now. There have been nuclear scientists who've been assassinated. There have been generals like Qasem Soleimani who was assassinated. There have been, you know, data breaches and viruses release. I mean, on and on and on.

I think Jenks right. that of course Iran doesn't have the upper hand, so it's not like they can react to every single one of them. But let's remember who's been doing the provoking of this World War III, low these many years, and that's Israel. I'd just like to quickly throw out in Jake, and I'm sure that you have thoughts. We should also bear in mind, to be totally fair, responses can be the explicit kind, the drones and the missiles and all that stuff. And then there are also other responses, funding of groups and illicit actions and acts of terrorism. things like that. So simply because ICVMs weren't fueled up or launched, doesn't mean that Iran hasn't been doing other attacks or won't respond in some way, but at least not in a way

that seems designed to catch the international eye and escalate the threat of all at war. Yeah, the proxy groups are going to keep hitting each other, meaning like Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetera, will still fire at Israel, Israel will still fire at them in both Gaza and Lebanon. That we're used to. We just don't want Israeli soil or Iranian soil getting hit, because that leads to further hostilities and war. And just to pick up on a couple of things you guys mentioned, I agree with Francesca. Biden should get significant credit for this. If he really was behind this and very likely was behind Israel's light reaction here, well played.

Nice job, Joe Biden. Now you haven't heard me say that in a long time, especially on the issue of Israel and Joe Biden. But our job is to be fair. Like I know that that trips people out in other parts of media. They're like, wait, I don't get it. Are you pro or anti-Biden? I'm not either. I'm just telling you what actually happened in the news, right?

And explaining it in a fair way. Also, poor Syria. Anyone can hit Syria for any reason. That's not even an issue. Like, I mean, Israel now hits Syria anytime it wants. But once it hit a consulate of Iran inside Syria, it became an issue. Like, the Syrians aren't even considered as a country. Like, anybody can violate their sovereignty.

And it's not just Israel. I mean, people hit Syria from all angles now. And of course, to be clear, the main culprit there is Bashar al-Assad, who created so much chaos through the civil war and his dictatorship there that has created this situation. But two really important things that John said that I want to pick up on. So John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, et cetera, wanted us to start a much, much bigger war. Morons. See, told you we could avoid a bigger war, at least for now. Like, they think your only possible answer is war, right? And so we just showed you that is not the only possible answer.

They were wrong because they always say like, a war is inevitable anyway. A massive war is inevitable, so we might as well start it. No, not inevitable. As always, the neocons are ridiculously wrong. And finally, speaking of which, whenever I debate these guys, including Prager the other day in D.C. when I did that debate, you know, they always paint their Iranian leaders as irrational zealot madmen. You can't negotiate with, you can't have a peace treaty with, you can't do anything with because if you go into the room, they're frothing at the mouth and they just want to kill Jews.

And they'll do anything. Well, no, they just got hit on their own sword. They're not even going to counterstrike. They're not irrational zealots. They're terrible people. I don't like them at all. They're fundamentalists. And I think they're oppressing their own people. But they're not nuts, they know how to preserve their own power and their own lives. And they've acted very rationally here, given that they would like to keep staying in power and staying alive and avoiding this war. So that kind of, that's just propaganda. And honestly, a little bit like racist propaganda. Oh, you know how those Muslims are.

They're all frothing at the mouth, madmen zealots. And you can't even talk to them. All you could do is violence. Wait, you're the one advocating for violence and you sound like a madman, not them. And so that's usually a case with neocons. Yeah. Well, and you're the one perpetrating violence. Like, I'm sorry, like, let's remember this is happening in a context of 34,000 civilian,

mostly civilians who've been murdered. So like, who's doing the irrational violence right now, Israel. Yeah, and it's not just Israel. It's the neocon mindset, also here in America, which is, anytime you hear someone say all they understand is violence, what they mean is all I understand is violence. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, and bear in mind that they seem, in Iran, they seem to be maneuvering politically, strategically to avoid war and still do horrific repression of their own people. We're not going to forget about the protests and all that. Whereas we have all these

people like John Bolton, who are not these godless savages, but they're trying to move the playing pieces on the board to get us into an all-out war. So just, just Just bear that in mind. And also, I'll give you something to think about as we go to our first break. We don't know for sure how much or how influential Joe Biden was in determining the outcome of this or influence the outcome. But Donald Trump often says like blank wouldn't happen if I were in office. Like Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, you know, nothing would have happened on October 7th.

