The Young Turks - Bibi Gets Berned

Episode Date: May 24, 2024

There’s tension brewing in Congress over an invitation for Netanyahu to address lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Harvard’s governing board bars 13 pro-Palestinian students from receiving degrees. President Joe Biden is expected to announce a new policy that would allow him to close the southern border between certain points of entry, this would effectively mirror a provision in the Senate’s bipartisan border bill that has already infuriated progressives." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) 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. Gettysburg, wow. Oh my God. The guy! Well, the young Turks, half of us are live from the polymarker studio in LA. I'm still at home, probably one more day.

And we got a hell of a show for you guys as usual. So let's get right into it, Anna. What do you got? Let's do it. We begin with some updates on, well, it's not really updates on Gaza. It's more an update on how we have this bipartisan effort in Congress to suck up to the prime minister of Israel. So let's take it away. What do you make of Netanyahu coming to address Congress?

Would you go to that? It's a terrible idea. No, I won't come. Look, you have a prime minister who has created the way. worst humanitarian disaster in modern history. Senator Bernie Sanders explains why he's rejecting an invitation to hear Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address a joint session of Congress. He's not the only one who thinks it's a bad idea. Let's watch.

Israel, of course, had the right to defend itself against the Hamas terrorist attack. But what Netanyahu has done has gone to war against all out war, against the entire war. against the entire Palestinian people, women and children. 5% of the population is now dead or wounded, 60% of them are women and children. Some 200,000 housing units have been completely destroyed. Every university in Gaza has been bombed. There is now imminent starvation taking place.

So why you would invite somebody who has done such horrific things to the Palestinian people is something that I think is a very bad idea. Bernie is undeniably correct, especially when you consider the fact that the international criminal court is now considering arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu. And so the event itself is something worth discussing, the invitation for Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress. Now, among the lawmakers who think that BB speaking to Congress is a bad idea is the House Intelligence Committee ranking member, Jim Himes, who's a Democrat from Connecticut. He said that Netanyahu should be focused on freeing hostages, not charming legislators.

Representative Dan Kildee from Michigan, a member of the Democratic leadership also said that I don't think it's a good time. Let's not complicate an already complicated situation. And guys, believe it or not, even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is against this idea. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of the idea simply no. But some Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to not even sign on to the invitation idea. And here's where we run into some issues because while it should be relatively easy for Schumer to reject this idea and not sign on to it. it. He appears to be open to it. So I want to just remind you of what Schumer said on the Senate floor in regard to Benjamin Netanyahu very recently. Let's watch.

The fourth major obstacle to peace is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has all too frequently bowed to the demands of extremists like Minister Smotrick and Ben Gavir and the settlers in the West Bank at this critical. I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel. So there you have Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer making abundantly clear that he sees Netanyahu as a detriment to Israel and a detriment to peace, and he called for new elections. But when it comes to inviting Netanyahu to the United States to address members of Congress

in a joint session. Apparently he's open-minded to it. The person who came up with this idea, by the way, is Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said of Chuck Schumer, our staffs have communicated and it seems as though he wants to sign on. Schumer told reporters yesterday on Wednesday that he's discussing that now with the Speaker of the House. And as I've always said, our relationship with Israel is ironclad and transcends any one prime minister or president. Yeah, but you're inviting the guy that you want to step down to come speak to a joint session of Congress for what? What is the purpose of that? I think we know what the purpose is. I'll let you jump in and explain, Jank. Yeah, so the purpose is money. They are all getting

paid by APEC Schumbers in the top 10 recipients of APEC money. Biden's number one recipient, number one donor to Mike Johnson on the Republican side, who did the original invite APEC, APAC, APAC, APAC. That is 100% the reason why they're doing this. Both, to be honest, both the Jewish and the Muslim vote are tiny in the country. The Muslim vote is a little bit relevant in Michigan. And so that's not the driving issue. The youth vote is a driving issue, which I'll get to in a second. But otherwise, all they want is the money. That's the only thing that anybody focused on. That's why we love Bernie Sanders. Because Bernie Sanders doesn't care.

about the money. He doesn't take A-PAC money. And by the way, Bernie Sanders, not only is Jewish, he lived in Israel for a while. So this idea that you're against Israel, if you say maybe we shouldn't annihilate all the Palestinians in Gaza, is absurd. It's totally absurd. And in fact, if you were a true friend to Israel, you would try to get them to turn around instead of going down this dark and destructive path, not just for the Palestinians, but for themselves. That's why Bernie is on that side, but the Schumers of the world care less. Where's the money? Where's the money? Okay, but, you know, and again, don't take it out just as Schumer. Schumer is at least on the fence, right? The Lee Stephanics, the Mike Johnson's are the worst of the worst.

