The Young Turks - Biden Makes Campaign Shift

Episode Date: June 7, 2019

Biden is changing his views on the Hyde Amendment. Ana Kasparian, Jayar Jackson, and Francesca Fiorentini, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. Damn, I dropped that faster than Biden dropped the Hyde Amendment. Wow.

Salty from the beginning. Love it. It's gonna be a great show. Francesca Furentini and Jara Jackson join me for hour one. Our two will feature Brooke Thomas and Brett Ehrlich. Brett Erlich. So it's going to be a crazy show. Yeah.

Which panel is more powerful is the question? Hours! We'll see. We'll see. For the audience to figure that out, and decide. So I am looking forward to today's show. In the second segment, JR is going to present a story involving Michael Flynn and his lawyer and leaked audio.

It's not even leaked. A judge has allowed the release of the audio. So we're gonna listen to that a little bit, and it's pretty incriminating. And then we also have my favorite story of the day, which is David Pacman's appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. They discussed the whole Carlos Maza situation, and Rogan essentially makes it seem like he's saying that Dave Rubin might have a mental health condition. I don't know what is going on with that clip, but we're going to show it to you and we'll, we'll, you know, decide, I guess, talk about it. I mean, probably, maybe is being an extremist a health mental illness? I mean, he's, I don't even think he's an extremist.

He's a grifter. He's just a lazy grifter, and Rogan seems to be defending Dave Rubin as if his grifting is like something he was born with. No, it's something that he has developed in an effort to make money for himself. But anyway, we'll get to that story later. Why don't we start off with what's happening in democratic politics? Joe Biden was getting a lot of backlash because he continued to support the Hyde Amendment. Now, of course, the Hyde Amendment is a ban on federal funds going toward abortions.

And even though the party seems to have moved to the left on this issue, Biden was holding tight and still supporting that Hyde Amendment. Well, he has appeared to change his mind. He was recently speaking at the Democratic Committee's gala, and here's what he had to say. I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right. If I believe health care is the right as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's zip code.

So Biden tries to explain why there's been this giant flip. And he says circumstances have changed. I've been working through the final details of my health care plan. like others in this race. And I've been struggling with the problems that Hyde now presents, as if the problems that Hyde now presents are new problems, when in reality this has been a policy that's been set in place for decades now. And as recently as Wednesday of this week, Biden's camp indicated that he was supportive

of the Hyde Amendment. So it is kind of surprising to see him flip so dramatically in the span of one day. I am told this is what the kids are doing. Totally. And I definitely didn't write this myself. And in fact, I don't even really know how to speak. I'm tired. Where's my grape nuts?

You guys, I love grape nuts. Good cereal. So I want to make sure that I put my own issues here at the show. I want you guys to know where I was at. Because I remember doing an episode of The Damage Report recently, I think it was last week with Brett. And I had mentioned that I don't know if I'm against the Hyde Amendment, but a bunch of our members and a bunch of our viewers made really great arguments, and it forced me to really reconsider

my position. And I did. And I understood that, hey, you know what, this is a woman's health issue. And the Hyde Amendment disproportionately impacts women who are living in poverty, women of color. And so I no longer agree with it. Is there a possibility that Biden is coming at it from a genuine place? This is the question, of course, that's exactly what I was thinking as far as it. So remember when he was vice president and Obama had his evolution on gay marriage.

I think it was marriage, not necessarily other gay rights, but gay marriage. And we're like, okay, you know, sign of the times, people figuring it out, it was a political move. Because honestly, I think President Obama was in favor of gay rights before that. But he's like, I'm not gonna win if I say that I'm supporting. supportive of LGBTQ rights to this degree. So his evolution came because of politics, okay, people get their rights. I'm okay, that he's already in office. But before you're in office and you're running for president, and literally two days ago, you're

saying how you're still for this amendment after people were talking about how horrible it is. If you either didn't realize what was detailed in it after decades or just didn't read about what people were saying about it now, but you still hold your stance, that's irresponsible. Is it your evolution on it, like what it was with gay marriage? Or is it that it was a forced political move on your part? And I'm glad you pointed that out, because this looks like it's forced. When you're reading it like this, like a woman's, like women's right to health care.

To determine what happens to her body, a body, yes, and women of rights. I mean, I think that it's an important, I mean, here's what I said on the damage report, watch it. But, you know, the Hyde Amendment enacted in 74, something like this. You're right, we've had decades and decades. And so we've seen the fallout that what might have begun, and it often happens, right? A lot of these, especially quote-unquote pro-life ideas, begin in theory. Hey, theoretically, I don't think that taxpayer dollars should go to funding abortions immediately, right?

Well, in practice, it is discrimination, and in practice it affects women who are, as Elizabeth Warren, another 2020 candidate said so eloquently and so passionately, unlike Biden, that it is going to affect young women, it's going to affect women of color, it's going to affect women who've been raped, who aren't going to tell their families, things like that. So in practice, we can see it's not having whatever desired effect that it was initially set out to do, which I would argue was not even that, like, noble of an effect any way. Right, exactly. And I personally had bought into or drank the Kool-Aid about how, well, if you believe in religious liberty in this country, you know, the taxpayer money coming from, you know, the Christian right shouldn't go toward these abortions.

But here's the thing. And this was a great point made by David Dayan on the show this week. You can't pick and choose what you want your taxpayer money to go to. As we all know, and our money goes to all sorts of things that we don't like, including, you know, preemptive wars. and private military contractors, those types of things. And that was a great point as well. Now, I want to quickly go to Simone Sanders, who is working on Biden's campaign, and she took the time to defend him on cable news.

