The Young Turks - Blame Progressives

Episode Date: November 3, 2021

The mainstream media is predictably blaming progressives for electoral setbacks suffered by Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey and Minnesota. Zillow is trying to offload around $2.8 billion worth of houses onto investors after it bought them with the intent of selling them to hopeful homeowners and landlords. More than 140,000 Amazon drivers may be repaid nearly $60 million in alleged withheld tips. Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer said his killings were in self-defense. Police unions in New York said 10,000 cops would quit over the vaccine mandate. When the deadline came and went, the actual number was 34. Host: Ana Kasparian. 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. Welcome to the Young Turks, I'm your host, Anna Kasparean, and we have a giant show ahead for you today. In fact, one of the segments that, to be quite honest, I'm not really looking forward to doing, but I think is important to talk about are my corrections in regard to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. There have been some mistakes made in our past reporting of that story, and I want to make sure that I correct the record,

because giving you guys the facts of that story and any story that we cover is incredibly important. So we're going to be doing that in the first hour today. Later in the show, So we're also gonna talk about how Donald Trump is very, very upset with Fox News for announcing that Glenn Yunkin won the gubernatorial race in Virginia. Now that's accurate information, but we'll get a load of what Trump is upset about in regard to how Fox News reported that story. So that's a little later on in the second hour when John Iderola joins me. And my favorite story of the day today has to do with a giant satisfying fail by

Yes, that real estate website where you can go to find all of the listings of housing in the area you're looking at. And there was just a wonderful wrinkle to that story involving Zillow that I just can't wait to share with you all. So that's in the first hour as well. As always, please like and share the stream if you're watching us online or click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube to become new YouTube members. Our bonus episode today is probably my favorite bonus episode in a long, long time. long time. We're gonna talk about a marathon runner who had an insane accident during the marathon, but she persevered.

Who is she? What happened? Is it disgusting? The answer is yes, but you want more details. That's gonna be four members in the bonus episode. And I'm again, really, really looking forward to it. And also a voter in Virginia surprised a Fox News host on her views regarding critical race theory.

That's also in the bonus episode today. But before we get to all of that, let's start off with some of the results from last night's elections. So Democrats are losers, and as expected, they'd rather blame progressives for their failures, rather than take personal responsibility for the awful campaigns that they ran. Now let's see who some of the losers are. We go to Virginia, where Democratic incumbent Terry McCullough unfortunately lost to to GOP Challenger Glenn Yonkin in the gubernatorial race.

Yonkin ran in the Republican primary for the gubernatorial race as someone who was closely aligned with Trump. And then after winning the Republican primary, he switched gears and kind of distanced himself from Trump and really presented himself as someone who could appeal to independent voters in that state. Terry McCullough disappointed Democratic voters in the state of Virginia and as As a result, he did lose support among key demographics, including the African American vote in Virginia.

He had precipitously lost support among the black vote in Virginia. And I think that's important to focus on, not because of just any particular demographic, but for the reasons that we're hearing from the voters who had previously supported McCullough or ended up voting for him anyway, even if they felt incredibly disappointed by him. So again, Yonkin really went out of his way after the Republican primary to present himself as someone who was more palatable than Donald Trump. A wealthy former private equity executive making his first run for office, Yonken elevated education and taxes while projecting a suburban dad demeanor to demonstrate he was different

from Trump without saying so outright. And of course, Donald Trump did in fact endorse him for this race. And you then go to New Jersey's gubernatorial race and look, it was not supposed to be a close race. Democrat Phil Murphy running against Republican Jack Chirrelli and the race was incredibly close. In New Jersey, Governor Phil Murphy, who had been expected to win easily, is in the fight of his life with Republican Jack Chittorelli.

The post midnight appearances before supporters, or in those post midnight appearances before supporters both said that they expect to win. That's how close the race has been so far. And so again, like Democrats are failing. I mean, we're seeing failure on a national level. We're seeing failure in the local races that we're talking about here. And as Jenk and I predicted, the Democratic Party decided to focus on the very individuals within their party who actually champion incredibly popular policies. So here is a video from last I believe October 28th, it's me and Jenk talking about what we can expect when the Democratic Party faces a bloodbath, a political bloodbath in the midterm elections. Let's watch.

I can't wait for the dominant narrative that will emerge during the 2020 midterm elections. Can I predict it? You haven't said it. Progressives cost us still left. 100%. Everybody knows it. And then you'll see it, and then everybody will say, oh no, no, everybody was surprised. We'll say we said it here for years. And look, we're talking about the midterm elections there, but what happened in the country last night yesterday was just a little appetizer, a little tasty taste of what's to come in the midterm elections.