And look, credit to Pelosi, a thing that I almost never say, but she's on the right side of this. So why are some of the corporate Democrats that normally supported Israel 200% no matter what they do, all of a sudden a little skittish about inviting that in Yahoo? Because they've seen the poll numbers. And they're like, oh, APAC money, poll numbers, APA, well, if you don't have the poll numbers, at least the congressional representatives are beginning to understand, you might lose. And the point of the money was to win. So if you lose, that was kind of dumb on your part. And so what's the one thing they care about?

Less than the Jewish vote, less than the Arab and Muslim vote, it's the youth vote. And the youth vote is gone. If you go out there and you kiss Netanyahu's ass, every young, almost every young person in America knows that Yahoo is one of the worst war criminals of our lifetime. And they didn't grow up on your mainstream media propaganda telling them that Israel is the most moral army and nonsense, ludicrous talking points like that. So they see, you know, a guy who's butchered 24,000 women and children. And if you go out there and give them a standing ovation, they'll probably hate you forever. Exactly. And they should. Exactly. And you know, to your point, Jank, Democrats in Congress are willing to go against Benjamin Netanyahu

for their own political purposes, for their political advantage. So a perfect example of that is what happened back in 2015, following the nuclear deal that Obama was able to broker with Iran to ensure that they're not developing nuclear weapons. There were other European countries involved in that agreement. But nonetheless, it infuriated Benjamin Netanyahu. He did not want the United States to agree to a nuclear deal with Iran, even though it was preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, he should have co-signed

and been in favor of that. But everything we've seen from Netanyahu has kind of tried to drive the United States into a hot war with Iran, which of course would be disastrous. Now with that in mind, Netanyahu in 2015 came to the United States to speak before Congress and speak out against that nuclear deal with Iran. And every Democrat refused to go watch him speak. They didn't go to his speech except for one. And that one Democrat at the time was Tulsi Gabbard. And so after that, the 2016 election happens. There's obviously hostility toward Tulsi Gabbard because of the fact that she was willing to go support Netanyahu and watch him speak. And that was really the reason why she stepped down from the DNC really didn't have anything to do with

how dismayed she was over how Bernie Sanders was treated by the Democratic establishment at the time. But nonetheless, my point in bringing up that situation is the fact that if they see that supporting Netanyahu is not politically advantageous, then they won't go see him speak. They won't support what he's doing. And so I think that's really what's informing the decisions being made and the statements being made by the likes of Nancy Pelosi. However, there are some Democrats who think, no, this should be a bipartisan event, and Democrats should totally go. One of those individuals is Democratic Florida representative, Jared Moskowitz, who says the following. Even though we might have policy disagreements with Netanyahu, as we do with some of our NATO allies, I think he should get with the speaker and make it bipartisan, meaning make the attendance of his speech bipartisan. Again, let me just reiterate, a little problematic to go watch and support a speech given by an individual who might be facing an ICC arrest warrant soon due to the war crimes that have been committed in the Gaza Strip.

So any final words on this, Jake? Yeah, I want to give two members on tYT.com slash team shoutouts here because make good points. Ouch by Nards, I know it's funny every time, but on this serious issue says whoever is denouncing that in Yahoo right now is, is going to win the presidency in 2028. This will be the you voted for the Iraq war gotcha issue of the future. So I think that if you support like at least Stephanics, McCarthyite hearings, and you invite and then give a standing ovation to the most obvious war criminal of our lifetime. Yeah, I think there's some chance is going to come and catch out with you, not just from the left,

but also from the right. And so with allies like Israel, who needs enemies? And I think that if you, you know, when Muscoitz says, oh, you know, sometimes we have the disagreements with allies, but you know, we invite them anyway. Yeah, I don't remember France or Netherlands killing 24,000 women and children and us cheerleading it and paying for it. This is not a slight disagreement with an ally. This is our so-called ally committing some of the worst war crimes of our lifetime. But Muscoitz doesn't see it that way because Muscoitz doesn't think Palestinian lives are worth. anything. Well, does he think that American lives matter? Because currently there are around 20 American doctors trapped in Gaza. They're unable to leave because Israel has taken control of the Rafa border crossing. And so when Ryan Grimm asked the State Department during a press conference last week, what the United States is going to do about this, you want to know what the answer was, Jake? It's complicated. It's complicated. It's apparently complicated to get

the ally of the United States Israel to free American doctors who are currently trapped in Gaza, which, by the way, is being bombarded with bombs that have been supplied by the United States government. Like, how absurd is that? So does Moskowitz care about Americans? No, of course. I mean, it doesn't shock me at this point that we have, unfortunately, members of Congress who don't see Palestinian civilian lives as human lives. I find it disgusting and deplorable, but does he care about American lives?