Let's hear what she has to say. This is likened to where the vice president ended up landing on marriage equality. You know, so I want to push back. And, you know, if the vice president was bending to the whims of a number of my liberal activist friends, He would have came out for Medicare for all last night, but you heard him talk about a public option. So I just, he's authentic. Voters know who Joe Biden is. So she's argued, look, she works on his campaign. So of course she's going to say he's being authentic. But are we really buying it? I mean, again, as recently as Wednesday of this week,

the Biden camp indicated that he is very much supportive of the Hyde Amendment. And then there was a lot of backlash, including from Elizabeth Warren, during the California Democratic convention. And all of a sudden, he changes his mind. Now, I want to go to that video before we jump in, because I think what she had to say during a recent town hall on MSNBC was also very powerful. Let's take a look. Under the Hyde Amendment, under every one of these efforts to try to chip away or to push back or to get rid of Roe versus Wade, understand this. women of means will still have access

to abortions who won't will be poor women will be working women will be women who can't afford to take off three days from work will be very young women will be women who've been raped

will be women who have been molested by someone in their own family we do not pass laws that take away that freedom from the women who are most vulnerable And to be clear, Elizabeth Warren is not just talking the talk. She's walking the walk along with many other Democratic candidates. They've co-sponsored legislation in order to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

I believe there are only three Democratic candidates who have not signed onto that legislation. But this is really good news. I mean, it is good to see that the progressive wing of the party is so powerful that they are pulling Biden to the left. And you can see from the way that he's reading the statement that it's a reluctant message. It was, okay, so when Simone Sanders was talking about his evolution on this, just like, she mentioned the marriage equality thing just like I was mentioning. I didn't even know she even mentioned that. So it's the question is whether or not he means it or not.

So even in the characterization of it, well, he's not just bending to the whims of the liberals. What does that mean? Why is it bad as a politician to bend to the whims of voters, citizens, constituents that are voting you into office to do what, but represent them. So that's not bending to the whims. Like, this isn't a battle, this isn't a strong arm. I'm like, no, I'm not gonna let you change me. I'm only here to represent what you want.

That's the point. She used it as a strength. The strength that he hasn't been listening to the national conversation. And therefore, that's a good thing for this presidential candidate. Because Biden ultimately is speaking to the moderate. Where are they? Hello? Like, the people who knew him as vice president, who are voting on name brand recognition

only, who have mostly sort of are too busy or too overworked to really pay attention to politics, I think arguably a lot of the people who voted for Trump, who were like, well, he says he's going to do it. I know I'm from The Apprentice, done, you know, box checked. Here's what I want from Biden. I want an apology. I want an apology for why you did support the Hyde Amendment. Yes, an apology for saying that you don't think women should have full control of their bodies,

as he did say back in the 70s. I want to see a better apology than the one that you gave Anita Hill. You know, he specifically said that he's not apologizing for his previous position. Right, that that's his position is that he's not going to apologize. Again, as if that were a virtue, whereas I think we'd all agree, I think that, I don't know, I guess I feel like it's a sign of strength to be able to say, hey, I was wrong back then. And I've evolved on the issue or I've gotten smarter. I mean, Anna, you just said, I informed myself, I, you know, initially this is how I felt

about this, I read some things, I listened to people, I reformulated an idea, like what a sign of strength and fierceness. And it's not even an apology. It's an explanation of where your mind was and why you had a position and then why you've changed it. It doesn't even have to be like, oh man, I'm so sorry what I did, it's, this is where I was and this is why I was there. I've discovered now that's ignorant because I've listened to people who know better

than I do. It's all. Exactly. And to be clear, I brought that up because I did genuinely change my mind. And I wanted to know if, you know, I certainly hope people give me the benefit of the doubt. And I don't really have much to gain from changing my mind, right? I'm not running for president. But I wanted to know if it's unfair to give someone like me the benefit of the doubt and not

give him the benefit of the doubt. But I do think the two situations are a little different. You haven't been in power for 40 years. Like you haven't been in Congress. I will be one day. I mean, listen, I also want to say that the fact that the Hyde Amendment specifically targets women who are on Medicaid is just further criminalizing the poor. I mean, we know that Medicaid is already a system that Republicans are desperate to defund

and roll back. We know that women who are on Medicaid or who receive welfare are often called welfare Queens, who just have babies in order to get more money for those babies, right? That's the right wing talking point around them. That's been going on since the 80s. And it continues today. And how ironic that we're then preventing those women from gaining accessible, affordable abortions, not necessarily free, because I'm not clear that under Medicaid it would be completely covered,

just like health services are not 100% covered under Medicaid. But you're turning around and further criminalizing them for wanting to turn it. terminated pregnancy, many of whom are already mothers. Right. They just actually would spiral them farther into poverty. The fact that they're on Medicaid is part and parcel probably due to the fact that they can't afford to feed their families, right? So what are we talking about?

So let's switch gears a little bit and talk about climate change and what the DNC is doing or not doing. The Democratic National Committee has indicated that it has no intentions of hosting a debate that would feature the issue of climate change and only the issue of climate change. This was something that Jay Inslee was asking for, and the DNC did get back to him with the following statement. While climate change is at the top of our list, the DNC will not be holding entire debates on a single issue area, because we want to make sure voters have the ability to hear from candidates

on dozens of issues of importance to American voters. So we'll open this up to the panel. I want to get your thoughts, but Inslee was not happy about this. Climate change is the issue that he's really latched onto for his platform. And here's what he had to say about the DNC's decision. The Washington governor is the first person in history to build a presidential campaign around climate change, a topic discussed for about five minutes in the last three presidential debates.

