The Young Turks - Bernie Sanders Interview On Running For President In 2020

Episode Date: February 20, 2019

Senator Bernie Sanders has officially announced his bid for president in 2020! Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five-star rating. Thank you.

The Young Turks on a huge news day, Bernie Sanders is running for president, and he is joining us in one second. I want to tell you the news that's dropped and it's relevant to what we're going to discuss with Senator Sanders in a second New York Times with an enormous story about how Donald Trump might have interfered with the investigation. Did interfere with the investigation. That is being conducted of him. And so that has enormous ramifications, obviously.

And then later in the program, Elizabeth Warren joins us as well. So now, without further ado, Senator Bernie Sanders, and now Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 joins us right now on the Young Turks. Senator Sanders, welcome back. Great to be with you, Jenkinana. All right, great to have you. So we weren't planning on asking this, but the news broke today. So the New York Times saying that Donald Trump apparently told acting Attorney General Matthew

Whitaker to put in a loyalist for. for an investigation of himself at the Southern District of New York. He also told or his lawyers communicated with Manafort and Flynn's lawyers to talk about a pardon. These seem to be clear obstruction of justice. Are these impeachable offenses? Well, if in fact they are true, I think they are impeachable offenses. And this adds through a long list of actions on the part of this president, who is perhaps the most unethical president.

have had in the modern history of this country, which are impeachable. But I think we gotta take a deep breath, allow the investigations to run their course, and then go forward. You know, if Trump is impeached, I'm gonna be part of the folks who are gonna be judging him. So my job is to hear the evidence and then vote. But this is another very serious charge, no question about it. Okay, well, you're now officially in the race, so I wanna talk about that, obviously.

I know that you had said that one of the things you were considering on whether to enter the race was whether anyone else in the race was progressive enough to carry that mantle and to carry forward the ideas that honestly you had started in a lot of ways. So apparently you've reached a conclusion that they are not. Now the conclusion that I've reached is that I think I am the strongest candidate to defeat Donald Trump. I think we can win states that Clinton lost. I think we could win states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and maybe some other states as well. And I think the message that we are bringing forth is not just that we need to transform our economic

and political system so that it starts reflecting the needs of working families and not just the 1%. But I think what we are trying to do in this campaign is to put together the strongest grassroots effort than anybody in American history has ever done. We hope, Jank, that within a week or two, we will be able to announce that we have one million people in every state in this country prepared to roll up their sleeves, help us win the Democratic nomination, help us win the general election, and equally important, help us take on the powerful special interest from Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance companies, the military industrial complex, etc. to take them on so that we can finally create a government that works for all of us and not just the 1%. Senator Sanders, you mentioned that you would be the strongest candidate to take on Donald Trump, and the polling certainly bears that out. But one thing that I've noticed is that every Democratic candidate, with maybe the exception of Senator Klobuchar, has taken on your rhetoric in their campaigns. And so they're all presenting themselves as extremely progressive, very much in favor of the policies that you proposed during the 2016 election. How do you differentiate yourself as the real progressive in the race?

Well, in two ways, Anna. And first of all, I think it is fair for people to ask who was there when these ideas were not popular. You know, when I talked about Medicare for all, as you will recall, virtually nobody. was talking about Medicare. It was too radical, too extreme. I was talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. When people in Congress were talking about $10 or $12 maybe an hour, I was there. I was talking about climate change being not only a major global crisis, but a national security crisis.

Very few people were there. So I think when people look back and say, well, you know what, Bernie was there talking about these issues when they didn't have majority support in polls. Maybe that's worth something. And second of all, what I understand, and let me underline this point, is I know many of the candidates are running. And those in the Senate are friends of mine, and they are good people. And you're not going to hear me disparage them. But at the end of the day, this is what I do believe in my heart of hearts, that if you want Medicare for all, you're going to have to rally the American people to take on the incredibly powerful insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry who will spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of

dollars in lobbying, in dishonest advertising, in campaign contributions. If you want to combat climate change and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel into energy efficiency and sustainable energy, you're going to have to take on the power of the fossil fuel industry. If you want to raise taxes as we must on the wealthy and large corporations, you're going to have to take on the billionaire class. The only way, in my view, my political judgment, the only way that is done is not inside the beltway. The only way that is done is when you mobilize millions of people to stand up and fight back. That's the only way changes have become about in terms of the civil rights movement, in terms of the women's movement, the labor movement, the gay movement.

That is kind of what we are attempting to do in this campaign. So it's not just winning the nomination. It's laying the groundwork for a movement that is prepared to take on the powerful special interest who control our economic and political life. So Senator Sanders, let me follow it up on that because I'll tell you what some progressives are concerned about in regards to some of the other candidates, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Gillibrand. And I'll tell them the same thing if they come on the program, which is that they're worried

that they're saying that they're for Medicare for all and Green New Deal, but that they're not really going to fight for it when they get into office. Are you also concerned about that? Look, again, I don't not here to disparage any of those people. I know them all, and I like them all. I think people are going to have to kind of check the record. So, you know, when I talk about Medicare for all, it's not just that I fought for that as a presidential candidate in 2016. Jake, I was fighting for that for 20 years. I live 50 miles away from Canada. That's where I'm talking to you right now.

And in Canada, they spend half as much per capita as we do, and yet they provide quality care to all of their people without any out-of-pocket expenses. So this is an issue I know something. When you talk about taking on the drug companies, check out my record 10 or 15 years ago, I was taking on the pharmaceutical industry. I got arrested back when I was a kid fighting for civil rights.

So for me, these are not new ideas. I've been doing it for my entire adult life, and I would hope people will check my record on that. Senator Sanders, one last quick question about the other candidates. Do you now or have you ever cared about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry? No, Elizabeth Warren, you know, when you talk about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren is somebody I have known for over 20 years. She is a friend of mine. And she is a very, very good senator and a very serious person.