But what about this event? If it had been Trump and he'd been talking with Israel, would it have been as light of an attack? Well, look, so since we're all being over the top fair, which is what we're supposed to do. And I say that because just in so many other parts of the media, what you'll see is Biden is terrible. Biden is great, right? Et cetera, et cetera. No, there's nuance here. So Trump actually once did say no to a counterattack on Iran.

If you remember the John Bolton's of the world said, you should hit him again. And he said, no, it's okay. People are going to get killed and we'll get into war. Forget it. And I was shocked by that. I was blown away by it. And credit where credit is due on that. Now, what was that in response to them attacking our soldiers after he assassinated

Qasem Soleimani? Yes, yes. Okay, well I'm still saying he did but though thankfully in that case. There was still the assassination. He did the very aggressive thing. They were relatively restrained thankfully in that case, like in this case. Yeah, so that's true. That's absolutely right.

That's all of the actual facts of the case. You can make a judgment call on what you think, you know, how much credit Trump or Biden deserves. But for my judgment call, I think John's making a great point. great point about today, which is, you know, if this continues and there is no larger war, Biden definitely gets to say, because I was in charge, we didn't have a larger war. And I think that's a big thing to brag about. So let's see how it goes. We're not out of the woods completely yet. But if Biden did avoid this war as it looks like now, I would give him a lot of credit for that. Yeah. I think he does not deserve credit unless he actually puts pressure on

Israel to stop genociding. So yes, it just proves that he has control. He has more control than he lets on about about Israel and about Netanyahu. No, Frannie, I totally agree with you, but I'm just saying those are two different issues. One is avoiding the war with Iran and the other is the genocide that's going on in Gaza. And on that, he gets zero credit. Yeah, okay, and with that, we're gonna take a short break, but don't go anywhere. We'll go right back.

All right back on Young Turks, John Iderola, Francesca Fiorentini, and Tricia Briggs, Eric Schneider and John Hughes, who are all American heroes who hit the join button below the video on YouTube. And then look at these heroes. Drink your O.J., Benjamin, Sean. Mining Kimmy, Pop-Tark Queen Dragon, all gifted a membership, and Chris Birch and Gabby Mathis gifted five. You guys are the best. We appreciate you guys so much.

If you want to help, there's one other way too. You could donate through t-y-t.com slash team. You could also sign up through that for our website, t-y-t.com slash team, and we definitely do need it. You see it right before your eyes, a media company, digital media company going down about two a week now. That's the pace we're at. All right, John. Okay. Jury selection and former President Donald Trump's New York City criminal hush money trial has finally concluded with all 18 New Yorkers now sat on the jury. The 12 main jurors, the six alternates, all ready to go. And that caps off a week where multiple selected jurors either ended up removing themselves from the jury or were removed either because they revealed information about themselves that had previously been inaccurately stated, or they felt the pressure

was simply too great. And even earlier today, while the final ones were being selected, some of them literally broke down in court over the anxiety they were feeling about whether they could be impartial in this case. With one woman breaking down while talking about having served prison time in another state, later said she felt people should be held accountable for their actions, quote, because that's what I went through. Another was overcome with emotion as she answered basic questions in the jury box saying, this is so much more stressful than I thought it would be. Both of them were excused. Now, it took one week to finalize this jury, but bear in mind, everyone said it was going to be incredibly difficult to do so. And most

did not think that it would be able to be done in one week, but it's now done. And on Monday, we're going to have opening arguments from both the prosecution and the defense. We were already into this thing. It seems fast, but for Donald Trump, it's still taking too long. He truths, this trial is a long rigged endurance contest dealing with nasty, crooked people who want to destroy our country, MAGA 2024. So it's taking too long, it takes great endurance, that's why he takes so many preemptive naps.