You need, what is it, 65,000 individual donors to You bet. You bet. How many you got now? We got a ways to go. If you keep this topic in the debate, in the minds of voters, even though you're polling less than one percent, is that a victory? Or for you, are you really thinking you got a shot at the Oval Office?

My intent is to serve as President of the United States. Recent polls show that Iowa Democrats now list climate change next to health care as a top concern. And after disasters like this, you'd think even skeptical Republicans might join them. So do you have water service here now? No, we have no water and no heat. But Ron Perry down at the risky business auto shop is not buying what the governor is selling. The governor is here because he believes that all of this damage is the direct result of climate change.

Do you see it that way? No, absolutely not. I blame it on the Corps of Engineers, totally. Oh, Ron, I would argue that it's risky business to deny climate change. Yeah, all right, so what do you guys think about this? It doesn't make you gay to believe in climate change, Ron. Pro tip. So here's the question, is there even a sliver of an argument coming from the DNC?

You know, they're saying, look, we don't want to host single issue debates, it has nothing to do with climate change, we just want to make sure that we touch on all sorts of issues in every single debate. It's the reason why they did it, they're smart enough to be, they can put, they can get by with that statement and say, hey, we wanna do more than just one issue. We've got 37 candidates, so we wanna make sure that we go to a host of issues, some of their strengths, some of their weaknesses, we wanna have a robust debate. Cool.

But you know what? There needs to be a certain level. So as they mentioned in that piece, five minutes worth of discussion about climate change in the past three, am I right? So if nothing else, okay, you don't wanna do an entire debate on it. Okay, I'll buy that, you don't have to, but I'll buy it. Let's give half of an entire debate to one. Hey, you know what the Republicans debated about consistently and over and over again?

Tax cuts. Tax cuts, Muslim terrorism. Muslim terrorism, tax cuts. Then tax cuts, then Muslim terrorism. Then renovating the tax plan and then those terrorists that are from a Muslim background. They talk about that constantly, but no one said, we need to have robust debate about, you know, our crumbling infrastructure, our education system. Those things weren't robustly debated for an entire debate, but these crazy things like, tax cuts and the Muslim terrorism problem is constantly debated.

I mean, I think that's a really good point. I think that, I mean, you're bringing up a broader point, which is that, and I, it bothers me to no end to see when primaries happen, you have the RNC and the DNC, like speaking just different languages, literally different languages. So really, they should get together and all agree that there should be topics that we will cover and dedicate whether it's an entire hour, an entire debate, or a certain amount of questions or time to the same topics, I don't know, throw it to the Democrats about, you know, tax cuts or Muslim extremism or terrorism, whatever, you know what I mean like

that. Well, those topics will definitely be debated. I mean, we know they're gonna be debated. No, I think, listen, I love Inslee. Like, don't you just love, I love that this is his issue. And I love that he's running on this. And I absolutely think there should be a debate on it every week, every week we should have a discussion about climate change and what our leaders are doing about it.

Because literally, none of the other issues matter if we're not tackling this. It's an existential question, it comes first. And five minutes in the last three debates, you heard the news report, how? Like, how are we not holding the DNC accountable for that? And mind you, all of the news outlets that ask the question after question about Trump's wall, about things that we know do not matter as much as climate changes. We've been convinced those things are life changing, life threatening. Yeah.

Terrorism and the wall and tax cuts. We have been convinced that this is a life-changing event yet. That's why they don't care. We see it in front of our eyes. Right, well, here's the great news. I think that the one good silver lining to all of this is that the DNC is composed of the same weak establishment Democrats that we criticize all the time. The Democratic Party doesn't know how to fight, and this is the reason why you see them caving

to certain things, and I think we can make them cave to this issue as well. well. So if you recall back in the last election, they would only host debates on like Friday nights or maybe on Sundays when no one would be watching. Yes. And then they got enough criticism from Democratic voters that things changed pretty quickly. So the reason why I'm telling you this is because voters have much more power than they realize. And we have all of these tools at our disposal, social media, to really hold them accountable for what they're doing. If you want a debate on climate change, which I think you're absolutely right is incredibly important, and it should be the top issue, then, you know, tweet to them, write to them, do whatever you can to really

implement some pressure to get this done. Because I think it would be a fascinating discussion. I want to know how these candidates, you know, are different from one another when it comes to their proposals. And I guess D&C like Joe Biden, they might go with it, but they're definitely not going to apologize, and they're not going to bend to the whims of those libs, but they'll do it. J.R. referencing Simone Sanders and her defense of Biden flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment. All right, we got to take a break.

But when we come back, J.R. is actually going to take over and present a story about the Russia investigation that's pretty juicy. You don't want to miss. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-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. Hey everybody. Welcome back to TYT and a friend and JR with you. who's one of our members, left a comment. J.M. is very excited about the panels today.

In fact, the comment that was sent in says, yay, Franny, Friney Fio. Franny Fio, yeah. Frenny Fio and J.R. And Brooke and Bret in the second hour, check out all this power. I love it. I noticed that I wasn't mentioned in any of that, but it's okay. Because you're the standard. That's a given.

Everybody loves you. Oh, no, not everybody. Can you call you Franny? You can't call me Frammy? But you can call me Franny. Oh, I thought it was gonna be all the way around. I like Frannie. That's cute.

Tracy says Anna, oh, I'm not, I didn't read this ahead of time, but Tracy writes in Anna looking stunning as usual, love the hair today, thank you. I was on Fox 11, which is the local affiliate, not Fox News, and there's a show called The Issue Is and they have a glam squad there. So this is what happens. Are they called the glam squad or you just called them? I call them that. That's very nice.

They have two different people. who do hair and makeup. Damn. At the same time. At the same time. On one side of the head, they have to make sure they have to work together. I'm so into it. I would love to have that.