No. Representative Muscoitz, like there isn't anything Israel could do that he wouldn't agree to. And so he wants, he can't wait to give a standing ovation to Natanyahu who is butchered at least 24,000 women and children, innocent, all of them innocent. There's 35,000 dead overall, 77,000 injured, 10,000 more buried in the rubble, a million starving, and let alone the American doctors, but Representative Muscoitz, who thinks, who cares Who cares? Who cares? The beloved Israel is way more important than American doctors, Palestinian lives, which you couldn't care less about. Look, the people who are supporting Israel's

annihilation of Gaza, they're going to have to carry that mark of shame for the rest of their lives to say, yeah, I was in favor of the of butchering 24,000 women and children, burning them alive, dropping 2,000 pound bombs on them, let alone the destruction of all of Gaza, including every college. And now the story just broke that Israeli soldiers are burning books in Gaza while celebrating in front of the burning books. Like ha ha, you won't get an education. We won't let you have a state. We killed your family members. We annihilated 70% of the buildings in Gaza. Now we're burning the books and the education. So the people who supported these IDF terrorists will carry around the rest of their lives. I hope you're

proud. I hope you're proud of the death and destruction that you supported and funded. Anyone who stands up for Netanyahu will carry that for the rest of their lives as one of the worst, most disgusting things you could do. And finally, another member, and I know these funny handles are all funny. And normally there's funny times, this is a sad and tragic time, but kami poison, blood, vermin, writes in with a lot of good things and says, Bernie gives me hope for humanity, of course, and that's exactly right because there is one honest man in Congress, at least, right? And when Bernie Sanders gets out there and stops the gaslighting and says, what are we doing? These Palestinians, of course they're human beings just like everybody else.

We can't just go wantonly kill their women and children and then applaud the guy who did it. Thank you, Bernie Sanders, thank you Jamie Raskin, Rokana, all the, and yes, definitely Rashida Talib, AOC, Ilhan Omar, all of the brave people in this Congress, Jamal Bowman, Corey Bush, that all stood up for innocent lives, whether they're Israeli or Palestinian. For the people who said, no, I only care about one set of lives and not the others, well, you'll have that on your conscience for the rest of your life. Yeah, I totally agree with you.

I mean, the moral clarity demonstrated by Bernie Sanders on this issue is admirable and fairly rare in our Congress because he had no problem condemning the atrocities committed by Hamas and they absolutely should be condemned, while also acknowledging that, yes, Israel has a right to defend itself, but it doesn't have the right to annihilate Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have done nothing wrong. And so I appreciate his voice and the moral clarity that he provides at a time where it feels like there's a lack of morality overall in our government. Well, let's take a break. When we come back, there's some Pretty awful news out of Harvard having to do with some of the student demonstrators.

They will be denied degrees. And we're not really getting much of an explanation as to what they did to lead to that decision. So we'll give you that story and more when we come back. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. Also, Dawn Whitehead, thank you for gifting membership. Jamie Timberman, Box and Jesse, thank you for gifting five apiece. You guys are amazing, much love to you all. Look, you see me reading the member comments in the middle of the stories because you guys

are the show, you're part of the show, we do this thing together. TYT.com slash team, we're disastrously behind on donations. So if you can, please help t.com slash team. And also, of course, please sign on for membership. Anna, what's next? Well, you might have noticed some of the ongoing trends during commencement ceremonies across the country, including what happened today at Harvard. Free free palestine, free palestine, free palestine.

Let them walk, let them walk, let them walk, let them walk, let them walk. Let them walk. As you see from the video, hundreds of Harvard students decided to walk out in the middle of graduation today in protest of the school board's decision to withhold diplomas from 13 students who participated in the pro-peace, pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Now, they were part of the encampment, they were also part of the encampment that agreed to dismantle the encampment, as long as they weren't going to be met with harsh punishment from Harvard. But it appears that Harvard didn't keep up their side of the bargain, and they're not really explaining why. So let me give you the details as we know them at the moment.

So just days after the faculty members voted in favor of giving the students their diplomas, the school board jumps in and they decide to reject the decision, which ends up angering both the students and the staff at Harvard. On Monday, 115 faculty members showed up to a meeting in which a decisive majority voted to confer degrees on the 13 seniors. The students were notified of disciplinary charges from the Harvard College Administrative Board just three days earlier. Now even though the protesters dismantled their encampment voluntarily last week with the understanding, I want to repeat again, with the understanding that the university would be lenient in punishing them, them. Withholding diplomas, not lenient. Now, during the meeting, faculty members claimed

that it had the authority to add the students back onto the list of degrees for conferral because the disciplinary actions from the administrative board were subject to approval by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the ultimate disciplinary body for the college, according to the university's governing statutes. But the Harvard Corporation disagreed. with this. And two days after the meeting, they decided to overrule them. The Harvard corporation in a statement explaining its decision cited the Harvard College Handbook, which says that a degree will not be granted to a student who is not in good standing or against whom a disciplinary charge is pending with the administrative board, the Honor Council,

or the disciplinary board of another school. Now, it's important to know that there's still a lot of information missing in this story, namely because the board is not really giving us much of an explanation as to why they've made this decision in regard to the 13 students. The students in question are either on probate, like we don't know if they're either on probation or suspended. Harvard hasn't provided a breakdown of the disciplinary actions or what the students had allegedly done saying it can't comment on individual cases. And we don't we don't know if the students were punished for any legitimate reasons or just participating in the encampment itself. And so look, all we can do since they're not giving us any