The Democratic Party and its brand not doing so well, because guess what? Just relying on running against Donald Trump or fear mongering about the other party is not enough. You need to find issues to galvanize your base around. You need to give your voters a reason to show up to the polls and cast a ballot for you. And unfortunately, Terry McAuliffe, a bland establishment Democrat, did not manage to do that. And that's not based on my opinion, that's based on what we're hearing from individuals in the state of Virginia who either decided not to vote at all, or if they did cast their ballot for McColliffe, the only reason why they did it is because they wanted to avoid

the damage that would be caused by someone who'd be far worse, Glenn Yonkin. But again, it's all about damage control or that's not worth it, I'm not going to show up to vote anyway. That's the dominant messaging that we're getting so far from Democratic voters out of that state. But going back to how the Democratic Party is blaming progressives, they're certainly getting a lot of help from corporate media. I turn to Axios first, where they write on Twitter, from Virginia to New Jersey to Minnesota, voters sent Democrats a warning for 2022. There could be a massive backlash to perceptions that progressives are pulling the party too far left.

So just let that sink in for a second. You have Biden's build back better agenda, which had all these provisions that pulled so well that even Republican majorities in some states favored those provisions. But the takeaway from axios, because they're talking to failed democratic strategists, is that no, it's actually the popular policies that are championed by progressives that are hurting the Democratic Party. No focus on what we've seen from Senator Cinema or Senator Mansion in destroying the possibility of those popular provisions passing. No discussion about the corporate corruption that we see within the Democratic Party, no discussion about how the Democratic

Party has failed to deliver anything. I mean, they promised police reform, that's gone, that's not gonna happen. Democrats claimed that they were gonna make it happen, not gonna happen. They didn't pass the reconciliation bill, and of course, what we heard, the dominant narrative in the press over the last several weeks, was that Democrats essentially stripped out the popular provisions, including paid family leave. Now, I'm gonna get back to my thoughts, my read of this whole situation in just a second, but I do want to give you some more from Axios.

This is the actual headline from the article that was linked in the tweet that I read earlier. Voters punished Democrats amid left drift. How are we deal? What left drift? What left drift? There's a left drift. There are finally some progressives in Congress who are demanding more, but they just folded to the demands of corporate conservative Democrats like Mansion and Cinema, what left drift?

I mean, is there any policy that's been carried out that demonstrates a left drift? I don't think so, but let me give you more. So they write an Axios, the senior aid to a New Jersey Democrat told Axios's Alana Trine. It's insanely clear the party must reorient, not on center left or progressive goals, but on what gets real things done for families. A senior aid to another House Democrat, moderate, House Democrat, moderate specifically, which probably means conservative, told Axios's Hans Nichols that it's clear that passing a historic bipartisan infrastructure deal months ago would have energized President Biden's numbers and that House progressives who stalled that vote had hurt McCullough.

Yeah, that's right, because, you know, ordinary American voters are sitting around and thinking about roads and bridges. That's really what gets them motivated to show up to the polls. Oh, that road or that bridge that might be repaired, maybe, that's enough reason for me to show up to the polls. Oh, turns out that there's a huge percentage of our public infrastructure that could be privatized through this awesome bipartisan infrastructure bill. Great, I love Democrats, I'm going to show up and vote based on that.

Now think about what Glenn Yonkin ran on. He ran on schools. Yes, the critical race theory narrative, the made up culture war was part of that. But he focused on other elements of education in the state of Virginia as well. Remember, there are so many parents out there who were furious at the fact that schools were shut down and they remained shut down during the coronavirus pandemic. When you look at the demographic that supported Terry McCullough, you'll notice that white educated women, college educated women disproportionately supported McCullough. But when you're talking about voters who don't have a college degree, these are individuals

who are more likely to be forced into going to work, right? They're not able to work from home. So these are parents who, you know, they have essential jobs, they have to go to work, they don't have the choice of staying home and watching their kids as they're forced to stay home as a result of the school closures. And think about the rage and the fury that that leads to, right? And so Glenn Yonkin ran on that, and that message resonated. What did Terry McAuliffe even run on, trying to disprove critical race theory?