Senator Sanders, one thing that I've always admired about you is how you take on your opponents, either within your own party or in the Republican Party with grace. You don't usually respond aggressively to provocations. But as the 2020 election heats up, how do you plan on handling Donald Trump? Trump's provocations, because he's currently working on nicknames that he's going to tie to Democratic candidates. Well, Anna, Trump is the exception to the rule. Usually, you know, I like, as you well know, I bore people to death, because I like talking

about issues, and I'm not in the business of attacking people. You don't bore us. Trump, though, I think maybe it's the exception to the rule here, and that I think in Trump, you have an extraordinarily dangerous president. This is a person who is a pathological liar. He is a fraud. He told working people all over this country, I'm going to stand with the working class of America.

And then he tried to throw 32 million workers off the health insurance they had. He tried to, he did give massive tax breaks to the rich. He brought forth a budget, which called for incredibly long. cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So he is a liar, he is a fraud, and we will do our best to expose him for what he is. Okay, and now I want to turn back to policy. Mitch McConnell has threatened to put up the Green New Deal for a vote in the Senate. How do you feel about that threat?

Right. Good. I'm a sponsor of the Green New Deal, and if Mr. McConnell wants to tell the world that he and his friend Donald Trump think that climate change is a hoax or that it's not manmade. Go for it, Mitch. You tell the scientific community that you don't think climate change is manmade. Tell the scientific community in the people of this country that we do not have a major existential crisis in terms of the future of this planet. So number one, we have science on our side.

Number two, we now have the capability, the technology, to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. And three, what the Green New Deal is also about is making it clear, and this I believe, that we can create millions of good paying jobs in terms of transforming our energy system. And by the way, when we do that, we're going to pay a special attention to the needs of those communities that have suffered as a result of this transformation. Those workers were working in the fossil fuel industry. They are not our enemies. And we have got to do everything we can to protect them, to make sure that the jobs that become available are jobs that they can get. So if you are president, you've got a lot of priorities ahead of you that you, as you just explained, I've been fighting for for. decades. Medicare for All, Green New Deal, and the list goes on. So how do you prioritize?

How would you prioritize? It's not a question of prioritizing. How do you compare the future of the planet when scientists tell us that we have 12 years if we don't turn around climate change that will cause irreparable harm? How do you not understand that people are dying? Thousands of people die every single year in this country because they don't have any health insurance so they can't afford their prescription drugs. To my mind, it's not just this issue, what's that issue? We have got to develop an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families. That's health care. That's prescription drugs. That's education. That's childcare. That's infrastructure. That is climate change. We can do that when we think big and not small. And when we rally,

when we rally millions of people around that progressive agenda. Senator Sanders, you know, I hear your policy proposals, and it's all very exciting. It's certainly what true progressives want to push for. But what concerns me is some of what we saw during the 2016 election. And I'm curious, were there specific lessons that you learned during that election that you're going to really look out for moving forward? And what are those lessons? Yes, we have been criticized correctly so for running a campaign that was too whites and two male-oriented.

And that is going to change. We're going to have a very, very diverse campaign staff, and we're going to do a better job reaching out to every community in this country. And in response to some of the attacks that we've seen in the mainstream press in regard to your campaign, what have you done to kind of fix those problems moving forward? Anna, in my 2018 re-election campaign here in Vermont, we instituted, I think, the strongest protocol maybe of any campaign against sexual harassment. And we are going to carry that into this presidential election. And that means that every employee on this campaign is going to receive

training and understanding what sexual harassment is about. If anybody believes they have been harassed, there will be an independent number outside of the campaign that they can call. And we have hired people who are some of the best in the country who will operate independently to help us on this issue. Senator Sanders, let me challenge you on a policy issue that came up in 2016. So we understand that you've often talked about the millionaires and the billionaires that are corrupting the system. But very early on, you did not have money in politics that high in your priority list.

In fact, I would make the argument, and I have that when Larry Lessig entered the race, that you moved it up a little bit further on the list. Has that moved up your list overall in terms of priorities? And what do you plan to do about it? You know, check, Jenk, I don't have the papers in front of me, but I don't know that that's accurate. I have always understood that Citizens United is an effort to undermine American democracy, that it has got to be overturned, that voter suppression is disgraceful beyond beliefs.

that the kind of gerrymandering we have right now creates an overall corrupt political system, all of which benefits the wealthy and the powerful. So this is an issue that I have felt extremely strongly about. And I don't understand though any serious candidate cannot feel strongly about it. Democracy to my mind means one person, one vote, not the Koch brothers spending $400 million in a 2018 election. So this is an issue. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, so you would take the Co-Brother money out, but you would also take the George Soros money out? Of course. I mean, the goal has got to be right now, the overwhelming majority of billionaire money goes to Republicans. But you can't pick and choose. I believe, as it happens, not only an overturning citizens united, but moving to public funding of elections. And we're seeing states like Maine move in that direction. New York City has done some good things. Look, here is the goal, not a complicated. to go. I want anybody in this country, regardless of their income status, to be able to run for school board, to be able to run for Congress, to be able to run for President of the United States. And I do not want that person to have to simply be a billionaire or to be dependent

upon big money to do that. And I'm very proud, by the way, that at the end of the day, I think we set a lot of records by rejecting super PACs and raising funds by the millions from small individual donations. All right. Last question for you, Senator Sanders. What are the attributes you would look for in a vice president? I think we would look for somebody who is maybe not of the same gender that I am. And maybe somebody who might be a couple of years younger than me.

And somebody who can take the progressive manner. as vice president and carry it all over this country to help us with our agenda and help us to rally the American people. All right, Senator Bernie Sanders, running for president again. Thank you so much for joining us on The Young Turks. We appreciate it. Thank you, thank you. All right, so we're going to take a quick break here.

Remember, Senator Elizabeth Warren on later on the program, and you'll get to hear from her as well. She's in the new third hour of the Young Turks, so don't miss that. When we come back, we're going to talk a little bit more about Senator Sanders' announcement because he obviously came out today as running for the presidency in 2020. And we'll also talk more about that bombshell report from the New York Times about how Donald Trump apparently tried to interfere in his own investigations again. So it is an amazing story. Come right back.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fing the Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that. the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought

you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Before we get more into Bernie's announcement in the New York Times story, I want to read your comments as usual.