Or does he think that it's really long? Because four minutes after putting that on true social, he said, Judge Merchant, is is railroading me at breakneck speed in order to completely satisfy his friends. I guess they're not real friends. Additionally, he has gagged me and I don't care about the rest of that. But so is it taking too long and it's a marathon or is this thing happening like a sprint? Which is it? Which way are you whining about this case now? Seemingly all of them. It's taking too long and it's going way too fast. By the way, while he's complaining in a variety of different Earlier today, another one of his attempts to get the trial moved out of Manhattan

was shot down, that makes 40, I think. The thing is going to continue, it's going to continue in Manhattan, and that's what's important. And look, we have our jury now, we'll see what the quality of the jury is. But before we discuss, I do want to point out one thing, which is that as I alluded to, there were people who had been on the jury that were taken off. And one of those women ended up taking herself off because of the fact that so many people We're focusing on her, discussing her revealing information about her, most notably perhaps Jesse Waters. And as a result of that, the judge actually admonished the media and told them

to stop attacking or stop revealing reporting on so many of the details of the jurors. And of course, as you saw in that picture, he immediately went on the air that night to continue doing the same thing. Once again, going on an extended monologue about how every one of the very minor bits of information, the trivia we had about these people immediately made them suspect. And so we're not going to play the video of him actually doing that. But just bear in mind that his audience, the audience on Fox News are all convinced that this thing is going to be rigged, not just in the ways they already thought it was, but in terms of the jury as well. So with that said, what do you think? Yeah, so far so good. I think that the judge and the lawyers are both

doing a good job. I don't think the Trump lawyers have asked anything outrageous. They're doing normal voir dire where you're trying to pick the jurors that are most favorable to your client. Prosecutors are doing the same thing. And asking about people's backgrounds is perfectly understandable in this case. For example, they found out that one guy had put up on social media that Trump was the devil. Probably don't have them on the jury. Okay. So, and that's not him trying to infiltrate the jury. He was just one of the jurors that they called up. And they're like, okay, so what do you think? He's like, well, I think Trump's the devil. Okay, well, there you go. Off you go, right? And another guy said, well, you know, I disagree

to Trump a couple times, but otherwise he's awesome. Oh, so there you go. You go. Okay. So, and that makes sense, guys. That's how you're trying to pick as unbiased the jury as you can. Look, I have, and we're going to get to the guy who lit himself on fire. Luckily, not one of the jurors, okay, but we'll get to that in a sec. But I'm curious what you're. guys think? I mean, where's the line, right? Because is it, if you voted for Trump, you can't be on the jury? And I know they're not asking about who you voted for. Or if you support Trump, you can't be on the jury. Or if you voted against them or you don't support him, you can't be on the jury. Or only non-political people. And it just, I don't know.

I think it's very, very hard to draw the lines. I think they're doing the best they can. By the way, there's like a couple of lawyers, a couple of therapists and a couple of engineers on the jury. Seven men, five women, and then there's six alternates as well. But so far from when I have read, all is good on the Western Front or on the Eastern Front in this case. Oh, I'll mention one other funny thing, though. Trump's, it is one of his rants. I'd like to do it in John's always. I'll do it in mine.

And he's like, why is this Trump, it's rigged trial happening in New York and not in Pennsylvania or North Carolina? And because your business is based in New York and that's where you did the fraud. You didn't do it in North Carolina. You did it in New York. He's amazing, man. He still doesn't get that. He's really one of the, I mean, look, there's no other way to say it. He's one of the dumbest people I've ever seen in public life.

Okay, Francesco, what do you think? No, I mean, first of all, I love that your Trump impression is just Alec Baldwin's doing Trump and Johns is just Stephen Colbert doing. Trump, it really is like, nobody's got anything unique to offer like me. I'm sorry, I'm just going to say. I don't like it. No, but look, this is truly could Trump be elected dog catcher in New York, in Manhattan? And I think that's fascinating because the answer might be yes, because here you have a swath of clearly 18 people who've been in a coma for the last six years, no, eight years, right? Which is incredible. Like, imagine, so there's that, right? Like,

how is he going to fare in Manhattan? And he knows people hate him there generally. But the other part of it is also, like, who is impartial about Donald Trump? Like, who has been paying at all, even cursory attention to the last eight years and been going like, eh, eh, eh, am normal, nobody. So these. These people, here's the way I see it, I think these people are masterful at concealing their passion, either one way or another, or they truly are living in a bubble and have just woken up from a coma, in which case I want their brain and I love that. But I think it takes so much where, like not wherewithal, but bravery. You're sitting in the same, in the same room as Donald Trump. You're judging him. Like that is terrifying. He's staring each and every one of these. these jurors down. I don't think we fully grasp just how unprecedented and wild and difficult it is going to be to be on this jury. Yeah, and if that does intimidate you, just speak in a

low voice, he'll fall asleep sooner or later, and then you can go right back to judging him. He won't even know. Look, I- But the minute you mention his name, he'll wake up, like trumple still skin, so trumple still skin is what I was trying to spit out. There we go. Yes. It works. Look, I agree. It is hard to imagine.