Cray Cuffet says JR is my new superhero. All right, I don't know what that means. Cray Couplay likes you. That's sort of that fits. And I wanted to just announce a few things before we move on to the rest of our topics. Ryan Grimm, who is the DC bureau chief at the Intercept and he's also a TYT contributor, is joined joining TYT on the second hour on Monday, and luckily he's agreed to stick around for the conversation. He'll be talking about his new book, We've Got People, Tune in Monday, June 11th when he'll be here.

And then we're also doing an LGBT special next week on Tuesday. So join us Tuesday for the LGBT special hosted by Jason Carter. He used to be one of the hosts for Pop Trigger, so he's coming back to help us host this special. And we're gonna be featuring exciting guests from the LGBT community. Tune in by going to TYT.com slash live at 8 p.m. Eastern Time. By the way, we're able to do all these specials. And honestly, we mostly do a lot of these specials because of our members. Most of these specials have a component that is members only.

And so please check out TYT.com slash trial to just try out the membership. See if you like it. You don't have to pay anything. It's free for a week. And then if you decide you like it, you can go ahead and sign up, and we would be so grateful because it really does support us and allows us to do what we do. All right, with that said, J.R., take over. Well, let's do it.

So as we know, you know, the Mueller report was released in April. And thanks to Trump's talking points, what most Americans heard from it was that there was no obstruction and no collusion, no collusion and then no obstruction. But you know, thanks, well, Robert Miller asked Robert Mueller, actually during the report, He detailed many instances of the obstruction cases, which many people may not have read, including one particular back and forth between Trump's attorney and Michael Flynn's attorney. Of course, Michael Flynn was the disgraced national security advisor for Trump at some point. But now thanks to another federal judge, Emmett Sullivan, he's ordered a release of some

of the voicemails that was sent from Dowd to a few of Mueller's attorneys. And since we don't read, we get a chance to hear it. So let's take a listen. It wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with the government. I understand that you can't change joint defense. That's an end. If, on the other hand, there are the information that implicates the president, then we've got a national security issue or maybe the national security issue.

So in this first section, he wants to make sure that these attorneys understand the absolute and utter importance of the information that potentially Michael Flynn is giving. Now, of course, this is when Flynn decided, he let the Trump people know that he can no longer work with the joint defense what's going on, which basically means he was ready to talk to the government, which is what Dob was worried about. But Dodd continued on after talking about the importance to talk about then, maybe leaning on him for not giving up all the information. You know, we need some kind of heads up, just for the sake of protecting all interests

if we can, without you having to give up any confidential information. So, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about And the president has feelings toward Flynn. No, that still remains. Those feelings still remain. If it's the former, which is, if you have information that's going to implicate the president, we need to know about it. And you need to also remember that we can maybe do something for you to keep that under wraps.

We could figure something out. The president still has feelings for you, Flynn. He loves you. He never meant what he said. Come back, be loyal, girl. Francesca, you've been, you know, you've read the entire Mueller report, word for word, page by page, which... Highlight it by highlight it. I got mocked by Anna for taking notes.

Well, because J.R. said he wanted to listen to the audio version of it. And then Fran's like, yeah, but you want to read it so you can highlight it. It's Franny, okay, it's Franny, not Fran. And yes, I read it, and no, I can't necessarily summarize everything, but there was a lot of good takeaways. And this was a part, like we were talking about, we already knew that this had happened. This was one of the many pieces of obstruction, which is one leg of the three sort of pronged investigation and report that is the Mueller report, which was basically that this is a mafia

shakedown. This is what happens when Trump is leaning on all of it. of his stooges to be loyal. And you know, it'd be a shame if the president didn't trust you anymore. And it would be a shame if the president, you know, if you had to say something about him. And so that's exactly what a mob boss does. You've seen the Sopranos. If you haven't, it's the best show ever.

And that's exactly, this is the exact playbook. And it's where the Mueller report has the most evidence. I would argue that there's a lot of evidence in the other two areas, specifically. The Trump campaign conspiracy and ties to Russians, but I guess we're not indicting. I guess that was never even the point, unlike what we all thought was supposed to be the point. But this is also where Mueller has set up and teed up Congress. Right. Look, it's on audio.

There is a literal leaning on, this is obstruction. His lawyer, absolutely at the behest of the president, is asking Flynn to either both give them a heads up and or just maybe don't say anything. Like maybe zip it up. So thoughts on Nancy Pelosi's unwillingness to even open an impeachment inquiry? I mean, it's so cowardly. It's absolutely cowardly and it's disheartening after reading, I read 480 pages and took notes. But everything is there to continue this criminal investigation to potentially, definitely

impeach the president, when under high crimes and misdemeanors and treasonous acts, absolutely. If only you're talking about violating things like the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, all of these things that say you can't have business interests and or accept gifts or money from a foreign power. You can't negotiate around the backs of the United States with a foreign power to, let's say, drop sanctions on Russia. If only that, and we're not even talking about WikiLeaks, and the most likely prior knowledge of the Trump campaign had, which again is hugely redacted in the Mueller report, but it's a really fun game of Madlibs, and I have played it.

If only that, there's enough to impeach. There's enough to begin impeachment hearings. So it's incredibly cowardly not to mention that so many people in her party, including her advisors, are pushing Pelosi to begin those. I think Madler's on that too. So the thing is also Nancy Pelosi is waiting for the American people that haven't read it or won't pay attention to these aspects to come up with it themselves so she can be told. Again, we've talked about the centrist approaches of Biden.