And we do prioritize our members, because they make this show possible. TYT.com slash join to become a member, get all of our progressive shows. We've got dozens of shows for you guys, like a progressive Netflix, and you get to support independent media that actually is home of progressives. I mean, if ever there was a day that was, there was evidence of that, Senator Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren on the program today, t.yt.com slash join. Let me read those member comments. Aaron Noel 311 says, I'm so happy Bernie is running, let's do this.

He's one of the only politicians I trust. Matthew says nicknames, I'm thinking boss Bernie or strong Sanders. I like boss Bernie. Yeah, boss Bernie is pretty good. So, because Trump's working on nicknames, that's another story we have coming up for you guys in a little bit. Sam says the DNC believes the primary process is all for show. They believe Democratic nominee is their choice, not ours.

We need to send him a message, no Bernie, no deal. Well, this time, there ain't no keeping Bernie down. So we're gonna have a real contest and we'll see what happens. They can try to cheat around the edges, but I don't think it's gonna help them. So we'll see, we'll monitor it all the way out, of course. Old Stoner, W.A. writes in, damn, it's great to have Anna back. Thanks. That hasn't been addressed yet, so thanks for bringing it up.

Okay, all right, yeah, it's fine, she's back, whatever, okay? By the way, one of our shows is, of course, the last half an hour. of the Young Turks is our post game. That's just for the members. And in that post game, Anna and I are going to talk about her trip to Munich. She went to the Munich Security Conference. Oh, yeah, lots of behind-the-scenes stuff I want to share with our members. Yeah, talk to a lot of world leaders, Madeline Albright, president of Armenia, many other presidents,

and also went to Germany. Presumably had some fun. We'll talk about all that. Again, in the postgame, t.com slash join. Last couple of comments here. Washington progressive rights, and Bernie's asked about differentiating himself from others in 2020, and he says, I think it's fair to ask who was there when the policies were unpopular. The answer is Bernie, by the way.

And I gotta say, that was a terrific answer. Absolutely. I mean, he's the one who moved all the rhetoric to the left, and why would you talk about, oh, these candidates are progressive, let's vote for them when you could vote for the person who actually believes in those policies and push the entire, not the entire party, but a lot of those members, Democratic members to that direction. Yeah, and my favorite critique, and I talked about it in the last Bernie Sanders interview, was a nearer time saying, well, I mean, he, since he pushed the entire party in that direction

and he was the leader of all these things, obviously it shouldn't be him, he should pass on the torch. Why is that obvious? And last one here, Hungary Skywalker says, everyone took on Senator Sanders' positions to show they're progressives, all that does is show me that Sanders is a leader and the rest are following or pandering to progressive base that the established Democrats once said they didn't need. So exactly right.

So look, we'll hopefully talk to a lot of the candidates and we already have Warren Sanders and the Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Ojeda while he was in the race and others as well. And we look forward to having the other candidates on as well, you guys make the decision obviously, but he certainly knows how to reach the progressive base. So now, let's talk about that a little bit more. All right. Senator Bernie Sanders has officially announced that he will be running in the 2020 election

as a Democrat, and he did so through a video. So let's take a quick look at that. I'm Bernie Sanders, I'm running for president, and I'm asking you today to be part of an unprecedented grassroots campaign of one million active volunteers. in every state in our country. Our campaign is not only about defeating Donald Trump, the most dangerous president in modern American history. It is not only about winning the Democratic nomination and the general election.

Our campaign is about transforming our country and creating a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial, and environmental justice. I thought that was a powerful announcement video because he did touch on the fact that this isn't just about defeating Trump. And that reminds me of what Hillary Clinton's huge flaw was during the 2016 election, which was that she was making her entire campaign about how important it is to defeat Trump. You need to give voters more of a reason to vote for you. And he, in a very concise way, listed all the ways that he would be a great candidate or a great president. And I love that he included environmental justice in that list, which oftentimes I think is either forgotten about by candidates or is just kind of mentioned here and there to kind of pretend like they care about environmental justice. Yeah, he did his announcement both online and on first on Vermont Public Radio, because he's Bernie Sanders.

I love it. No, I love that he did that. Like everybody's looking for the biggest outlet they could possibly do it on, et cetera. He's like, no, no, no, I started in Vermont. So I'm gonna go with Vermont Public Radio. Now he's probably never gonna run in Vermont again, and he's certainly gonna win Vermont's vote in the primaries and in general, et cetera. So he didn't need to do that for political reasons at all.

But he did that as a way of saying, I believe in my roots. Which leads me to the substantive point that is maybe most important. We just interviewed him on the show. And the point that seems to have resonated the most is, look, who was for all these programs when they weren't popular. And so now, it's easy to be for Medicare for All when it's got a 70% popularity. And by the way, it turns out it's not even that easy because half the Democrats are still like, no, no, no, no, 70% is not high enough, okay?

CNN and New York Times, et cetera, scared me by asking me if that would end private insurance. Well, yeah, the whole point, and I asked Bernie Sanders about that in the last interview we did last week. And he said, yeah, that's the whole point, we're offering you insurance better than private insurance that cost less than private insurance, and you don't have to pay premiums, deductibles, et cetera. So he does not hide from those positions. He does not run from those positions, he runs to those positions.

Right. And now he has made them fairly acceptable, acceptable enough for many of the other major candidates to adopt them. But if one guy came up with the ideas and others adopted them, and look, people will say, hey, Jake, are you being biased and have you already picked the person you want? No, I'm ready to hear everybody out, but my perspective is that I care about being a progressive. And I'm gonna talk to you in a second about what I think you should consider when you're voting for someone, okay?