real explanation or any real reasons for why they're withholding diplomas from these 13 students is speculate as to why they're doing it. And that's what I want to do right now because just a day earlier, guys, there was a story about how Harvard is now facing a federal lawsuit. That federal lawsuit has been filed by the Lewis Brandeis Center for Human Rights and the Jewish Americans for Fairness and Education. The federal suit alleges that Harvard University did not do enough to protect Jewish students from what they claim is rampant anti-Semitism. So there is a possibility that the school has decided to withhold diplomas or denied diplomas to these 13 pro-Palestinian students to send a message and make it appear as though they did everything they could to protect

Jewish students, even though we don't have any explanation as to what these students did that would lead to such an extreme decision against them. Jank, what do you think? Yeah, I think Alan Garber is racist. I think that- Wait, explain who Alan Garber is for the audience. Yeah, he's the interim president of Harvard. And I think that probably almost everybody on the administrative board at Harvard are racist.

They think that Palestinian lives don't value are not as valuable as Israeli lives. They're proving it indisputably. There has been at least as many anti-Muslim comments on those campuses as anti-Semitic comments. If there were any anti-Semitic comments, people up to throw around accusations. They hardly ever present any evidence. In this case, Harvard has presented zero of it against these students. And the faculty's reaction is really important. So the faculty has seen the evidence and they absolutely outraged that they didn't let these kids walk in their graduation and still haven't given them their diplomas, including faculty that are on Israel's side and didn't like to protest, even they were outraged by the decision.

Yes. So that gives you an excellent indication of who's telling the truth and who's lying and who's the racist and the bigot and who isn't. So all these charges of anti-Semitism against 99% peaceful, wonderful students who are trying to protect Palestinian lives when almost none of them are Palestinian, are intolerable. Every time they make that charge, I'm going to make a much, much more accurate charge, which the people making those kind of accusations, especially without evidence, and no shutting down protests against Israel, and let's be honest, if you don't realize that this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, that all it is is an effort to shut down all criticism and all protests of

the government of Israel, you're nuts. You can't see straight. You can't see straight at all. And so these guys, I'm going to make the charge because it's true. They are definitely racist against Palestinians because they say 34 Israeli children were killed. It's an outrage. I agree with their outrage 100%. Now what, 15,000 Palestinian children are being? killed or 11 we're starting to lose track of the tens of thousands of Palestinian innocent Palestinian children murder and they say who cares who care how dare you protest if you protest tens of thousands of Palestinian children in it who are innocent who are murdered then you're I'm going to call you

all sorts of names I'm going to deny you graduation I'm going to deny you a diploma only a racist would do that So just to buttress what you were saying, Jank, about how there are members of the faculty who are outraged by this, and we're talking about members of the faculty who actually were not in favor of the encampments. You have Steven Marglin, who is a professor of economics who has taught at Harvard, for 59 years. He called the corporation's decision, a slap in the face to faculty and likely to prompt protests at graduation Thursday, which we just saw footage of. So his, you know, his prediction came true. But keep in mind, he does not support the pro-Palestinian protests.

Still, he thinks the discipline went too far in preventing students from receiving degrees, the encampment, which included 30 to 40 tenths. He says was well within the bounds of what Harvard had tolerated in the past. And look, to your point, look, I don't know if they're making these decisions based on racist ideas or racist beliefs. What I do know is that they care about money and they care about not losing lawsuits.

And so when you have alumni that is not really favorable toward the protesters, claiming that they're going to stop donating money to Harvard, yeah, that's going to get the power players, power players within the institution to make decisions that might not be so fair toward the students who are part of the pro-peace pro-Palestinian protesters the same with the lawsuits oftentimes you know people get scared with the lawsuits and they'll over in their minds over correct or they'll they'll

they think they're doing the correct thing but they're really over correcting which could lead to a decision that I feel isn't just and in this case I don't know I personally don't know what these students did because you The Harvard Corporation is not making it clear. They're not sharing the details, but I trust the faculty members who know about these allegations, who are privy to the details, and who are totally against withholding the diplomas from these students. Okay, here's how you can tell I'm 100% right. Does anyone in the audience genuinely believe that there has been more anti-Semitic comments on college campuses or anti-Muslim comments?

Come on, come on, do you really believe that, oh, I bet there's been no anti-Muslim comments. You know what, whether it's a pro-Israel side or randos in Mississippi or anywhere else, all of these college campuses. I alone probably have received more anti-Muslim comments than all the anti-Semitic comments are aimed at students in the entire country combined. Okay, so, but I bring that up to you guys, why? Have you seen congressional hearings about the anti-Muslim comments, anti-Palestinian comments? Nope. Have you seen any presidents of colleges being fired for not doing enough about the anti-Muslim comments? Have you seen any action at all or any concern, 1% concern about anti-Muslim comments on college campuses?