He's waiting for people to nudge him and tell him to go a different direction because he's too afraid to go to that direction on his own. This leadership is more like, ah, but if we do it, they're going to be mad at me. You have to make your case. Now, the thing is, I've always understood that approach and saying, hey, if we start these impeachment hearings, and then everyone goes, how dare you, it's going to hurt us. I get that. So you know what you do crazy?

And this is what Elizabeth Warren was saying when she was in that town hall with Chris Hayes. Hey, we can either give up or we make our case and do the deal. Make it happen. Go forward with it and tell people why you're going forward with it. You read the whole damn thing. And after you read it, you gave us five things that people have no idea or included with it. And by the way, this voicemail that we just now heard from Dowell to Flynn's attorneys is one of the multiple instances. This is one.

And it's one aspect of one. One of Michael Flynn's phone calls that was recorded that will, that I don't think the others have been given actually to this judge yet, haven't been released. But the other ones are the juiciest ones because those are the ones that are with Sergey Kisliak, the Russian ambassador, and they have to do with dropping sanctions. They have to do with a tit for tat, you scratch my back, I scratch yours, a relationship that the Trump administration campaign in this moment was setting up for the future. Well, we know that Nancy Pelosi is not going to move forward with impeachment, but it doesn't

matter because Donald Trump still despises her and he makes the case during a recent interview with Laura Ingram. We're going to get to that story and more when we come back from the break. 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 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 the a 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 TYT fans. That's EXP-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. This free second. Welcome back to the Young Turks, Anna Casparian, Francesca Fierintini, and J.R. Jackson with you.

Francesca has a podcast. It's called The Bituation Room. Yeah. And you guys should all check it out. Check it out. I'm releasing a whole episode on the Mueller report. It's fun. Nice.

Great. It's good times. The drinking game, really. I love it. All right. Let's also talk a little bit about what's happening tomorrow. There's going to be a rally in Iowa. Jank is doing this rally and you should go if you can.

So the Revolution Rally will take place in Des Moines, Iowa at 3 p.m., okay, local time. If you want more information, just go to t.t.com slash rally. Hopefully some of you have touch base with other viewers of the show. I know that there are people who are gonna carpool together. It's really cool, I wish I could be there. It sounds like a lot of fun. And I also wanna read a few member comments. Karina says, if I ever have insomnia, I'll use the audio of that call.

Wow, he's really slow. It is a little a SMR, Alex says, remember, there could still be conspiracy. Mueller said there was insufficient evidence, but especially points out that the obstruction offenses may have prevented him from finding it. I mean, this is the world we're living in right now, it's so crazy. Not only that, he also says that many people, and you can read it, will say I did not recall. It's the stupid ones who lied. It was a smart ones who said, I did not recall.

And he also says that they're definitely, that he admits there was probably evidence destruction. So this commenter is absolutely right. Stiff upper lip writes in and says, TYT is the reason why I am a shut-in. I need to hear intelligent conversation. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with a TD small business account manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs.

Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. And I don't get it in my real life. That's sad. Sad but true.

Have you, have any of you met? People, eGADs, yes, we talk about people all day, that's what we do for a living. I have not met people. I, no. Have you guys met people? Never. Well, you know, you have, that's why you love your dog more than people. Yes.

No, but there are, listen, from anything from a, from a chapter of a political organization, I don't know, our revolution, Democratic Socialists of America, a book club. It does feel good to connect with like-minded people and they exist. They're out there, right? So, you know, it doesn't have to be in person. You can, you know, meet them through organizations online, whatever it is. But we're your family. What about a TYT family meetup?

We used to do those. Or a rally. Or the rally. Get to Iowa. Yeah. To Iowa. Fran, if you go to the rally, I'll make sure to bring books that you can highlight. I feel seen.

Let's keep it real. Let's keep it real because it was a double whammy. She still called her friend. You call me Fran. This is gonna be a thing. Now everyone online is gonna call me Fran. And hit her for us. I'm sorry, I'll stop.

I'll stop. Please don't call her that, okay? It's Francesco or Franny. Follow me at Franny Fio, however. All right, let's get to the news. Nancy Pelosi is standing firm on her decision to not pursue impeachment on Donald Trump. And that apparently has not convinced Donald Trump that she might be on her side when it comes to some things.

In fact, he was really upset with her during a recent interview with Laura Ingram, and here's what he had to say about her. She said, I don't want impeachment, I want him in prison, meaning you. How do you work with someone like that? I think she's a disgrace. I actually don't think she's a talented person. I've tried to be nice to her because I would have liked to have gotten some deals done. She's incapable of doing deals.

She's a nasty, vindictive, horrible person. Nancy Pelosi's a disaster, okay? a disaster and let her do what she wants. You know what, I think they're in big trouble and she made a statement. It was a horrible, nasty, vicious statement while I'm overseas. Now if I made any statement about anybody, it would be like a big head. Why would he do that when he's overseas? She didn't want to, she is a terrible person.

So he, of course, insults her, calls her a terrible person. There's really no substance behind what he's saying other than a bunch of name calling. But remember, earlier this week it was reported that Pelosi got into a little bit of a tiff with Representative Jerry Nadler. Nadler wants to move forward with an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi does not. And Pelosi responded to him by saying, I don't want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.