It's hard to conceive of a person who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other. And yet has the mental faculties to sit through and judge a trial like this. That said, we'll see who they got. I mean, I know what's interesting to be is less the question of can they be impartial. And for me, and I know maybe sometimes we veer too much into media criticism, is what people actually want. them to be impartial because everybody's implying they want impartiality, okay, and maybe questioning whether they will be, but stating that they want it, I don't think everyone wants that at all. And I think with good cause, Jesse Waters has no interest in an impartial jury.

And he's been fairly clear about that in his videos talking about this. When people, when the most political thing a person says is, you know, that I want to weigh the evidence or whatever, he is suspicious of that because he doesn't want an impartial jury. He is only comfortable with those who would never under any circumstances convict Donald Trump. And the reason for that is I am afforded the luxury of being perfectly comfortable having no one who's like a super big Biden fan or hates Donald Trump's guts, because I am confident that the case that they'll make and the evidence they will present will be really bad for Donald Trump. That satisfies me. On the other hand, they also know that that evidence

is going to be damning of Donald Trump. And that's why they can't, they're not reliant. on the legal team or anything like that, they've been fairly clear. Clay Travis has said it. We need a saboteur, we need a sleeper cell. They clearly think that's the only answer to any of this. Yeah, I actually wanna say, because they're asking them what kind of media they consume. So for example, the foreman watches MSNBC and Fox and reads the New York Times. Interesting. So I don't know what that says about him, maybe he's unbiased. Hey, you know, and I bet you a lot of people who are against Trump, Oh no, he watches Fox News too, he must be a bad guy. And a lot of Trump people are like, oh no, he watches MSNBC too.

He must be a bad guy. Hold on, hold on. So but if anybody on the jury watches young Turks and is a TYT infiltrator for us, I do have a mission for you. Are you ready? Your mission is to be fair. So listen to the evidence. Don't prejudge Trump and you're not trying Trump as a human being.

you're trying him for these crimes and listen to the evidence and if it turns out he's guilty convict him if it turns out you're not sure and it's not beyond a reasonable doubt don't convict him just be fair boom we got infiltrators now you know what i want to add myself onto that as well i agree do that this guy no but really i'm actually comfortable with an impartial process i you know what though i think it's you know what it reminds me of jury trials when the person sitting, the defendant, is a cop. And we all know it's very difficult to actually get a jury conviction of a police officer because by and large, no matter whether even the person, people who have had negative encounters

with police officers generally are respect law enforcement or at least want to pretend, want to, right? Like that's their goal. It's aspirational. So I actually, like, I don't want to play crystal ball here and be like, all right, what's going to happen? But I think it'll be very difficult to get a conviction because he's a former president. Because it is so difficult to get a group of people to go against, it feels like, and what the right wants you to believe, it going against the office of president.

And how it often works out with cops who have killed innocent people or brutalized them, it might work out for Trump in that way too. I'm just putting that out there. And I will also, and I'll close with this because I know we have to get on this other angle. If you are concerned about it being an unfair process in that, the evidence will be irrelevant, the arguments will be irrelevant, the witnesses will be irrelevant, it's just going to come down to one side got their person on or the other side got their person on, you need to bear in mind that is not an even playing field. Because for that to work for the prosecution, they need to get 12 of their people on. The defense only needs to get one of their people on.