Even though almost everyone would acknowledge, yeah, there's a lot more anti-Muslim comments than anti-Semitic comments. No, because they don't care about Muslims, because they're bigots. They don't care about Palestinians because they're racist. I mean, and they think Palestinian lives, who would possibly dare? They're just disposable Palestinians. That's what Alan Garber thinks. That's what the Administrative Board and Harvard thinks. That's what the, all of these presidents and the politicians and the media figures

that have been smearing these poor kids and now denying them diplomas. That's what they all think that Palestinian lives are worthless. That's why they are deeply racist. Ryan Enos, a professor of government, said this about the Harvard Corporation's decision. I'm upset. This was pure hubris by the corporation. To think a bunch of billionaires that visit Cambridge a couple of times a year could tell the professors who educate these students that they know better than them who deserves to earn degrees. The audacity is breathtaking.

In my opinion, the corporation is not worthy of leading the university. And another professor warned that because of the school's decision, he expects a faculty rebellion. And during today's commencement ceremony, Harvard University student speaker, Shruthi Kumar went off script and put the institution on blast, so let's take a look at that. As I stand before you today,

I must take a moment Take a moment to recognize my peers, the 13 undergraduates in the class of 2024 who will not graduate today. I am deeply disappointed by the intolerance for freedom of speech and the right to civil disobedience on campus. Over 1,500 students had petitioned. Nearly 500 staff and faculty had spoken up all overwhelmingly against the unprecedented sanctions. The students had spoken, the faculty had spoken. Harvard, do you hear us?

I mean, we're talking about the elite institutions in this country. These aren't just, look, let's just keep it real. People who go to these IVs end up being the elites in this country, the power players, the ones who make decisions about policy, the individuals who end up serving in Congress. This is a huge mistake for anyone who wants this country to continue, it's unwavering commitment to Israel because these kids are going to grow up and they're not going to forget what happened to them. And if you're wondering what happens now, will the 13 students who have been denied their degrees or their diplomas can appeal the decision and request that they be returned

to good standing. The corporation said that if they were, the university would confer their degrees at that time. Any final words, Jenk? Yes, I'm super proud of Kumar for that great speech and for supporting our fellow students. I think that you should never trust anyone in media that fear mongered about these students and did McCarthyite kind of coverage of them, Dana Bash on the media side, but tons of them on almost everybody on the media side. Joe Scarborough, I could go on forever, almost all the politicians in those McCarthyite hearings. So has a single pro-Israel protests been shut down in America? Not one. The worst incident of violence in any of these

student protest was at UCLA where pro-Israel extremists assaulted pepper sprayed and beat the students with sticks. None of them have been arrested because Muslim lives are irrelevant to the people in power in America. Palestinian lives are irrelevant because the people in America in power in America only care about lobbyists money and they don't care about the average American, they don't care about American principles at all. They're deeply racist against Palestinians. They're deeply beginning against Muslims, not a single pro-Israel protest has been shut down, no matter what they do, including tremendous violence, but every single anti-Israel protests has been shut down. Gee, I wonder if that's a coincidence. You guys are being

ridiculous and what you're doing is you're educating the youth of America that if you're not in favor of a foreign government like Israel, our government will come to crush you. Thank you for letting them know how corrupt the American government is. That's an education they won't forget their whole life. All right, well, we will move off coverage pertaining to the war in Gaza and talk a little bit about domestic policy when we return, including Biden considering an executive order in regard to the southern border and the ongoing migrant crisis.

We've got that and more. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. All right, back on TYT, Jay and Anna with you guys. Melissa Bill and Munar, EFB upgraded to premium. Guys, upgrading to premium actually, or to any level, makes a giant difference. We appreciate anybody who does that. Thank you for doing that and you could also do it through the join button. Lady Fugenti, I just gave her a shout out. Another one for gifting 10 memberships and Frost King for gifting 10 memberships.

You guys are awesome, we love you. Anna. Well, remember when the Senate voted on a bipartisan border bill back in February and it failed? Well, we got an update on that. So let's get to the story. The United States Senate today voted on the same bipartisan border bill. bill that failed back in February. And guess what? It failed again. And it was part of the Biden camp's strategy to point fingers at the Republican Party for not actually wanting to do

anything about the migrant crisis and the issues we're having in the nation's southern border. Now, at the same time, Joe Biden is planning to announce his executive actions for the nation southern border following the Senate's inability to pass this legislation. And he plans to make the announcement after Mexico's June 2nd presidential election. Now, according to Politico, who spoke to six people familiar with the Biden administration's plans, it would give Joe Biden the power to shut down the southern border if illegal crossings surge or exceed a certain daily threshold. We don't have any more details on that, including what the number would be to essentially exceed that threshold. However, a White House official said that the timing and details could shift since the plans are

still being discussed internally. So that's probably why we're not getting as much specificity. Now, everyone is pretty angry about this, okay? Since Biden's executive action is likely to mirror some of the harsher provisions in that bipartisan Senate bill, obviously it's upsetting progressive lawmakers, including Senator Alex Padilla from California, he says, quote, I certainly hope, hope this isn't the new starting position for Democrats in future negotiations on immigration. I made that concern very clear to my colleagues, Leader Schumer and to the House.