And let you make up your own mind, obviously. But also, I obviously give you the facts. And it is a fact that Bernie Sanders had all those policy proposals well before, decades before other people got to them. And it is a fact that they got to them when they were already popular. And he did not. He believed in them all along. Now you do whatever you want with that fact, but that is a fact.

And it's not just about the fact that he was the first in proposing and pushing for these policies. You also have to pay very close attention to what these candidates say behind the scenes or what their aides and staffers tell the press behind the scenes. So for instance, during the town hall that Kamala Harris had, she mentioned that she is in favor of Medicare for all, period. But behind the scenes, in a story that we covered, one of her staffers spoke to the press and said that she's actually open to other proposals, including maybe expanding Medicare a little bit or having a Medicare buy-in program.

No, we want Medicare for all, right? And so if someone's already starting to offer caveats behind the scenes, I think that that speaks volume. So my point is just pay attention to what gets done or said behind the scenes, not just what gets said during the debates or during the town halls. Yeah, and so I'll build on that a little bit more too. So let me get to what I think are the different things that you should look for when someone's running for president.

And there are three things. One is, do they match up with your ideology? So this woman sticks in my mind. It was a woman we interviewed in front of a Hillary Clinton, either a rally or one of the debates. And when our reporter asked, why are you voting for Hillary Clinton? And she said, I don't want a revolution. I just want a good candidate. And so if you don't want a revolution, Bernie Sanders is not your candidate.

That's also fairly obvious, right? So that's for you to decide what you want, right? So if you want Medicare for only people above the age of 55, Sherrod Brown just said, I don't want Medicare for all. I just want for people above the age of 55. And eventually some distant time later we'll get to Medicare for all. So that's your candidate. By the way, I don't mean to just pick things that I don't agree with.

I think Cory Booker did a wonderful job on criminal justice reform, and so you have to give them credit for that. I think Elizabeth Warren is a giant when it comes to dealing with financial reform and protecting consumers and getting money out of politics, et cetera. So find the issues that you care about, find out who's on your side on those. Number two, of course, everybody who's going to be able to beat Donald Trump. That's fair, but don't get overfocus on what can Donald Trump say about X, Y, or Z. I don't care what he could say.

The question is, what is your candidate going to say? Is he or she going to be able to effectively fight back and win? And there again, Sanders has a fairly persuasive case to make in all those states that the Democratic Party lost last time around, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, he did way better. When you look at who can win over independence, Bernie Sanders has a history, including in 2016, of being able to win over independence. So I tell you that because the rest of the media assumes things that are not true. They think, well, the more corporate candidate, the more moderate candidate is more likely

to win over independent voters. There is no data to support that. I challenge them to show me one poll that shows that. There is overwhelming data on the other side. Now you could still say, hey, listen, Jenk, it's okay, but I want the moderate candidate, no problem, okay? As long as you know what you want and you know what the facts are. And the last part of it is, even if they say that they're saying that they're saying, they're

say that they want the things that you want, you gotta ask, are they fighters? Right. Are they going to get into the office and then go, hey, you know what, I'm already here, who cares? Or are they gonna say, damn it, I will not rest until I get Green New Deal or money out of politics, whatever it is. You know me, guys, if I was in office, everybody who's ever watched the Young Turks knows, what's the first thing I'd do?

Money out of politics. And I wouldn't rest and I wouldn't sleep and I wouldn't go golfing 78 times, I wouldn't have a golf simulator, I wouldn't watch Fox and Friends, I would do everything I couldn't get money out of politics. So who are those candidates that have that fire in the belly that are gonna, it's not just for politics, that are actually gonna go in there and say, we're not gonna rest until we get this done. And so that's your decision to make.

But Sanders announcing today obviously is an enormous part of that. And does he have fire in the belly? Definitely. Let's keep it real. He's had that fire in the belly for a long, long time. And it doesn't look like anybody can put it out. Okay, we gotta move on to other news, including a breaking news story by the New York Times. Really glad that they published that just an hour or two before we went live and it was like

17 pages long, but nonetheless- Yeah, because their schedules depending on when we go live. No, no, they're definitely thinking about that. But anyway, don't worry, we're ready to do it, so let's get right to it. The New York Times has published an explosive piece which touches on Donald Trump attempting to apparently fix the investigations against him. And yes, investigations meaning plural, there are multiple investigations against him. And in each one he has attempted to stack the deck in his favor. And I'll give you some of the highlights mentioned in this piece.

So according to the Times, Trump called Matthew Whitaker, who was his acting attorney general, and asked whether Jeffrey Berman, a United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, could be put in charge of the widening investigation. Now this investigation had to do with the campaign contributions, the hush money payments that were made to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. And so the idea that he would get one of his allies. to kind of oversee this investigation gives you a sense of where his head was at and how he was trying to kind of fix this in his favor. Now, here's the interesting part. Whitaker knew that Berman

had recused himself from this whole investigation and essentially said, no, I can't do that because of his recusal. And Donald Trump soured on him immediately. Of course he did. So this story leads to the two fatal flaws of Donald Trump and why I said he never lasted four years and he's not going to, because number one, he is deeply corrupt. He can't help himself. Now the entire spotlight of the world is on him. And everybody knows that he picked Matthew Whitaker because he was perceived to be a loyalist. That is when you would want to be most careful and not buttress that point of view.

But he can't help himself. He's been a con man his whole life. So as soon as Whitaker comes in, he's like, okay, now why don't you fix that Southern District case against me? and put my loyalist in there, Jeffrey Berman, and get him out, okay? Get that case out. Now that case is more important in a lot of ways in the Mueller investigation, because that is a clear felony.

It's violating campaign finance laws. His personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is going to prison for three years based on that. So that is monumentally important to him. And for him to try to interfere in that investigation is obstruction 101. You would think that he might do it in a more subtle way. No, he doesn't have a subtle bone in his body. And even if you're a supporter, you know that, and that's part of why you like him, okay? But so yes, that's now on top of the campaign finance violation, which was obvious to begin

with. We now have clear obstruction. This is felony on top of felony. It's amazing. So look, I asked Bernie Sanders, and he says, look, I'm a judge in the case if it said there's an impeachment and the Senate has to decide whether they throw him out of office, so I don't want to be too prejudicial here, but does it look like obstruction? Of course it does.