One MAGA person who would refuse under any circumstances, one MAGA person who would watch Donald Trump choke their wife to death and then let them walk free, that sort of person. You only need one of those. The defense, if they're gonna swing this thing with no case, they need a full dozen. And everybody's acting like this is an even thing. It is anything but. Anyway, with that said, let's turn now to a darker aspect of this. A man set himself on fire outside the Manhattan courthouse where Donald Trump was being tried earlier today and left the scene in critical conditions. Still alive, at least as of when they left the scene, although in these sorts of circumstances,

Obviously, that is a serious set of injuries, and so who knows what the future will bring. But we do have some details coming from the scene and about the individual. He had a sign apparently saying something about Trump and Biden working together to orchestrate a coup and another alleging some kind of Ponzi scheme. Since that time, a detailed manifesto has turned up online. We obviously will not be displaying that or reading that or anything like that. The man apparently told a woman to get away with him before he doused himself with gasoline through some flyers in the air and then doused himself again before flicking a lighter and catching fire. The woman, the witness was apparently 15 feet away, although people said that the heat could be felt a hundred feet away from the fire that this man was engulfed in. Some of the flyers apparently referred to some conspiracy theories about NYU and generalized

conspiracy theories, anti-government conspiracy theories about the CIA and the government at large. And so who knows if we'll have more details about this individual in the immediate aftermath of a horrendous, almost unthinkable tragedy like this. It seems kind of irrelevant, but it is an unfortunate thing that happens, certainly. Yeah, so in these type of circumstances, it's either a person who's like the best person on earth or someone who's got significant mental health problems. I say that because, yes, some Buddhist monks care so much about the violence going on in conflicts like Vietnam and now Gaza that they'll light themselves on fire in protest and it's happened in a couple other instances. It is an enormously extreme way to get attention to your cause. And obviously I don't recommend it, to say the least, don't do that, terrible idea.

But look, there are some people who do it with good intent, even though I don't agree with it, right? But of course, a lot of have mental health issues. And the family here is saying that he had it. And you could tell I read a piece of his manifestos online now. And I read some of it. And I'll give you a small sample of it. You know, any manifesto has things that are true in it, right? Like, oh, this politician is a bad guy for XYZ.

Yeah, the politicians are bad guys and probably for X and Z, but maybe not why. But then when you get into Clinton, Bill Clinton might have initiated Rob Lowe's sexual abuse when he was a teenager because Rob Lowe supported Mike Dukakis over Bill Clinton in that primary. Okay, no, no, not a Buddhist punk guy who's obviously having some issues. And I feel terrible about it. This is not the right way to go obviously. Yeah. It's just, it's just all it is super unfortunate. It's not on anybody's side.

And there's no like political angle here where anybody goes to go, ha ha. And he didn't hurt anyone else. He just hurt himself. And he's, he's not okay, but he didn't die. And they're taking care of him in the hospital now. Yeah, I mean, it's initially, like I'm glad we're, we're getting a full picture. Because initially I think it is relevant, right? It depending on if he, is he a Trump supporter? Is he protesting Trump? What could this be? And I think a lot of us were racking our brains. But yes, it does seem like he has some kind of mental illness. I really hope he pulls through. He is throwing Trump and Biden under the bus in some of his manifestos and his writings and whatnot. But like it's not irrelevant to what was happening. It just seems like he used what was happening as an opportunity to draw attention to himself. That being said, I'm reminded, of course, of air

service member, Aaron Bushnell, who killed himself the same way to protest the genocide in Gaza. And I'll continue to remember him as we remember those Buddhist monks who also did something similar. Yes, it was an incredible act of conscience, but still guys, don't do it. There's much, much better ways to protest. All right, we got to take a break here when we come back. More news. All right, back on TYT, Jank John and Frannie with you guys. Also, T.J. Keywatt, who just hit the join button below. I know that sounded like T.J. Watt for a second, and everybody in Pittsburgh got excited.

John Fox and Williams Zaragoza gifted Young Tourist memberships on YouTube, and we appreciate you guys, John. We do, and in return, we will present you with the news. This week, an Arizona state representative, as well as a turning point action official named Austin Smith, was busted for allegedly having committed election fraud. Now, ironically, that's what the turning point organization has been saying a lot about the last few years. Remember, of course, Charlie Kirk's involvement with organizing some of the people who went to the protests in D.C., but we're going to focus on this individual for now, and he has responded to the allegations. We will give you that as well in just a moment. Here's what happened. Basically, a lawsuit was filed earlier this week,

accused Smith of using fraudulent signatures on the petition required to qualify for the Republican primary ballot. He had already been elected, as we alluded to, was running for reelection to his second term in the Arizona House, and according to the complaint, several of Smith's petition sheets bore purported voter signatures that appear to have been written by the same person. Many of those signatures bear a striking resemblance to Smiths himself.