Now, Democrats in general are angry about the gridlock in Congress that essentially stands in the way of passing any real comprehensive immigration reform. Representative Angie Craig from Minnesota says rather than just say it's Republicans' fault, I think the time is now for the administration to step forward and issue executive actions and prove to America that we want to address these issues. I should note that Representative Craig is in a purple district and is vulnerable for reelection. And so she has an interest in addressing this issue because it has become a political liability for some Democrats and certainly has become a political liability for Biden as well, which is why he seems to be willing to go against the progressives

in Congress in order to deal with this through executive actions that they are not going to like. And Republicans, of course, are furious that the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer today decided to tee up a vote on that bipartisan immigration bill knowing it was going to fail, knowing that it was part of a political tactic to essentially help Biden in his campaigning for reelection. I should note, by the way, the bill failed 43 to 50. Obviously, you need 60 votes in the Senate in order to meet that filibuster threshold and pass legislation. And so I'll give you some of the statements from Republicans in just a moment. But Jenk, do you think that this is the right way for Biden to handle the migrant crisis impacting the country at our nation's

border. Yeah, I mean, so I have a lot of mixed thoughts on this. So first off, I do have some sympathy for Biden right now because he's stuck in a very tough situation where Congress just won't pass anything because Trump told him not to. And then so he's got to take some executive action and he doesn't have a lot of options in executive action. So this, you know, the thing that he's doing where he just blocks everyone, including asylum seekers, it's not an ideal solution at all.

But there's not a lot of nuance you could do with executive orders like this. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for Biden because he created this mess by not doing anything for three years about this. And he should have come up with his own plan, which he didn't. And now at the end, he's panicking and taking part of Trump's plan. So, you know, maybe you should have tried leading. So now at the same time, you look over the Republican side and they can cry me a river. So they're the ones obviously blocking any legislation for passing because their dear leader told them to.

They say this is the number one issue. And then they say, we don't want to solve it because Trump told us not too. Okay, all right, well then you guys are all losers and you're all political hacks and it's super obvious. And then I mean, you want to talk about Crimea River. They're saying, I can't believe Biden is making this political and Schumer is making a political by introducing this bill in the Senate. You guys killed your own proposal. Yes. because Trump said that it would help Biden.

You made it more political than anyone else, let alone the fact that all of it is political. I'm so tired of these politicians. Now, White House officials are standing by Schumer's decision to push the second bound to fail vote. They see it as a way to give Democrats as much runway as possible to hammer Republicans for voting against the deal in February at Donald Trump's behest.

And that was reported by political, so you're absolutely right, I mean, we all know how that all played out because you had a Republican in the Senate front and center in negotiating that bipartisan legislation. And that individual, of course, was Senator Lankford, who actually didn't end up voting in favor of the legislation this time around, even though it's the same bill that he negotiated previously. So after the vote failed to pass the border bill, Schumer declared that the contrast between Democrats and Republicans, is clear today and will be ever clearer in November. Democrats want to fix the border, do they though? And get something done. Republicans want to give speeches, let the border fester and do absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

And there is truth to the second part of his statement, because to your point, Jank, the Republicans in the Senate seemed poised to pass the bipartisan immigration reform bill. But once they got word from Trump that he wanted to run on immigration, they decided to kill it. decided to kill it. Lankford, one of the four Republicans who voted in February to advance the measure, did not support it this time, calling it a prop. Quote, today is a political messaging exercise, he said, during debate on the bill. That doesn't help us as a country. And as you can tell, this is part of Biden's strategy because the White House press secretary, Corrini Jean-Pierre just yesterday on Wednesday, opened the press briefing with another call for Republicans.

to pass the border bill. Here's what that look like. Senate Republicans will have another opportunity to decide whether they want to support the toughest, fairest border security agreement in decades or continue putting their partisan political interest ahead of the nation's security. Let's not forget, after months of negotiations, we reach a bipartisan agreement that would have delivered the significant policy changes, resources, and personnel needed to secure our border and make our country safer. That included thousands of additional border patrol agents and customs and border

protections personnel, technology to catch fentanyl and personnel and personnel to go after drug traffickers, asylum officers and immigration judges to improve the processing of asylum cases so they are resolved in a few months and not years. A temporary emergency authority to shut down the border when the system is overwhelmed. So you see the coordination here, and yes, there's some political maneuvering happening. But I also wanted to show you that video because it is true that the legislation also allocated resources that are desperately needed at the border, resources that are desperately needed to more quickly adjudicate these asylum cases so they don't take literally years.