Anybody can't, so you don't need Mueller. We already have two super obvious and super important felonies right here on the record. And by the way, the New York Times story has more in a second. But then point number two is the second defining trait, lack of intelligence. And no homework, spoiled little child. You didn't bother to find out if Berman had recused himself. You're asking your acting Attorney General to commit an illegal act and why you, and you didn't even bother to check to see Berman had recused himself.

How unbelievably stupid are you? So this is now what, the 50th time that Donald Trump has soured on his allies, his friends, because they didn't carry out whatever mission he wants them to carry out in his favor. And so he sours on Whitaker immediately because he's not willing to put an ally in charge of this investigation. But here's the thing that I don't understand. The fact that he still has loyalists, the fact that he still has individuals who are willing to work for him, who are willing to fight for him, knowing that if they make one small move

in the wrong direction in Trump's perception, he will turn on them immediately. Well, Anna, we talked about Gullab in one of our members-only sections, right? And that power, man, it's precious. And so now, Whitaker thinks, oh, no, no, first of all, Whitaker's chances of being Attorney General in any way, shape, reform was non-existent before Trump. And Trump's like, this meathead will do whatever I ask of him, that's what he said publicly, right? So I'll pick him.

But even he's not enough of a meathead for him to be like, yeah, but you're asking me, A, to commit an obvious illegal act, and B, I can't even do it because Berman already turned it down because he refused himself. You're asking me to do something literally impossible. And then he's, Trump's like, oh, yeah, then I don't like you. So, what is it gonna get through your thick skulls that he's gonna turn on you? He doesn't care about you, he doesn't care about his loyalist, he doesn't care about his friends, his attorneys, he doesn't care about anybody.

And by the way, this goes all the way to his voters. They think, no, I know he's ripped off everybody in his past, Trump University, the Trump charity, so-called charity, and Jeff Sessions and everyone, he Sessions was the first senator back in when it was deeply controversial to back Donald Trump. And what did he return that favor with? Threw him under the bus. Yes. And that's how he views you guys, you're the last sucker at the parade.

So before I get to the other giant part of the story, I do want to quickly comment on something regarding Jeff Sessions. So as we all know, Donald Trump was furious at the fact that Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the Russia investigation. And he was public about that. He tweeted about how horrible Sessions is for doing so. But he never fired Sessions until after the midterm elections, right? And so the reason why he didn't fire Sessions is because he was advised, and I think this

was actually good advice, to avoid doing so that it would be better if Sessions resigns on his own. So what did Trump do? Let's go to Graphic 12. According to the Times, Trump called his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, over the 4th of July weekend, to ask him to pressure Sessions to resign. Lewandowski was non-committal and never acted on that request. Even the meathead of meatheads, Corey Lewandowski, is smart enough to know that, hey, what,

I can't randomly call the attorney general like some sort of thug and be like, hey, you know what? I think it's been your best interest to resign out. Who the hell's Cory Lewandowski? He's not in the government. Why would he be calling the attorney general and yelling at him to resign? That makes no sense at all. But Trump asked people to do things that are illegal and impossible all the time. And so the savvy guys like Lewandowski only care about the power and the wealth go, sure,

boss, of course boss, I'll call him right after the barbecue boss hangs up because I'm not going to call him, he'll forget anyway, right? And Whitaker on the other hand is a sweaty mess. He's like, oh my God, oh my God, he wants me to do this, I don't know what I'm supposed to do. Yeah, you can't do it. And so they better get these folks up in whether or not. it's in front of prosecutors, most importantly, but eventually in front of Congress as well,

let's get them on the record and make sure you ask him these specific questions, because Whitaker said, oh, no, he didn't ask me to interfere in the Mueller investigation. I didn't talk about the Southern District of New York. He did have a vaguer answer on all the investigation, let's bring him back, let's ask him this specific question under penalty of law. And Whitaker, you think Trump's gonna have your back? No, he'll let you go to jail. He doesn't care about you, right?

So the second giant part of the story has to do with Donald Trump's lawyers reaching out to individuals like Paul Manafort and his former national security advisor Michael Flynn. Now both individuals were implicated in this Russia investigation, and as we know, they're facing the legal consequences of that. But according to the times, one of Trump's lawyers also reached out to the lawyers for Manafort and Flynn to discuss possible pardons. The discussions raised questions about whether the president was willing to offer pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the Mueller investigation.

But there's a little bit more to this. Now Giuliani was also somewhat involved. Behind the scenes, Giuliani was getting help from an individual named Kevin Downing, a lawyer for Manafort. Manafort had agreed to cooperate with the special counsel after being convicted of financial crimes in an attempt to lessen a potentially lengthy prison sentence. Downing shared details about prosecutors' lines of questioning with Giuliani. Yeah, so that is highly unusual, but it is, that part I don't believe is illegal.

So, you know, Trump and Manafort's lawyers working together, okay, it gives you a sense of, because Trump said, oh, I don't get Manafort's a totally different case, it has nothing to do with me. Because a lot of Manafort's case is separate, it's about how he had deals with the Russian back Ukrainian oligarchs, et cetera, okay. And so if Trump didn't care about it, why are the two lawyers cooperating, unless Manafort also has evidence on Trump? Because if Manafort doesn't have evidence on Trump, you think Trump's gonna give a damn,

you ain't gonna care at all. But the part about talking to their lawyers about pardons. That's huge. Obstruction of Justice 101, again, clear obstruction of justice, clear felony, gotta go. I mean, look, if at this point, if I get it, they want to wait for the Mueller report, but you don't need the Mueller report. If the Mueller report comes out and the Democrats do not go for impeachment, they're playing politics.