Well, what Terry McAuliffe did was essentially allow Yonkin and the GOP to frame the issues that were up for debate in this election. Instead of taking charge and fighting back with an economic populist message, something that would actually communicate to voters in Virginia, that he's gonna do something to materially improve their lives, he decided, no, I'm gonna let Yonkin set the tone, and I'm just gonna constantly play defense, because I've got nothing else to offer my voters.

That's what happened with Glenn Yonkin and Terry McCullough. Anyway, let me give you more. Then there's Anderson Cooper on CNN who asked this question. How much of this is a message just the Democratic Party that it's too far left? I mean, that if you're the squad or if you're, you know, someone has been calling for defund police or socialism or democratic socialism? So that's the dominant narrative that you'll see in corporate media. There's one small caveat to what I'm saying here though. So you have Anderson Cooper mentioning defund the police and how that could be a liability in these elections.

And there is some truth to that. And I want everyone to think about that on a very basic level, okay? If you are an American who has to cobble together several jobs just to make ends meet, everything is incredibly overwhelming. There's a lot of anxiety as a result of the pandemic. You don't have the time to sit down and pour over data regarding crime statistics and what is causing crime. And to be sure, there is an uptick in crime.

Not in one part of the country, not in a few part of the countries. There has been a rise of crime throughout the country, throughout the country. And so if you're an ordinary American and you're experiencing that in your community and the dominant messaging from the Democratic Party is defund the police, well, you're gonna think, well, that that seems pretty counterproductive considering the fact that we're seeing an uptick in crime. And then on the other hand, you have the Republican Party blaming Democrats for defunding the police, even if they haven't done that yet, and saying, hey, you're experiencing that uptick and crime because they defunded the police. And look at this, this is just a failed

democratic policy. It's ripping your community apart. And that's a powerful message from the right wing that was not accurately or aggressively countered by McAuliffe or any Democrat who was being challenged by a Republican yesterday. That is an issue. We see the GOP playbook so clearly and Democrats just haven't been able to counter it. It's really sad and pathetic. Now, what I loved was Van Jones on that very panel with Anderson Cooper because there was a moment of clarity and this is what it looked like.

If Terry had been able to stick on a message of economic progress, you know, family leave and minimum wage and that kind of stuff, and maybe we wouldn't be making this argument. In other words, in other words, there was an economic message from the Democrats that was available and was necessary given the rising costs. But what happened is we pulled out of our own federal bill, all the family leave stuff, you're undermining the economic message for Terry McClough and leave him. with Trump is bad and vaccine mandates are good. I think Van Jones hit the nail on the head there. I think he's 100% right. And it's not even about Van Jones and his personal opinion. It's about what's reflected in the comments that we're now seeing from the voters in Virginia.

So believe it or not, you also have some Democratic strategists and some in the media blaming black voters in Virginia for what happened last night, which I think is particularly pathetic, okay? So why don't we take a look at what happened and and why voters in that state decided to either sit it out or, you know, if they did vote from a call off, they were very clear that they did it, not because they liked McColliffe, but because they were terrified of Yonkin. But before I do that, just to really buttress Van Jones's point, something interesting happened in the House today.

So we found out that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a major shift announced on Wednesday that four weeks of paid family and medical leave will be added back into the social spending bill, that's the budget reconciliation bill, after Democrats had previously scrapped the provision from the package. Adding a version of the leave policies back into the package brings back to life a central And popular, let me just say that again, and popular plank of President Joe Biden's initial proposal and comes as Democrats tried to unify over their messaging after suffering a significant loss in the Virginia governor's race.

Now look, I've learned my lesson with the Democratic Party. I think Pelosi had a moment of clarity and realized, oh my God, we need to actually offer our voter something so we don't get clobbered in the midterm elections. Do I think that the four weeks of paid family leave is likely to get anywhere? Probably not, because Democrats will always fall victim to moneyed interests as long as, first of all, they're personally invested in individual stocks, but more importantly, as long as they engage in the system of legalized bribery. That's not going to change.