Now, either of those would have been a problem, but apparently both were true. And specifically it was alleged that he had forged, that someone had forged 100 of the 826 signatures that were there. Which at that point seems a bit lazy, get the 100 extra signatures. Like is that a day or two more of work? Like are you gonna barter your political future of the fact that you didn't want to canvass a little bit more? But apparently that's the direction that was gone in.

The lawsuit included sworn statements from two voters whose signature appeared on the petitions, saying they did not sign his petitions. And as I said, he has responded. He has announced that he would be ending his reelection campaign. He denies the claims of election fraud, but says that with this legal battle forthcoming, he would be simply too distracted in terms of time as well as money to deal with that. And he would rather clear his name and potentially return to politics or elected office at at some point rather than attempting to do both at the same time.

He said what I was told was that this was a very intense effort to quote, get me. And I needed to be prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend myself. Not only against the civil elections matter, but most likely against some sort of criminal investigation that would be launched by those on the left who were unhappy with my politics. I might be confident of victory, but all it would take is a judge believing any one person and all would be lost, to be better protecting in the future, if and when I run again for something, I'll rely exclusively on the online signature system and eliminate paper petitions from my campaign, then no one can make up any stories.

Well, that's the statement now. We will see what comes out in the eventual legal battle, but what do you think? Yeah, so I'm not at all surprised by this. And so lately when there's a voter fraud story, it's almost always a Trump supporter. And they almost always have the same ideology. In this case, the guy has, claims he's not doing it. So we'll find out in court if that's true or not, but it doesn't look good for him on the public information that we have. So, but my guess as to his motives is similar to what all the other guys who did with voter fraud on behalf of Trump say, which is,

oh, they're doing it anyway. So I thought I'd do it too, huh? Why do they only get to do it? But because, brother, they're not doing it. You just believe the conspiracy theory that isn't at all true. And so, and I see it also in other instances where, you know, Trump or somebody on his side will say, oh, yeah, when we get into office, then we're going to arrest Pelosi and Biden and Schumer. And I'm like, yeah, but that's not how democracy works.

You don't just arrest your political opponents for no reason. Look, oh, once you do it to Trump? But guys, he actually broke laws. So if you say, hey, like I got Nancy Pelosi on insider trading. Here's my actual information, et cetera. And she broke this specific law and it looks like you're right. Then yes, I'm 100% with you, no politicians above the law. But you can't just say for no reason at all, I don't like you.

So I'm gonna arrest you for no reason and I'm gonna make you a political prisoner. Could you do it to us? But we didn't do it to you. So that's not a way of thinking about it. That makes any sense at all. And so here, I'm guessing, but I'm telling you at some point if he ever confesses, He's going to say, oh, you do, you know, that's not a legal defense and that's not a smart way of conducting your life. It's like what children do.

Yeah, no. And remember how like every Republican operative is also registered in Florida and votes in Florida and votes like out of state and always votes in a swing state. But we're not supposed to talk about that. Yeah. I mean, it is exactly that, jink. I think the other thing is when they know they can't win, the right will cheat. Which is amazing because they are, we live in a gerrymandered to crap, you know, country here. And, you know, that favors people, that favors the right, that favors people

with money, favors people who can take the time off to go vote, whatnot. This guy definitely could have, if not him, you know, himself gotten the signatures also hired someone to do that. But didn't John, you just say that he was already on the ballot? It was a reelection. I'm not even sure what he was doing. This was to qualify for the primary ballot on the Republican side. Okay, okay, okay, okay. Okay, but like, but exactly that. It's like when they can't win in the system, they will cheat.

And then when they get caught cheating, because it's only about getting caught, they say, well, the Democrats are importing all of these illegals, in quotes, and then, you know, getting them to vote Democrat. They're marching them right into the voting booths. It's like, right, with that worldview, it automatically justifies any kind of cheating that you're going to do. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that like, A project Veritas would uncover about a so-called left-wing organization like ACORN,

and that would be done. That would be it. Close-up shop turning points USA, yeah, out of here. But this, of course, is like, oh, this is fine. Nope, it's just, we're going to keep going. Well, and Ellen was stating that he, in addition to ending his reelection bit, he has also resigned as senior enterprise director of turning point action. He did not publicly announce it, but apparently he is no longer with the organization.