And it's a bizarre, it's a total, bizarre, but classic democratic move. We will not pursue something that would help us and is against our opponent because we're too scared. And that would be the only reason why. Because if you actually care about the law, you got to make sure that the president is not above the law, and these appear to be very clear violations of the law. So they should pursue impeachment now, no matter what. What I found interesting, and it goes to your point about Trump not being a very smart person, so Mueller found out about how Trump's lawyers were speaking to Manafort's lawyers about a potential pardon. And it really upset him, which is, remember, that whole story came out about how Mueller was no longer buying into this notion that Manafort was cooperating with the investigation.

And this is why, because behind the scenes, you have the lawyers for Trump working with Manafort's lawyers and kind of working out a potential pardon. Yes, I'll give you something if you don't testify, is the definition of obstruction of justice. So the only question now that remains is, are they going to do anything about it? I don't think so. Look, that's what concerns me the most about all of this. I think that even if something's giant comes out of this investigation, even if they prove that there's significant money laundering through this investigation, which is what you and I are hoping Mueller is really looking into, Republicans have supported and backed Donald

Trump no matter what. And you need Republicans to have a back. in order to push for impeachment. They just, they support him. I mean, Lindsey Graham talking about launching an investigation into the investigation. And Lindsey Graham's not the only one. He thinks this is a completely political, politically biased investigation to Trump. This isn't about a politically biased investigation.

You have Republicans investigating him. Mueller is a lifelong Republican. Rod Rosenstein, lifelong Republican. This is not a democratic witch hunt. This is looking into some serious crimes, potential crimes that the President of the United States committed. Yes. Well, look, even if they don't think the Republicans are going to vote with them, Democrats

should pursue it because it's the right thing to do. Because we live in a democracy and no one is above the rule of law. So we've got to take another quick break here. We've got a lot more stories for you guys coming up, including a McCabe bombshell about how the Republicans knew all along that the FBI was investigating Donald Trump for possibly working with the Russians. They didn't mind at all, so they've been lying to you the whole time. Roger Stone seems to threaten a federal judge.

I'll tell you the real reason he might have done it that I don't think anybody else in media is talking about. And then Klobuchar, she had a town hall. Disaster. Okay, we will break that down for you guys as well. And if you miss any part of this show, including the Bernie Sanders interview that happened or the Elizabeth Warren interview that's going to happen a little bit later in the program. Of course, if you remember, you can get all the show anytime you want, tyt.com slash join.

And if you want a free trial, tyt.com slash trial to make that happen. We'll be right back. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address. making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers.

ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN.

And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra. months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free session. Well, we just had a progressive candidate on and Bernie Sanders are going to have another one in Elizabeth Warren. But I want to tell you about our sponsor that's also progressive.

They do progressive banking, basically. It's Aspiration.com slash TYT is the way to get to it. And they're wonderfully progressive. They don't put your money in anything that's the dirty industries, oil, guns, for profit prisons. So you're gonna have peace of mind about where your money is. And I kid around about how they're too liberal, they let you charge whatever you want for your own fees. I don't know how they do that.

And they have the best interest rate and you don't have to pay any fees on ATMs anywhere. So if you want a great progressive place to put your money, Aspiration.com slash TYT, and there's a good reason why they're a sponsor. And then I also want to tell you guys that next, no, this Thursday, February 21st, two days from Now, one of our segments will be just for the members. Okay, so we gotta do that from time to time. We gotta look out for our members because you're what make this show possible. So t-y-t.com slash trial, by the way, gets you a free week so you can just test it out.

You could use this week, watch all the interviews and watch all the segments, and we'll do that on Thursday. Now I want to read a couple of quick comments for you guys. Can I add something to that real quick? So we're putting a lot of our programming, extra programming. behind that paywall to give more to our members. And one of those shows is my show, no filter. So previously it was not available to our members, and it will be, and I'm really excited

about that. And by the way, if you want to get the completely free podcast version, which is all audio, you can do that on any platform that has podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, you get it. And last week, Brett filled in for me, and it was a really great episode on Amazon, and its decision to pull out of New York, please check that out. It was a really great podcast. And he's outshining me, I don't like it, but he's good. So we got a lot of great podcasts for you guys.

Larry Lessig on Money Out of Politics, Nina Turner, Nick Hanauer, a pitchfork economics, damage report. But as Anna pointed out, for the members, you get to see the video version of No Filter and Damage Report going forward. So Perry S says, I think Bernie has been watching aggressive progressives. There was fire in his words and passion in his eyes in that interview. Well, to be fair, he's always had that kind of fire, if you ask me. But one of you guys actually bought Bernie Sanders and his team, Young Turks membership,

so there's some chance he was watching, and maybe he's been watching No Filter as well. Well, there's also plenty of fire. And Smooth says, Bernie's also intelligent enough to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin. I'll leave it at that. And Goat Coos writes in Anna and Jenks saying, precious together needs to go on the sound. And Ty Johnson, last one, YouTube super chat makes a good point. Jank, what we failed to acknowledge is that Trump is the greatest test of our checks and balances in American history.

It's a really well put tie and exactly right, and we're gonna see if the system can survive. So like I told you on the night of the election, race for impact, and here we are. Okay, Anna, what's next? Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is spilling the tea. He's spilling it all over the place, and he did a recent interview that will prove that further. So he had previously mentioned that he had launched an investigation back in May of 2017 on Donald Trump, and this was following his firing of James Comey. He had reason to believe that Trump was involved with Russia.

We all know about all that. But the latest bombshell has to do with his meeting with the so-called gang of eight, a bipartisan group and how they reacted after he told them that he had launched this investigation. Take a look. You and other members of your team briefed the so-called gang of eight. These are the leaders of Congress in the days after Comey was fired about the Russian investigation. So it would have been the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and Democratic counterparts. Did you tell them that you had opened a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump?

The purpose of the briefing was to let our congressional leadership know exactly what we'd been doing. Opening a case of this nature, not something that an FBI director, not something that an acting FBI director do by yourself, right? This was a recommendation

that came to me for my team. I reviewed it with our lawyers. I discussed it at length. Did you tell Congress? And I told Congress what we had done. Did anyone object? That's the important part here, Savannah. No one objected.