So this is what has Donald Trump so upset. I think he's the one who's in a little bit of trouble and he knows it. And it's hilarious that his response to that is, I think the Democrats are in big trouble. trouble with what? What are they in big trouble with? As much as I disagree with Nancy Pelosi and not beginning impeachment hearings, she owns Donald Trump on the reg. I mean, and when, here, let me just be specific, she's really good at getting under

his skin. And I enjoy every moment of it. And has owned him. I mean, she and Schumer, I mean, Schumer was the one, I gotta say, Schumer was the one who was like, I think he likes me of the president. I'm like, oh, God. But Nancy, I think, was the one who basically got him to admit that the shutdown was going to be a Trump shutdown, that he would take responsibility for that the longest government

shutdown in history. Remember that? It was like a few months ago, whatever, not important. And then he was the one just recently who walked out of a meeting that they were having on infrastructure, literally through a fit because of something she said earlier, like, What's he gonna do when she actually begins impeachment hearings? I mean, this is, we've got a cry baby for president. Everyone who thinks that this is your strong man, he's a effing cry baby.

So his favorite word for women who get under his skin is nasty. So AOC really took advantage of the situation to just lay out what he really means by nasty. So here's her tweet, readings from the misogynist dictionary, nasty adjective. A woman who doesn't bow under your thumb or a woman who's not attracted to you. Example, when a misogynist encounters a nasty woman, he'll almost surely try to denigrate her appearance, intelligence, or character. And by the way, our senior producer Brett Erlich mentioned that there were a bunch of responses to that tweet saying, actually, Merriam-Webster Dictionary indicates that nasty is defined at.

Come on, guys. Do better. Oh, the humorless internet. We love you. Please follow me. No. I love that. That's so true because think about it.

Trump in his entire career has never had to deal with any specifically woman or pretty much anyone but definitely women who it's like, okay, if you're not part of the Miss Universe pageant. Not to denigrate that, but right, he sees them as objects for sure. And suddenly now here's a woman who disagrees with you who's a public figure who is respected, Strong, way more respected than you are. And suddenly she's nasty. Same thing with Hillary Clinton. She's nasty.

You have nothing else up your sleeve. You can't debate her on the issue, so therefore she's nasty. I mean, check your misogyny bra. Like anyone who feels uncomfortable, if a woman says something to you and she disagrees with you, and you know two things about her that she disagrees with you, and this is very real, she is not attracted to you, and you probably could not seduce her. I just don't want to think out any type of intimate situation. But it happens all the time. I think men are absolutely frightened by that.

I can't seduce you and I can't strong arm you. Crap. That's the only thing it's in his playbook, or I have enough money to say this, or the power structure, he's like, man, she's speaker of the house, like there's all these things that are in place that he can't deal with from her point of view. So he's talking Laura Ingram there, right? And if anybody, first of all, they like to brag about the women that have been on his staff. You know, he's got his communications director, one.

Hope picks. Well, Hope picks was there, but also now the biggest liar in the world is Sanders. Yeah, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So, like, trust me, if Sarah Huckabee Sanders says the things that she's saying to the press against Trump, oh, she is nasty to him. Oh, how filthy and nasty that this woman says, you see the way she growls and looks in people? As long as they're agreeing with you, then it's okay.

He just reprimanded Kellyan Conway in front of reporters the other day because she didn't notify him about the release of a book that's going to make him look bad. So, she's been on his team the whole time, but oh, he's ready to reprimand. There's, it's a power thing and it's in his gut and it's in his lack of confidence. He's like, I have to find my only ways of doing this. So when you're yelling at Laura Ingram about how nasty women are, he has no idea of how, and I wonder if she's looking at him going, I better stay in line or is he going to call me that.

Of course she's, I mean, she has done his bidding for him. I mean, she's disgusting. She lies for him constantly. Yeah. Megan Kelly, even Megan Kelly couldn't, I mean, I'm sure in private she turns against Trump, she had troll armies sicked against her. She like wrote a whole article about her, a book or even about that. She still hasn't really turned against him.

Because she asked them a question, by the way, not because she even came after him. Well, I mean, take a good, hard look at the Republican Party and understand what you've been supportive of. Because I don't think that Donald Trump, Donald Trump has pulled the veil from the Republican Party, right? He was willing to say out loud what we've seen in action, but haven't really seen anyone like overtly say or express before. You know, the treatment of women as second class citizens, the treatment of people of color as second class citizens, the hatred for migrants, both legal and illegal immigration. It's just, he's a terrible person.

But a lot of the policies that he's been trying to push for and has in some cases successfully succeeded in are policies that the Republican Party has been in favor of, including those massive tax cuts for the wealthy. And some of the Democrats help them out with that as well. Can I just say, though, that the double standard, whenever anyone criticizes a Republican woman, usually on merits, or even, let's say, you know, the Michelle Wolf joke at the White House Press Correspondent Center that likes has now meant that we have no more comedians at the White House Press Correspondent Center.

And everyone, oh, that is terrible, yes, making fun of her for her gender. Like, no, it wasn't. It was about the, you know, her lying. And then it's like, oh, we've got to protect Republican women. It's always, oh, how dare you? You're so sexist. How many Democratic women and progressive women have been called nasty and worse? They're professional victims.

Let's keep it real. Professional victims. They're looking to disarm you and they think we'll use their argument because they're disingenuous about it and they think that other folks are. Well, we have an update on what. Mexico is doing when it comes to immigration, it appears that the Mexican government does want to play ball with Donald Trump and his demands to help curb migration through Mexico into the United States.

Now, earlier, Trump had threatened Mexico with some pretty expensive tariffs if they don't help in stopping the flow of migrants from their southern border. And it appears that now Mexico is using its military in order to stop some of these migrants from coming through. The Mexican response in the border town of Metapa, which included dozens of soldiers, marked a toughening of the government's efforts to curb the flow of mainly Central American migrants. As we've spoken about before, the majority of these migrants are coming from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

And we have a news report that gives you some more details into what the Mexican government is doing. According to witnesses, Mexican soldiers and police on Wednesday had already begun stopping hundreds of migrants after they crossed the border from Guatemala. It's not clear whether Mexico's offer to send troops would be enough for Trump to lift his tariff threat, which he said would take effect Monday, ratcheting up to 25% by the fall. We called on them to do more. Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday said Mexico would have to take decisive action. The potential tariffs have rattled global financial markets and drawn fire from many of Trump's fellow Republicans who were concerned about the impact it could have on U.S. businesses and consumers. According to the Washington Post, the deal with Mexico could include a plan to overhaul asylum rules across the region by requiring Central Americans to seek refuge in the first foreign country they set foot on.