He wants to spend more time with his signature, repeating it over and over and over again, allegedly. or horrifying, if you stop and think about it for long enough. Let's move to this. Move over, Miss America. The services of you, humans will no longer be needed. Miss AI is coming for your awards, trophies. What are they getting that? I don't know.

But the world's first AI beauty pageant is coming. And it allows AI generated contestants and creators to compete for the covenant title of Miss AI. Okay, this is part of the World AI Creator Awards. So it's a suite of different competitions, all honoring efforts in AI. This is the beauty pageant version of that. And we want to look in, we're going to talk about the judges and how this is going to be decided and how you perhaps could compete. But first, what are they competing on? These AI generated individuals are going to need to master these three areas.

Beauty, of course, it's a beauty pageant. Contestants will be judged on some of the classic aspects of pageantry, including their their beauty, poise, and their unique answers to questions like, if you could have one dream to make the world a better place, what would it be? Obviously, the answer is fewer humans. They have to be better on tech. Contestants will earn points for their skill and implementation of AI tools used to create the digital masterpieces, including prompt engineering, output, visual detailing, hands, eyes, and backgrounds, as well as social clout, Because of course, many of these AI creations are themselves online influencers.

And so that'll be assessed based on their engagement numbers with fans, rate of growth of audience, and how utilization of other platforms such as Instagram have gone for them. And it's 100% free. You can use any AI software. But if you do want to compete in this, you should probably get started because I have a feeling Brett is generating an entry right now. But anyway, let's turn now to who will be judging this. So these are the judges, you have four.

Two of them are humans, which do you think it is? But that's the thing I was so confused by. The guy, the man. The guy is a real person, yes, that is true. But since AI is apparently incapable of producing anything other than the most exaggerated, impossible depiction of an anime come to true to the flesh sort of appearance, two of the those are digital influencers themselves, two of them are humans. I would imagine that since the two AI models are themselves controlled by humans, that

those effectively are the judges, but of course you're not gonna, I guess, find out who they are. But anyway, there is money on the line as well. So we can put that up as we get into discussion, thousands of dollars of rewards and PR support apparently as well. Yeah, that's the thing I was most confused by. I'm like, wait, are those judges real or are they AI because one of them definitely looks like AI, right? And so okay, this, but that goes to the exact point of this story, which is no one's going to know what's real anymore, right? Like you might get a sense that one of those judges was AI, but the other one looks like

just a pretty woman, right? And I didn't think she, I thought that was a real person. So I'm, to this moment, I'm still confused as to what's real and not real. And but I think that there's something really interesting in this. So I get all of the reasons why they do what they do, like the social cloud. Okay, yeah, that makes sense because it's almost like letting the public vote. Hey, who's getting more interest online, right? The tech part, yeah, if you created Picasso-like image, you're probably not going to win, brother.

So, but to me, what's more interesting is what is everybody's different AI creation that they think is the perfect level? Because John and I are not going to agree and Francesca is not going to agree with us. And we would all have a different creation of what the perfect woman or man looks like. Yeah. And that's slightly interesting. I already married mine, but yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

So I'm not going to let him just get away with that. I, this is, this is just like, you know, at one point we all thought the future was going to be female. The future is robots people and it's depressing as hell and welcome to it. I think one of the challenges that these AI influencers will face is how many jobs they can steal simultaneously, the graphic designer's job, a model's job, a beauty pageant. Look, I didn't really have that much respect for beauty pageant contestants until now, damn it. It takes a lot of hard work to think of what your dreams are maybe.

and how to solve world hunger-ish things. You know what I'm saying? No, but there's real skill there, truly. And so this is just like, it's so gross. And I have a question to you too. And this is actually the second time I asked this question of two men before about this exact same story. But there are right now dudes online following AI influencers,

which is the creepiest set of words since crypto PAC, super PACs, AI influencers, literally undermining the world of influencers, world of influencers, which is already a precarious job. But anyway, I digress. There are dudes online going like responding to AI influencers in the comments going, you look really good here. Fire emoji. Wow, you've got a beautiful smile. Like they aren't even real. What is going on? Do you think a robot lady model is going to respond to your comments? Who is this for? Well, they don't They're not real.

Francesca, maybe I can answer a little bit of that. So first of all, thanks to AI chatbots, it might well be able to respond. That's kind of the thing. You referenced a few things there. Hold, hold. Let me answer. You reference guys following them. You also reference guys commenting to them.