Not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds, and not based on the facts. So, there were Republicans in the room and no one objected to it? So let me lay out the Republicans in the room. She mentioned a half list, obviously. But Mitch McConnell, who now is saying like, oh, I can't believe that they're investigating Donald Trump.

The FBI told Mitch McConnell now years ago, we're gonna invest in Donald Trump for possibly working with the Russians. He's like, oh, okay, good, let's go ahead, go forward. Didn't object, didn't say anything, didn't say, whoa, what do you, hey, what is this? A bureaucratic coup, that's the language they use now, right? No, they were like, yeah, that makes sense, obviously. And now, so McConnell, Paul Ryan, but Richard Burr, Senator from North Carolina, Richard Burr has been fairly quiet and kind of on message, like you don't see him going out on TV

and be like, no, Trump is awesome. So Burr knows a lot, and it's fascinating how quiet he's been, okay? So we'll have to watch him later. If they really are impeachment proceedings, which way does Burgo? He's known it all along. But the last name on the list is interesting, Devin Nunes. So he's the guy who's been backing Trump this whole time. He was on Trump's transition team.

And then he was supposed to lead the investigation in the house on Trump, hilarious, right? But the FBI told Nunes, we're looking into Trump for possibly working with a foreign adversary while he's president. And then it's like, yeah, okay, no problem, no objections. Oh, man. So what they say behind the scenes and what they say in front of the camera do not match at all. Of course they don't. Politicians are going to politician, right?

So in a way, this is a bombshell, but if you really think about it and most political stories that you cover, this is par for the course when it comes to certain or most politicians, right? They will say one thing publicly, which is of course defending the president in some cases doing so vociferously. And then behind the scenes, they'll be completely complicit in this type of investigation. Yeah, the only good piece of journalism that any conservative blog has ever done was Eric Erickson, of all people, had a conversation with a Republican congressman, and we report on this some

months back, and ask them, what do you think of Trump? And he's like, oh, crazy, idiot, liar, what do you need me to say? We all think the same thing. But we, of course, can't say it on TV because then we'll get a primary challenger or, you know, the base will turn on us and it's bad politics. But we all can't stand him. And the reason they can't stand him is not because he's not conservative enough, he's plenty, conservative, plenty.

And it's not, they don't disagree on policy much at all, tax cuts for the rich, you know, anti-immigration, you name it. It's just they, it's super obvious to everyone, what an unbelievable liar he is. And how much intermingling he did with Russia? maybe before the election, certainly after the election, and how bizarre that he's been acting and obviously how much he's tried to obstruct the investigations against him. Right, and I think Republicans, there are other things that they don't like about him. I don't think that they agree with him on most policies.

For instance, declaring this national emergency is something that most Americans don't agree with, and a lot of Republicans don't agree with either because they're worried about it setting a bad precedent. That's just one example. Yes, when it comes to things like tax cuts for the wealthy, even some Democrats, agree with that. We know that. But I think they also hate the fact that Donald Trump has now made it abundantly clear what

the Republican Party is really about. There was a lot of covert racism going on. Donald Trump came in and made it very overt. He's been very transparent about some of the corrupt influences within politics. And he's also been clear about, you know, what Republicans or how far Republicans are willing to go for their donors, for the corporate world. how much disdain they have for the poor. These are things that have been clear to people like us because we've been paying close attention.

But Republicans have been careful in hiding those characteristics. Donald Trump comes in and he just like, you know, blows the door open and lets everyone know what these politicians are really about. They hate that. So last two things on this. So another fascinating thing we found out in the Trump era is that the Republican voters are actually more odious than even the Republican politicians, which I thought was previously unimaginable.

on every issue, and they actually hate the corruption, and they're good on that, et cetera. But for example, on declaring a national emergency, which clearly does not exist to build a wall, a lot of Republican politicians are like, but that's a bad precedent, that would be a really bad idea. What if a Democratic president then abuses that power, besides which is not constitutional, et cetera, 85% of Republican voters are like, yes, that's it, national emergency declare a wall, NPR, PBS poll just out right now. now.

So now, the overwhelming judge of the country does not agree. 61% of the country says no, right? But 85% of Republican voters are like, yes, okay? I know, but I mean, do you think that these voters are thinking ahead to the future? And do you think they're worried about what type of precedent this sets? No, they see this strong man president and they think to themselves, this is great. He's giving us what he promised, even though he should have done it much earlier in his presidency when it would have been easier.

And he's pulling whatever stunt he needs to pull in order to make it happen. They're not thinking about the future, they're not thinking about the precedent. My guess is if a Democrat pulled the same stunt to fulfill one of their policy proposals, they wouldn't be too happy about it. Oh, they'd be furious about it. But it turns out that they care less about the Constitution, less about the law, less about facts than even Republican politicians. And less about their fellow Americans, because this is money that's going to be taken

out of funds necessary to help those who have suffered from natural disasters, you know, things like that. So you care about your hate monument so much that you're willing to leave your fellow Americans, many of whom might be in the same political party as you. You're willing to leave them out in the cold. It's disgusting. And super last thing is that the whole point of telling a gang of eight that you're doing an FBI investigation is so they can say, no, don't.

So if the FBI was, this had come in and said, hey, we're going to do an investigation on Donald Trump because we don't like his politics. We don't want to build a wall and we, you know, we think Muslims are okay and we shouldn't do a travel ban. For example, the gang of eight would go, what? No, no, you're not allowed to do an investigation of Donald Trump because you don't like his politics. That's insane.

No, you're, no, we're gonna do something about it. We're gonna prevent you from doing that. But their reaction in this case was not that at all. If they thought it was political, if they thought it was a political, if they thought it was a, coup, if they thought it was unconstitutional. That's the whole point of telling the gang of eight. They would then say, no way, not on our watch. Apparently, the FBI told him, and they were like, mm-hmm, yep, that makes sense.