And if that's not going to change, I don't have many hopes for really robust policies being passed by this feckless, pathetic party. But I do also want to talk a little bit about what voters in Virginia had to say. Because they did give some interesting comments to the New York Times. So these are black voters that they spoke to. As I mentioned, Terry McCullough, who was the incumbent governor in Virginia, he lost and he kept losing support among black voters precipitously leading up to the election. At the grassroots level, writes the New York Times, voters in Newport News also saw.

said that their support for McAuliffe did not mean they were satisfied with the performance of Democrats in Washington. Several voters cited a radio advertisement that had been playing on local stations saying black voters should not back McColliffe because Democrats cared about black communities only during election season. Now here's the important part of the report. They rejected the ads plea to stay home but said the general theme resonated and they I urge Democrats in Congress to pass bold legislation on President Biden's core campaign

promises, including climate change, police reform, and economic investments in black communities. I mean, if you're gonna run with all of these robust promises and then fail to deliver and think that voters are gonna forget about it, you'd be mistaken. And I think McAuliffe is learning that the hard way. But let me give you more. One voter told the New York Times, man by the name of William Joy, A lot of people are upset with Biden. We have high gas prices.

Everything is so expensive right now. Biden made promises to black people he hasn't kept yet. And the Democratic Party, I mean, it's hard to deny, have absolutely taken the black vote for granted. One more voter from Virginia Tony McRite who says this. Republicans are happy to come together to do the wrong thing. thing. But Democrats never come together to do the right thing. I think that the corporate Democrats need to have a day of reckoning and unfortunately they're unwilling to do that.

They're unwilling to look at the data, look at the facts, listen to their voters and figure out what it is that's making them fail. Instead, they're doing what children do. They're looking for a scapegoat, they're looking for someone else to blame. And what's incredibly sad is they've decided to point fingers at the very members of their party who happen to be the most popular because they champion the most popular policy proposals. And I wish they fought for those policy proposals a little harder. But the idea that those are the people that the establishment Democrats need to go after is laughable. It just gives you this, it's for foreshadowing, especially for the midterm elections.

We know it's gonna happen because the Democratic Party learns the wrong lessons over and over and over again. They're partly paid to learn the wrong lessons through this system of legalized bribery. They partly get terrible advice from these awful democratic strategies, some of whom spoke to the axios for that awful article. But if Democrats really want to win in the future, again, they need to give their voters something to vote for because Trump can't always be the boogeyman and, you know, relying on scare tactics about Trump is just not going to work, especially when he's not on the ballot.

Anyway, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news for you, including my favorite story of the day, the most satisfying business fail. Come right back. Welcome back to TYT, DJ Bart Kyle on the ones in two. Thank you very much. Yes, and we've got Craig Lowry manning the set as stage manager today. All right, just a quick note about the child, I'm not child, but the paid family leave that I briefly referenced in the previous segment. I mentioned that Pelosi is putting four weeks of paid family leave back into the reconciliation

bill. Well, I just read from Matt Brunig on Twitter and he does a lot of great analysis for the People's Policy Project, definitely check them out. He writes, the newly reinstated paid leave provision has been modified to include a brand new eligibility rule not contained in any prior version. The rule is targeted directly at the lowest earners in the workforce who are now explicitly excluded, excluded from eligibility. So I just want to like, I want that to reinforce the fact that Democrats have learned nothing

from what happened yesterday. Also for our Twitch viewer who asked about good food in Miami, look up some croquettas, as Brett mentioned, because I love me some croquettas, okay? So definitely check that out as well. All right, well, let's get back to the show. We do have some good news, although there is a negative twist to it. But don't worry, let's just celebrate the good, okay?

Zillow, one of the many real estate websites people go to to find listings of available homes is now trying to offload. thousands of homes it bought during the pandemic when there was this massive home buying bonanza. Now why? Why would they want to do this? Obviously because they're losing money with this real estate that they now have possession of, which just let that sink in for a second. Okay, Zillow managed to lose money in the housing market when the housing market is doing tremendously well for people who have the capital to buy houses, they're losing money, they're losing money. I mean, if that's not a fail, like the biggest fail in business for the year, probably. But let me, let me give

you the details. This is what happened. So in August, there was an arms race among tech companies that were trying to buy up as much real estate as possible as housing prices exploded across the country. Zillow bet big, telling investors that it planned to buy thousands of houses throughout 2021 and turn its homes division into a billion dollar business. So we've seen this happen with a number of massive companies, right? So they'll buy up single family residences and they'll either flip those homes or, as private equity firms have showed us, they'll turn them into rentals to essentially corner the rental market. In this case, Zillow was planning on doing this mass flipping operation,

where they'll buy a bunch of homes, they'll like spit on some tile and put it up on a wall, and then they'll sell it for an insanely inflated price. Well, apparently they didn't really think this through. So as a result, as the summer came to an end though, it seemed like Zillow's offers business was also cooling down. In October, the company told investors that it would stop buying houses, citing construction, renovation, and closing labor shortages. Now Bloomberg, However, speculated that it could also be motivated by excess inventory and reported that Zillow seemed to sell a good number of houses at a loss instead of a profit. So what is Zillow planning to do now?