I have very different feelings about those two things. It seems initially weird, why would you follow one of these accounts? But from the point of view of the consumer in this example, if it's convincing, what's the difference, I guess. They just want a titillating image to look at. Like, does it fundamentally matter in any philosophical way about whether it's real or not? Now, I agree with you, sending the comments seems a little bit weird because it's not a person who can respond to you. But theoretically, let's say that it's managed by an AI chatbot that can respond.

If you don't know that it's AI, and based on the comments I've seen, many of these guys do not appear to know that. No, they know it. The feeling that it gives you, is that not indistinguishable? Sure, but I don't know that they're necessarily reading it. I love how every, every like thirsty weirdo is writing down you what you said verbatim. Yeah, what? It's philosophically the difference between following and liking. But in, Francesca, jokes aside, look, I don't follow these, but what is the difference?

If it's a horny guy who wants to occasionally load Instagram and see an attractive model in a swimsuit, what does it matter in in terms of what he gets from it if it's a person or not. No, of course it doesn't. Okay, so there's a, you want to really get into it? You want, are you ready to go? You're trying to go? Let's go. Look, I think it doesn't matter to that guy.

He's gonna get horny no matter what, or that woman or anybody. You get horny, how you get horny, that's fine. My question is why you gotta leave the comment. That seems a little bit weird. It seems extra thirsty, go outside, touch grass, talk to a real person. But the other thing is this. The world of influencers already reduces mostly usually women

just their physical appearance and their hawkin products left and right. And a lot of them, a lot of them rely on that money to make ends meet in our craptastic late stage capitalist health scape. And so that you are replacing, even though, and don't make me feel for influencers, but man, I kind of do. You're replacing them already. It's like at what point are we pushing people and just pay us a universal basic income? Do you know what I'm saying? Like it is all so gross. And it's just because we can. Super Fast Francesca, to be clear, I don't like them being replaced either.

I'm only talking about from the point of view of the guy. I don't want, especially the fact that these influencers, many of whom are women, are going to be replaced by AI models, many of them might be managed by men. That seems fundamentally wrong. So I don't disagree with you there. Yeah, so look, I'm with John. I only follow dozens of these accounts. Okay, you brought it on yourself, my friend.

Right. So, but Francesca, at the same time, was it realistic when guys in the 80s, you know, would write into their celebrity, you know, crushes, Heather Thomas or Farah Fawcett or whoever it was? And they'd write them letters and then expect their, like, no, brother, they weren't going to respond to you, they don't know you. And right now we've got only fans, right? And so those are real people, and they do. They are real people. They do respond for money, right? And so, but at the same time, it's this, it's a fantasy, right?

That you actually could be with them, you actually are friends, et cetera, et cetera. So this is just a different version of that fantasy. And right, and all this is all amateur hour anyway. I mean, and it's all different gradations, I would argue. The real deal is going to be when we invent a holodeck. And then no one's ever going to touch grass again. And you'll never see another male in a non-hollow deck in. environment ever.

So we're all just building up to that. The reality though is that right now models are actually being replaced by AI, you know, clothing models and whatnot. Like again, these are industries that are real industries. People make an actual living, you know, there's real money won by real people in pageants, right? I don't know, I'm not saying I love it or I condone it, but you are replacing actual people. And the worst part is that they're being asked, they're like thoughts.

And who knows, you know what, to feed your AI, you know what you do. You go back to all of the pageants and you load their answers in. So you're actually stealing from people who've actually put thought, put work, and put effort into their answers, whatever it is. And then you're loading it into this AI model, this fake model. Anyway, so there's way bigger implications. Don't email me about this, please. Okay, and look, for my part, I like imperfections.

I think it may give person character. And so when they create these like theoretically perfect women through the AI, I don't find it interesting. I find the real deal to be way more interesting. But okay, they'll artificially model the imperfection soon, don't worry. Boobes are different sizes, sometimes lefty, smaller than righty. Everyone needs to understand, sometimes righty bigger, sometimes righty smaller. All right, with that, we're definitely done.

Okay, we got an amazing hour where, again, I might agree a little bit with an all right figure. Uh-oh, buckle up, brace for impact. Everybody check out the Bittuation Room. That's Francesca's podcast on the TYT Network. Everybody check out Damage Report. That's John's awesome show on the TYT Network. All right, we'll be right back.