Okay, okay, so can we talk about the future a little bit? So, of course, publicly, the Trump administration is going to say, oh, McCabe, he's disgruntled and angry because he got fired, yada, yada, but pay close attention to Donald Trump's relationship with the likes of Mitch McConnell, right? Because Mitch McConnell was in that room, he knew about this investigation, he did not oppose it, and I'm very curious to see, and Donald Trump, it doesn't take much for Donald Trump to sour on anyone. So I am so looking forward to that drums. I love that kind of drums. It's going to be great. Yeah, yeah. So here comes a legendary cat fight. So apparently I won't be the only one tweeting, Mitch, please. That's too clever. You probably will be the only one tweet.

Not Trump. Instead, he'll be like, bad Mitch, just give him a new nickname. Gotcha, bitch! Although actually that's slightly clever. Oh, he's a bad Mitch. Oh yeah, that is clever. Okay, but he'll find the least clever thing, we know it. Yes.

Okay, next story or take a break? Let's do the next story. All right. Roger Stone has found himself apologizing following a social media post where he put a U.S. federal judge in crosshairs. Now the judge is U.S. District Judge Amy Berman, Jackson, and she is the federal judge overseeing his criminal case. Now his criminal case, of course, has to do with the fact that he was tampering with witnesses

in the Russia investigation, among other things. And so I want to show you what he posted on Instagram, I believe, and then he later took it down, okay? No, this is a Facebook post. So let's go to Graphic 2. So here's what he had posted, and the comment next to it said this. Through legal trickery, deep state hitman, Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed judge who dismissed the Benghazi

charges against Hillary Clinton and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime fixes in, help me fight for my life. And then he solicited people for donations to help him in his legal troubles. Now, the reason why this is getting a lot of attention is if you look at the photo again, you'll see that there are, there is crosshairs, like right next to her face, right? On the top left-hand corner. So let's go to Graphic 2, you'll see it. Not a good idea.

It's a little crop there, unfortunately, but it's there. And so later, it was taken down for obvious reasons, and he sort of apologized for it. But keep in mind that this judge also imposed a gag order against Roger Stone because he was going on his usual media tour, badmouting everyone and kind of jeopardizing some of this investigation and this case. Later, he apologized because his lawyers forced him to, and he said the following. A photo of Judge Jackson posted on my Instagram has been misinterpreted. This was a random photo taken from the internet, any inference that this was meant to threaten

the judge or disrespect the court is categorically false. No, I'll tell you exactly why he did it. So it is not random, not remotely. Look at not just the imagery he used, but the words he used. He literally said hitman in the text of the article. He is theoretically talking about Robert Mueller, but when you put a crosshairs next to a judge's head and you refer the other side has hit men. And then he says, I'm fighting for my life.

And so there are several implications here about the judge. And then he said, oh, I just got the picture off of a Google search. So you know what I did? I did a Google search. Doesn't exist. So as soon as the story broke, I did the Google search. And I went page after page. The only reference was to the Roger Stone Instagram post, okay?

Outside of that, the picture didn't come up at all. It was perfectly normal pictures of Amy Berman Jackson, the judge, and by the way, you quickly run out of her pictures and then becomes random Jackson's and Amies and Bermans, right? There aren't that many pictures of her. And so, no, he searched for that picture and specifically put it up. And so I definitely believe you because he's a trickster, he's known for lying, and I don't really care what his excuses are. But what matters to me more than the imagery here is what he has to say.

So let's say in a best case scenario for him, he's telling the truth and the crosshairs were included in the image and he didn't realize it, yada, yada. What he wrote is what's problematic, right? He and people of his ilk incite people, right? And that's the problem, right? You're putting her in the crosshairs by using this type of commentary in describing her in describing the investigation. He's making it seem as though he's a victim.

You're not a victim when emails and text messages perfectly prove that you threatened witnesses in this investigation, right? Threatening people by saying that you're going to take their dogs. Like what are you, the wicked witch of the West? people in every way possible to ensure that they don't cooperate in the investigation. That is a crime. That is the reason why you were arrested early in the morning. That is why you're facing legal troubles now.

So now we get to the real reason that I believe he did it. It wasn't to get her assassinated, I hope not. I don't know what's in his mind in that regard. But he did not want her as a judge. And the post is complaining about how they picked the judge. and he didn't like it and he wants another judge. Now, if you do something deeply personal against the judge, then you can make an argument that the judge should recuse herself because she's now too much personally invested in the case.

So, hey, I'm going to need another judge here because she thinks I threatened her life. She's obviously not going to be fair to me. She's going to be biased against me because I nearly had her murdered. So I'm going to need a new judge. He's so gross. He's so gross. And so I believe that that's his real reason for why he did that. He knew all along that people would notice.

He knew he would immediately take the picture down. He'd do the court filing to apologize. But then at the end, and so this is why we do these things ahead of time. You'll now see, if I'm right, he will now go in front of the judge and go, well, obviously, you can't be my judge anymore, and I'm gonna, we're gonna need a new judge in this case. If I'm wrong, he won't do that, and we'll all get to see it for ourselves. But my guess is that'll be their next move. Yeah, that's a really good theory.

But either way, there's just so much evidence against him. Again, in the form of text messages, emails, you threatened witnesses, dude. Like, it doesn't matter what judge you get. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. So we'll see how this plays out. And the next judge, you think is going to be thrilled that you threaten the life of the previous Judge, okay, but all he has is dirty tricks. So when you're wrong on the facts and wrong on the law and all you've ever done your whole

life is dirty tricks, you go back to that same old bag, and that's the only bag he's got. Let's take a break. When we come back, we will talk about Donald Trump's very savvy political strategy for winning 2020. Oh yeah, I love the story. And we'll get to Klobuchar and her disastrous CNN appearance. in my opinion, our opinion. And then Joe Crowley,

whatever happened to Joe Crowley, he's got a new job. You'll never guess what it is. We'll tell you when we come back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content,

and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jan Yugar, and I'll see you soon.