And that's another thing that Republicans are complaining about, right? that asylum seekers are released into the country and they remain in the country for several years until their case is even heard by a judge. Now, when it comes to the allocation of resources, the president typically is unable to do that through executive order. And so we don't know exactly what Biden's going to do just yet. We're starting to hear the rumors of the executive action. But so far it appears that the only executive action that Biden is going to take has to do with, you know, essentially giving himself the ability to shut down the border once there's a surge of people trying to come into the country.

In terms of the resources necessary, it is unlikely that Biden's going to be able to do anything about that. It's really up to Congress to pass legislation that allocates the resources necessary for the judges, for the border patrol agents, and everything else. My point is dealing with the country's issues through executive order, whether we're talking about a Democratic president or Republican president is not the right way to run the country. Congress is supposed to be there for a purpose, and they have been negligent in their jobs for a long time now. They're just useless. And so I have no doubt that Biden's executive order will be challenged, probably by some progressive organizations, maybe by something like

the ACLU, it'll go through the courts, there's a possibility it'll be reversed. This isn't the way to govern the country. Our system of checks and balances isn't working because we literally have a branch of the government that has decided that all they care about is raising money for themselves, engage in insider trading. And in the meantime, the American people suffer as a result of that. Yeah. So unfortunately, everybody involved in this story is pathetic. So Joe Biden went down to the border a couple of weeks ago at the same day that Trump did. And apparently that was the only day he could find. And he basically begged Trump to let him do Trump's policy on immigration.

Yep. It was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. Then you turn to the Republicans and they're saying it's unfair. The Schumer is making us vote against our own proposal. Well, I've got an easy fix for you guys. How about you vote for your own proposal? Boom, problem solved. But instead you won't.

You'll lick Donald Trump's boots because you're all. because you're all pathetic grifters. whether it's ever really going to go to trial. So here are the latest updates. New photos from June 2022 shows this. Trump aid and co-defendant Walt Nata moving boxes around Mar-a-prosecutors say that NADA moved these boxes shortly before a Trump attorney was going to look through them after getting a subpoena to turn over classified materials. That's not a good idea. Well, new photos of Trump's personal valet, Walt Nata, Moving boxes of classified documents at Mara Lago were released further incriminating Nata of charges that he obstructed the government's efforts to retrieve those classified documents.

Now Nata, who still works for Trump, is actually trying to get the charges against him dropped with his legal team arguing that there's prosecutorial misconduct at play. Now, in the first hearing since the judge overseeing this case, Judge Eileen Cannon indefinitely postponed the trial, not as defense attorney, Stanley Woodward, presented arguments that his client has been subjected to, quote, selective and vindictive prosecution. The most explosive argument that took place during the hearing yesterday is the idea that the defense attorney, Woodward, was threatened. in regard to a promised judgeship that Biden was going to appoint him to. So this is an allegation stemming from a discussion that took place in 2022.

Defense attorney Stanley Woodward claims that one of the prosecutors, Brat, implied at the meeting that Woodward would not get a judgeship unless his client NADA cooperated in the documents investigation. So this claim from the defense, apparently set the courtroom ablaze, things kind of became unhinged after that. David Harbock, a prosecutor with the Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith's team, called Woodward's allegations garbage and fantasy. He said the statements attributed to his colleague Jay Brat had been taken out of context. Harbock also called Woodward out for not reporting this alleged exchange until several months after it happened.

He accused Woodward of changing his recollection of the conversation. This is a lawyer whose allegations amount basically to him being extorted, Harbock said, of Woodward waving his arms. Harbock also became agitated when Judge Cannon asked him whether prosecutors had any evidence or had they kept any evidence of this August 2022 exchange with Woodward. At that point, Judge Cannon also stepped in and scolded Harbock. So the judge quickly scolded Harbock telling the attorney to calm down. Cannon questioned why there was no evidence gathered of what happened in the 2022 conversation

saying, why do those comments about Woodward have to be made? And at that point, they denied that those comments were even made. Harbach says, that is not true. And I didn't say that. Harbach shouted back. The prosecutor said that there was no recording of the conversation between Brat and Woodward, but that Smith's team has preserved like any recording they have of the meeting. So basically saying the conversation never happened, there's no recording of that conversation

or that exchange because it never happened. But Woodward seems to argue that we should take his word for it. He claimed during the hearing, Woodward shot back up to the lectern saying that, quote, I'm here and offering to testify under oath to what he remembered of the meeting. I should also know, while this exchange is happening between the judge, Woodward, and Harbock, Brat was actually there at the hearing. It just seems like he wasn't engaging in the heated exchange in the same way that others were. But I've got more details, Jenk. Curious what you think so far. Yeah, so there's three different parts of this story. The conclusion won't be a fun one. So number one on who's right and who's wrong between the attorneys. Trump's attorney,

many, many months later, says, oh, I think they were implying that I was going to get a judge ship if I threw my own client under the bus. Wink. Sure, whatever. Oh, wow, Trump's attorney is very likely a liar. Oh, I didn't see that coming. So, and the reason the prosecutor is super mad is because this guy's just making, it appears, he's just making something up completely.