So I want to have a longer discussion about whether Trump actually played this right, because it appears that Mexico is giving him what he wants. But first, let me give you some more details. Migration officials in Mexico detained 350 to 400 people, noting that federal police and agents from the National Guard were present. Mexico's government recently created a militarized police force called the National Guard made up of soldiers and federal police. And they also went further by arresting very specific.

individuals, police detained Mujica, who is the director of the U.S.-Mexico Migrant Aid Group, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, and Cristobal Sanchez, a migrant rights activist. So the organization is basically helping these migrant caravans get through without being victimized by the type of crimes that we're seeing, including what the smugglers have been doing. There have been kidnappings, extortion, other forms of assault. And so the whole point of this organization is just to keep these migrants safe as they go through their incredibly dangerous journey. But anyway, members of these organizations have been arrested as a result of what Trump has been demanding. So the criticism that we've had on this show so far when it comes

to his tariff threats toward Mexico was, look, you're trying to use an economic issue to solve a social problem. And it looks like it might work. I mean, I don't agree with it. I think it's gross to use a militarized police force or the military to stop desperate people from trying to find safety. But at the same time, I think this is going to play well for his base. Well, you can maybe call me the pessimistic, I will.

Because I don't know, so this is going to be pure speculation. But when we have Mike Pence out there talking about how they're doing things and they're stepping up their efforts because we told them to. When Trump put out those first declarations about putting out, slapping these tariffs, and they're going to go up by 5% every 30 seconds. There wasn't a concrete standard for what the country needs to do to make sure he's satisfied with it, to make sure those tariffs aren't put in place. It just wasn't a well-thought-out approach because it's Donald Trump.

So once he put in place, the first thing I was saying was, so what standards are we putting in place? How many people he said until there's zero people? I only said the word zero, but there's no more illegal crossings. So what does that mean? So if we're down to 10 folks in a day, is that okay or does it need to be to zero? It just didn't make much concrete political like agenda sense because you're a politician, you're trying to put together the legislation or maybe have some kind of policy in place. So I think the discussion kind of came to, hey, okay, maybe leaders in Mexico, back to my speculation.

If you guys do something and let us know that you're stopping folks and we can take pictures of it, then we can get off the hook for what this guy put in place and saying we have to do with tariffs, then we won't have to say, okay, we're doing it or we're not doing it. You guys just put something in and then we can say you guys satisfied our demands. We still look strong and we don't have to be on the hook for this bad policy. I mean, I think those people are like the Pompeo's and his advisor, Trump's advisors, who are meeting with Mexican officials regularly and trying to, they're trying to reach some sort of agreement.

Mexico is sending its top diplomats to the United States to talk some kind of sense, saying, there is only so much we can do to stem the stream of migrants coming into Mexico itself. You don't think it also endangers and or changes our country. Those people are at risk. Those people need to be housed. I think, obviously, it's gonna play well because Trump is directly linking people's jobs, once again, to migrants who bear all the blame somehow.

When actually what Mexican officials have been asking for is a really really, Redirection of funds from things like the Merida Initiative, which is a security initiative that goes across Central America and North America, tons and tons of money to police and their security, like what is it, the drug war stuff, sorry, that's the word, tons of money for drug war funding, tons of money for the Merida Initiative, and they're asking for that money to be redirected into development programs, infrastructure programs, job programs to keep people in their countries, to give them jobs, to help them stay safe. Now, I know it seems ridiculous that like, well, why are we helping them with jobs when we need

to be helping us with jobs? Well, because we're already helping their military crack down, not on drug cartels because we all know the drug wars failed, no, crack down on civilians. That's right. So why aren't we helping them root out corruption in their military? The stuff that we've actually like helped bolster. So you want, and that's such a great point, because you can play all these games, you can put out all these threats about tariffs, which by the way, Trump has agreed to postpone as he

continues negotiating with Mexican officials, but you still don't solve the root of the problem. And creating a situation in which people want to stay in their homes and don't want to flee the violence in their country is much more important, because again, that solves the root of the problem. Now, if you've noticed, the stock market is doing much better today. And I'm seeing some people in the news link this to the increase in stock value. That is not what's really happening. The jobs report came out today.

Only 75,000 jobs were added to our economy last month. And as a result, the Federal Reserve appears to want to cut interest rates because of the economic slowdown. That has led to an increase in the stock market. That's what we're seeing right now. Those kind of details aren't going to be wide. I know. It doesn't matter.

I mean, those are the facts. But going back to the beginning of this conversation, it's all about messaging and what is going to appear to be the case for Trump's voters. And this does unfortunately look good for Trump's base. Because in the long run, because many of their opposition to the policies of seeing what we can do about folks that are fleeing countries, it's because things are happening. So when their thought is here, they're coming to rape and kill and destroy, and it's not the case for most of them coming up, then we have an opposing policy of, hey, let's just keep them down there. Something is going to happen then that we're going to have to deal with later, because it's real.

I mean, I think, again, this is all, this has to be handled by all of Central and North America. This is a cross-continent, I mean, not cross-continental, cross-country effort, right? It's similar, I would say, to the way that the Syrian refugee crisis or the migrant refugee crisis in Europe needed to be and has sort of been, but kind of been a failed cross-country effort to say, how do we deal with humanely with migrants coming into this country? We know what's happening. We can't fix the war-torn country, that's sort of the longer route. We'll contribute to it.