Now Zillow is looking to offload around 7,000 of the homes it bought. Now there's a twist to this story that isn't so great, but let's just let's just take a moment to to really absorb what we've learned and celebrate it because I love seeing them fail in this regard. Because what Zillow and other companies like Zillow are doing, in order to maximize their profits, of course, is they're taking housing out of an already limited inventory of homes. And I know that we're in such an awful economic situation

that most working people in this country already had difficulty affording homes. buying their own properties. However, when you really think about it, the only vehicle in which middle class Americans or working Americans could build wealth in this country was through home ownership. And these kinds of companies, including private equity firms, have made it more and more difficult throughout the years for that vehicle for wealth building to come to fruition.

And that enrages me almost more than any other issue in the country right now. because it's also led to, there's a domino effect. It's also led to an increase of people within the rental market. And you look at rental prices and they've shot up as a result, right? Because again, there's limited inventory in both the housing market where you can purchase homes and also the rental market. Now, what is the negative twist to the story? Here it is. The company is trying to sell the homes to, you guessed it, institutional investors.

like Wall Street firms to the tune of $2.8 billion, investors made up about 20%. That's one-fifth, 20% of the home buying market in 2020. And Zillow says that it and its competitors made up around 1% of the housing market in the second quarter of 2021. A fifth of the housing market is a massive and influential chunk. And it absolutely is. There's no other way of putting it. And this trend of institutional buyers, okay, so the private equity firms, the black rocks, and all of that, they were really empowered by the policies that were passed under the Obama administration. So when we talk about the lopsided economic recovery following the 2008 recession, that was

very much the result of policies that put Wall Street first, that prioritized the best interests of Wall Street while essentially screwing over ordinary Americans who should have received some sort of relief so their homes weren't foreclosed on. But that's not what happened. So by 2016, as a result of Obama era policies, 95% of the distressed mortgages on Fannie Mae and Freddie Max books were auctioned off to Wall Street investors without any meaningful stipulations. And private equity firms had acquired more than 200,000 homes in desirable cities and middle class suburban neighborhoods, creating a tantalizing new asset class, the single family rental home. And the numbers have just gotten worse, and we see it play out in the housing market.

All of us notice it. So over the next seven years, so starting in 2016 and over the next seven years, I'm sorry, yeah, strategic Acquisitions culminated into Blackstone subsidiary Invitation Homes, making Invitation Homes the largest single family rental company in America. And with almost 80,000 homes after Blackstone sold its shares at the end of 2019. Okay, so think about the number of homes, just this one private equity firm has. And it's just one. You're seeing copycats popping up doing the same thing that Blackstone is engaging in. And it's a disaster. It's an absolute disaster for the housing market. It's an absolute disaster when you consider the already limited inventory of

houses. And there's nothing being proposed by Democrats, by the way, who are in power right now to mitigate this. Absolutely no regulations, no policies. You know, because when it comes to neoliberalism, the government only intervenes on behalf of money. interests, but never on behalf of ordinary American workers. And that's just how this system works. So when Democrats are curious as to why people hate them so much and why they're losing so much support among the working class, it's because this kind of garbage happens under their watch due to some of the policies that they pass, and they just completely

ignore the issue as if it doesn't exist. So can you understand the rage in the country as a result? I know I can. All right, well let's move on to Amazon because there is some sweet justice after all when it comes to Jeff Bezos and the business practices over at Amazon. Hundreds of thousands of Amazon drivers will now be repaid nearly tens of millions of dollars, okay, nearly $60 million in tips that the company had stolen from them. Now the FTC actually investigated this case, the Federal Trades Commission, and here's what happened.