And they're not used to this. Even like the worst criminals, like murderers, etc. Their lawyers act within normal bounds of legal actions, right? But when you have a mob boss like Trump, he orders his lawyers to lie. He orders witnesses like Costello in the New York case to like try to intimidate people. So it's just a wild, wild setting because it's the most out of control defendant there is in the whole country. And then secondly, Walt Nata, this is part of the proceedings here. I mean, there's the hilarious video of him carrying boxes while Trump was claiming there were no more boxes of classified documents.

So did Trump and Nodda do it? Of course they did. Don't lose your focus on that. There's no question Trump did it. There's a 0% chance that he's innocent. Zero percent. The over the evidence that is already public is overwhelming. Okay, now the sad part, the third part. Judge Cannon is talking about, oh, this case is so complicated. Sister, you're the judge, it shouldn't be that complicated for you, okay? Hold on, let me jump in. Let me jump in real quick to, I want to clarify it a little more because she's not saying that the case is complicated for herself. She's saying that, oh, maybe the nuances of this case are too complicated for the jury, which is a foreshadowing statement to say the least. Yeah, and so thank you for the clarification Anna, but that's exactly what I was going to get to.

And when she says that, what does that mean? That means she's going to take longer and longer with the case. And it's already over anyway. Even if they got started now, which they won't, it's not going to make it in time by the election. So that means this case is totally irrelevant. Because look, guys, if Trump wins, obviously, he's just going to have the federal government dismiss the case and the whole thing's over. And Merrick Arland is the worst attorney general we've ever had sat on the case. case for two and a for all these years.

Like this one's a little bit different than the one he sat on for two and a half years, which was the coup case. In this document's case, they could have gotten started earlier to and that delay cost us tremendously justice. But if Biden wins, is he really going, like will this trial come to a conclusion? Yes. Will then they send Trump to actual jail? In nearly impossible, like I would be shocked because Biden, he doesn't, he doesn't

care about accountability and the rule of law, you know, him and his attorney general, are they concerned about the politics? Of course they're concerned about the politics. So these trials all should have started long ago if they cared about the justice. Yeah, I totally agree with you on that. And you know, Jank, you had previously said something about how you feel that the judge is incredibly biased in this case. And look, I kind of rejected that because I hadn't seen a of her communication with the prosecutors to really buy into that. And I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking that, you know, oh, if the judge isn't doing everything that we want, then she must be biased.

But no, there's something up with this judge, honestly. Because what really spoke volumes to me was the exchange between the, you know, prosecutors and the judge here where the prosecutors are like, this exchange, about the judgeship didn't happen. And she's like, why were these comments made and why don't you guys have any recorded evidence of these comments being made? Like almost trying to suggest that they're trying to hide the evidence that this exchange happened with Woodward.

But there's no indication of that. She seems to be putting her thumb on the scale in a really strange way. And of all of the indictments that Trump is facing, the classified documents case, I would I would venture to say has some of the strongest evidence against Trump. So I don't know, there's something up with the judge, it's making me increasingly uncomfortable. And I do agree that she is playing into these delay tactics, which makes me think it's very unlikely going to go to trial before the election. Yeah, last thing, look, it's not about pro or anti-Trump rulings.

I think Judge Merchant in the New York case has made some pro-Trump rulings that I agree with, because those rulings aren't about, hey, who do you like better? Who do you want to win the election? They're about legal issues. And sometimes the prosecution is wrong on legal issues. And so that's why we need fair, unbiased judges to protect everyone involved, including the defendant, okay? And in fact, I think some of the judge's decisions in the civil fraud case In terms of collecting the almost all the money that Trump owes ahead of time, I think has been kind of biased against Trump. So I don't have any problem calling out things that with Trump

is right legally or if people have been unfair to Trump. But Judge Cannon has made many clownish decisions and her and now lately her decisions to delay the trial seem brazen so that she She doesn't have to actually go through and convict Trump. It seems like, you know, just reading the tea leaves of the decisions, their legal merit, and how she's making them, it looks like she's trying to delay it so that she doesn't have to be involved in a decision where Donald Trump is clearly guilty. And of course, if Trump wins, this case is over on the day that he's sworn into office. There are also some rumors that she's considering the fact that if Trump wins, remember,

she's a Trump appointed judge, that if Trump wins, he might consider her for a Supreme Court nomination. And so there might be a conflict of interest at play with that as well. And remember, she has decided to postpone the trial indefinitely. The other thing I'll note is that she has not made a decision as to whether or not the charges against Walt Nato will be dropped. So we're still waiting to hear if there's going to be any update on that. But if we do hear about it, if there are any other developments, of course, we're going to share them with you. For now, we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we've got more news, including this ongoing flag debacle involving Justice Samuel Alito.