Exactly. Instead, we'll contribute to it. I want to say, though, that Amlo, you know, the Manuel Lopez Obrador, the president of Mexico is more of a left candidate, is a left populist candidate, and is actually giving a lot of hope to many Mexicans that so much right-wing rule will finally come to an end. But he still has to play ball because economically, and when it comes to power, it's Mexico versus the U.S. So there is some negotiation.

He is between Iraq and a hard place. But he is disappointing. I think a lot of people who didn't want him to appease Trump in the ways that Peña Nieto did before him. So let's talk a little bit about someone who does not disappoint. And that person is Bernie Sanders. I want to end our one with this awesome news. Bernie Sanders confronted Wall Street executives at their shareholder meeting in Arkansas.

And he had some pretty big demands. Take a look. Walmart pays many of its employees starvation wages. Sanders invited by a Walmart employee to make the case to have hourly workers on the company's board. During his remarks, he also demanded Walmart pay its workers a base wage of $15 an hour and called out the company CEO Doug McMillan for his $24 million salary. They are also outraged by the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in America. The company defended its treatment of its employees by pointing to Walmart's tuition assistance and management training programs, and in a surprise, McMillan called for the federal minimum wage to go up.

$7.25 is too low. It's time for Congress to put a thoughtful plan in place to increase the minimum wage. Now, the reason why Bertie was able to be there is because he was invited by a woman named Kat Davis. She's an hourly employee at Walmart. And just to give you a sense of how frustrated some of the employees. are for this massive, incredibly profitable corporation. Let's hear from one of them. Brema Lovett works as a Walmart associate in Jacksonville, Florida, and welcome Sanders' presence at the meeting. He's for the working people, and he speaks for the working people.

Lovett believes an employee on the board would go a long way to helping Walmart leadership understand what it really means to live on Walmart's minimum wage. Could you live off $11 in something an hour? It's hard. It's hard, especially in our economy. It's up and we're booming. The proposal to add an employee to Walmart's board was rejected by shareholders. People cannot make it on $11 an hour. And the company also did not make a substantive move toward raising employee salaries. And after his remark, Sanders was skeptical Walmart leadership was listening.

Do you feel that the Walmart CEO got your message today? No, I don't. So matter of fact, but I love what he did here because he's sticking to his message. For him, the big message is we need a better economic situation for the vast majority of Americans who have been completely screwed over by the way the system is set up today. I love the fact, and by love, I'm being sarcastic by the way, the fact that the idea of having an employee serve on the board is like the most controversial idea ever, right? Oh my God, we can't have the employees know about the discussions that are happening

with the board. No, we should have employees who make the company serve on the board, period. And I just want to shout out the organization that made this entire event happen and is like organizing and is amazing. United for Respect. They are changing the game when it comes to not just rights for workers, but rethinking democracy in the workplace and they're gonna be going on beyond Walmart to say absolutely workers deserve a seat at the table, absolutely you should take into their considerations and their livelihoods

into consideration when you're making decisions for this company that we help run. And so just shout out to their amazing work that they've been doing. And when employees say give us a voice, just like constituents, and we talked about how politicians treat constituents all the time, how dare they? Do you know who I am? Yeah, your job is to make sure that other people. other folks can live, hey, they're working for you, they're making you your billions. Yeah.

And I want you even think about the $11 an hour. Right. I want you to think about the $15 an hour. That's still, I'm sorry, in my opinion, that's still not enough. I agree. So you're living off $15 an hour, and then there's these things called taxes that you still pay on every paycheck. So we're thinking about what you bring home and then what you have to do with healthcare costs.

And then what, again, we'll go back to some of our debates and what people want to do with legislation. What's what's how to do with tax cuts and a tax plan? The first thing they wanted to do was give more billionaires, more money. That was their priority. But when we're revamping the tax code, was it having anything to do with folks making this much money? There's not much you can really do with their taxes unless you have them pay nothing.

But there's nothing you're going to do with that side of it. You have to give them something to live off of, but nobody cares. And as soon as you say it, they go, how dare you? You know these are children that are trying to work their way up? These aren't all 16-year-olds getting their first job. Luckily, there are people who care. There are members of the Democratic electorate who certainly care, which is why this is one of the biggest issues that's being discussed over and over again.

But more importantly, one of the reasons why we're discussing this topic, and it's at the very top of the priorities for Democratic candidates, is because in the last election, Bernie Sanders just incessantly brought up this issue. And look, in a time when it feels like we're bombarded with politicians who are much more interested in getting paid to give speeches to these corporate CEOs, it's nice to see a politician who shows up to their shareholder meeting and is like, hey, yeah, I got a question for you. When are you gonna pay your workers and when are you gonna have some of these workers on the

board? Absolutely. Actually representing the people who are helping produce the profits that that CEO is able to take home. Especially a corporation that is notorious in union busting and does not allow its workers to unionize and gives them a little intro video when a new worker comes on board, like, hi, here at Walmart, we don't need unions because big daddy Walton loves us hard.

Like, no. So if you're not gonna let your workers unionize, then put one on your board. Why not? Right. Well, Francesca Furentini, thank you for joining us. Check out the bituation room. Yes. And J.R. Jackson, who's here?

Just check them out. Damage report. You'll see it happen. And all the other stuff. Thanks, Franny. I mean, yeah, check it out. Don't call me Fran. Bye.

All right. We'll be back with Brooke Thomas and Brett Erlich for our two. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen 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, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.