The FTC and Amazon reached a settlement with the company agreeing to pay more than $61.7 million. The full amount, the tech giant already withheld, which will be used by the FTC to compensate Amazon Flex drivers. So the money was actually withheld from these drivers in a short period of time, a relatively short period of time, between 2016 and 2019. Now, if you are someone who purchases groceries, for instance, on Amazon, Amazon Fresh, you will get a little notice when you're doing this transaction that you can give the driver a tip and 100% of the tips will go to the drivers. But that is not what was taking place, okay? So the consumer was being lied to and the workers, the drivers in this case, were also being

lied to. So flex drivers, I want to be clear, are different from typical Amazon delivery. drivers. These are people who are independent contractors. They operate based on an app where they get to select different orders that they will deliver, usually grocery orders and things like that. They use their personal vehicles to do it. There are some strict rules in regard to what their vehicle can be like. It has to be a certain size, for instance. It has to be under certain conditions. And they deliver goods and groceries ordered through Amazon Fresh and also Prime Now. Now, rather than passing along 100% of customers' tips of drivers, as it had promised to do,

Amazon used the money itself. And that's according to Daniel Kaufman, he is the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director, and he obviously investigated this case and helped to secure the settlement that Amazon has agreed to pay. Now, in its initial complaint, the FTC said Amazon used tens of millions of dollars. customer tips to subsidize the payments to drivers and continue to divert drivers tips during this time, despite hundreds of drivers' complaints about the practice, critical media reports, and internal recognition that the conduct was a reputation Tinder box. So not only were they engaging in this practice, there was communications internally where

where people are like, yo, I know we're doing this, but this is gonna lead to some bad press if we get caught. And of course it did, which Amazon fully deserves. And so the FTC is now sending out 139,507 checks and 1,621 PayPal payments to drivers. The average check for Amazon flex drivers included in the settlement will be about $422, but 19,980 drivers will receive checks for more than $600. But get this, the highest amount is going to a single Amazon Flex driver to the tune of $28,000. Imagine being that worker and finding out that $28,000 that

was supposed to go to your pay was purposely, viciously withheld by Amazon. It's just so gross, but this is how that they operate. Of course, they got to maximize profits. And the way they maximize profits is by screwing over their workers, the very people who make their operations run in the first place. But I'm really happy to see that the FTC looked into this, they investigated this, and are now returning that money to their rightful owners, the workers. So with all the bad news that's going on today, let us just soak this in. And let's let us enjoy it.

We'll do it during the break. When we come back, we'll have some more stories. for you, including admissions that I failed on the written house story a little bit, and I want to clear the record in regard to the facts of that case. We'll give you an update on the trial, and then later on in the show, we'll talk about the reality of workers, firefighters, cops, threatening to resign due to vaccine mandates. Do the real numbers bear that out? We'll give you the details on that and more. Come right back.

Long Bendy Twizzlers candy keeps the fun going. Going. Twizzlers, keep the fun going. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian with you. Let's give you guys an update on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial where I will make some corrections that are definitely worth correcting. So let's get into it. The Kyle Rittenhouse trial is underway and in his opening statements, the defense attorney

for Rittenhouse, Mark Richards, argued that his client was not in any way some dangerous murderer, but he was there in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a state that he does not live in to essentially protect the community, and then he found himself acting in self-defense. So let's hear what he had to say, and I'll fill you in with some more details. Mr. Binger makes a big thing out of Kyle Rittenhouse was the only person who shot somebody that evening. True. Mr. Rittenhouse was the only person who was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum that evening. The evidence will show he thought probably that he could get that gun from Kyle Rittenhouse.

He was wrong. Kyle Rittenhouse protected himself, protected his firearms so it couldn't be taken, used against him or other people from Mr. Rosenbaum who had made threats to kill. And the other individuals who didn't see that shooting attacked them in the street like an animal. So to give you some more of what's happening in the case so far in the trial, the New York Times reports that when he went downtown on the third day of protests after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, Rittenhouse was there to clean graffiti and help protect the city from more destruction, his lawyer said. So, you know, there are, of course, legitimate questions as to why Rittenhouse was there, especially since he's a resident of Illinois and really had no business in Kenosha, Wisconsin. So what his lawyer is trying to do here is make the case that he acted in self-defense in using

his weapon. And he's also trying to explain why Rittenhouse would be there in the first place. Richards, the defense attorney here, turned to the people who were shot by Rittenhouse, characterizing them as hostile and belligerent. So what we had shared with you earlier in regard to the judge in this case, allowing the defense attorney or the defense to use that kind of rhetoric, to kind of paint a picture of the very people who were shot and killed, that is playing out. However, as we had also shared with you earlier,

the prosecutors are not allowed to use the word victim when referring to the individuals who were shot, including the two who were shot and killed by Rittenhouse. Remember, there were three who were shot, two of whom died as a result of him opening fire. Now, here's what allegedly happened that night, according to the defense attorney. After Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum and fled down Sheridan Road away from the scene, he was chased by dozens of people, including, here are the two other victims, right? Anthony Huber and Greg Groskroits, okay, as citizens who were trying to stop an active shooter. The defense characterized them as aggressors.

Now, Huber, according to the defense here, Hubert bludgeoned Rittenhouse with a skateboard, Richard said, and a man who was captured on video but never identified, jump kicked Mr. Rittenhouse in the face. So look, these details do matter because this stuff is caught on camera. You do see it in the video, someone taking a skateboard and hitting Rittenhouse over the head with it as he's on his back. And I haven't seen this video yet, but it was already, you know, the New York Times says it's on tape.

There's someone captured on video, someone who has not been identified, kicking Rittenhouse in the face. So look, these details matter because if you're going to make an argument that you acted in self-defense, there needs to be some proof that there was an imminent threat, right? And in this case, the imminent threat is the guy using the skateboard and someone kicking Rittenhouse in the face as he's on his back. Now, what really mattered to me was how all of this unfolded. What was the thing that sparked it? What started all of it? And initially, I was under the assumption that Rittenhouse was the person who was chasing after Joseph Rosenbaum,

that that's how it had started. But I was wrong about that, okay? So I want to correct the record. I was in fact wrong about that. And to show you the evidence to reinforce that I was wrong about that, I want to go to this video that shows how everything really started. Here is where we first see Joseph Rosenbaum, the first person Kyle Ridenhouse fatally shoots that night. He joins the fight against the armed civilians, as other protesters tried to stop him. Hey! Hey! Rosenbaum has just been released from the hospital after undergoing mental health treatment. His reasons for being here are unclear. He doesn't appear to have attended. a protest before. But his actions on this night will add to an already volatile situation.

Rittenhouse walks towards a parking lot where cars are being vandalized. He passes Joseph Rosenbaum, who is fighting with the armed men at the gas station earlier. Rosenbaum now starts chasing Rittenhouse and throws a plastic bag that holds his belongings from the hospital. Close behind them, a man holds up a handgun and fires it. We don't know. Why? Then Rosenbaum lunges towards Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires four times. So those details matter, right?

Who was chasing who matters? The gunshots by some other unidentified person that matters, especially if you're Rittenhouse and you're running away and then you hear shots and then Rosenbaum lunges toward him. So the question is, in a court of law, is it considered reasonable for Rittenhouse to act in self-defense? You know, was there a legitimate threat there where Rittenhouse would reasonably want to defend himself by opening fire? That is what's going to be debated and deliberated upon, okay? Other details I wanted to share with you about this case. So he's facing six charges.

Here's what the charges are. First degree reckless homicide, first degree recklessly endangering safety. I mean, remember, you have members of militia groups there with open carry, which is legal in Wisconsin. You have him running around with this gun, like literally running around with this weapon. So that's one of the charges he's facing. You have a first degree intentional homicide, attempted first degree intentional homicide. for the shooting of of Gage Gross Croix, who was wounded but is still alive.

You also have possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. I wanna make a correction on our previous reporting on that issue as well. He did in fact hold possession of a firearm that he was not legally allowed to carry, okay? It is illegal for him to have it because he's 17.

However, previously it was But previously it was reported that he had obtained the gun in Illinois and then cross state lines into Wisconsin with that illegal gun. Now it turns out based on an investigation that there was an individual who sold the gun to Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin. So he did not cross state lines with an illegal gun, but he had an illegal gun. Okay, so do with that information what you will. It's important to know the facts, those are the details.

Now let's talk about what these charges mean. First degree intentional homicide is analogous to first degree murder in other states. It's defined as causing the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or someone else. Without the presence of certain mitigating circumstances specified in the law, Rittenhouse faces this charge in connection with the fatal shooting of Anthony Huber. It is a class a felony that carries a basic sentence of life in prison. Now, after Rittenhouse opened fire and killed Rosenbaum, he then ran away from the scene,

and there were protesters there who were like screaming, you can see it in video, they're screaming at him, and they're like, why did you shoot him? Why did you shoot him? And there were other protesters who reasonably believed that Kyle Rittenhouse was a threat because he had opened fire. They might not have known the circumstances of how that all went down,

but they saw him as a threat, and that was when they were trying to take the weapon away from him. And that was when he opened fire and in the process of doing so, shot two other individuals with one of them getting injured, surviving, okay, and then the other Huber dying as a result of the wounds. So those are the details as we know them now. And again, I want to reiterate, though Wisconsin is an open carry state,

where it is legal for adults to carry firearms openly, state law prohibits minors from doing so. Writtenhouse was 17 at the time of the shooting. This crime is a class a misdemeanor that carries a basic sentence of up to nine months in prison, a fine of up to $10,000 or both. I think that that charge is pretty open and shut. I mean, he's 17, he has the weapon. I think there's a lot of evidence indicating he has the weapon.

So I don't see how he would be let off on that charge. But the other charges based on what we're seeing in video and based on the case of the defense attorney is making shaky, okay? Now you can question why Rittenhouse was there. There were members of the Pugalu Boys there. Obviously it looks like they were there to cause trouble. They argue they're there to protect the community. But one thing that's abundantly clear to me based on the reports I've seen, the videos I've

I've seen, the cops did absolutely favor the armed militia groups or militia members. They offered them water. At one point, they pushed the protesters and the members of the militia in the same area, very well knowing that that could lead to a physical altercation or an eruption of violence. And Rittenhouse, despite the fact he opened fire that night and killed two people was not taken into custody that night. He was taken into custody the next day. He was allowed to leave that night.

And I just questioned if the same treatment would be given to a protester who did the same. And I wouldn't want that. Anyone who opens fire should probably be taken into custody should be investigated immediately. That didn't happen. And I questioned why the cops decided to push both groups of people into. the same area, very well knowing that these are opposing groups, and you have open carry and a pretty dangerous situation brewing. But we'll give you guys more details about this case as we learn them. Again, I think it's important to know the facts. And for my previous

inaccuracies, I apologize to you guys. Obviously, it was not intentional. And I want you guys to know what the details are. It is what it is. All right, we've got one more story for you. And this is about a narrative that we've been seeing play out over and over and over again in regard to vaccine mandates. We hear a lot of threats from both workers, but also, you know, people like cops and firefighters indicating that they're going to resign if they're forced to take a vaccine. But data does not bear that out. So, union leaders representing the New York City Police Department surfaced warnings about thousands of them quitting if they're forced to undergo vaccine mandates.

Now we're now learning that despite their threats, many of them did not actually resign as a result of a vaccine mandate. Only 34 of the nearly 35,000 NYPD officers were placed on unpaid leave on Monday of this week after the deadline for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate passed, in addition to four Just 40, just 40 civilian NYPD staff out of roughly 17,000, the police commissioner said in a news conference. Now in total, 85% of the NYPD staff are vaccinated. Seems like the vaccine mandate was a success. But let me give you more.

Overall, about 9,000, 9,000 city employees were placed on leave without pay on November 1st or by November 1st. Out of a workplace, though, of more than 300,000 people, while roughly 12,000 had applied for a religious or medical exemption to vaccination and we're waiting for a response from the city. So those are the numbers. And I think it's relevant to know what the proportion of people resigning is compared to what we're hearing in the press or compared to the talking points that we hear from the right wing. But city officials are hopeful that the individuals who are refusing to get vaccinated will change their minds. In fact, Bill de Blasio says this. Now remember at any given hour, any of those 9,000 can say, wait a minute, I'm willing to get vaccinated and come back. And we saw over the weekend a lot of that happening, thousands of people changing their mind coming back. Now among firefighters, the numbers are a little bit higher.

Okay, so as of Monday morning of this week, 2,300 fire. firefighters were out sick, which should be under a thousand fire commissioner said on Monday. And this all happened from the day the mandate began to now. And we're also finding that last week a judge denied a request from the largest police union in New York City, the police benevolent association, to temporarily halt de Blasio's order requiring all municipal employees to receive at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine or faced unpaid leave on November 1st, the union says that taking the coronavirus vaccine should be a personal choice.

But despite all of this, again, about 92% of the city's employees had in fact received at least one dose, including about 2000 in the past 24 hours. This is based on a report by the way that CNN put out earlier this week on Monday. So, you know, between Sunday and Monday of this week, we have, you know, 2,000 workers, municipal workers agreeing to get vaccinated. So look, I think that context is important because a lot of stuff gets sensationalized in the media. Yes, there are some people who resigned, but when you compare the population of those who

refuse to get vaccinated and decided to resign, you compare it to like the overall workforce of municipal workers in New York, obviously the media coverage that really focuses on those who refuse to get vaccinated is really disproportionate. Like it doesn't really make much sense. And so I am also pleased to see that in the courts, these vaccine mandates are not being struck down. You are seeing people who might see the vaccination status as an identity issue, but when push comes to shove, whenever it comes to their livelihood, they'll end up getting vaccinated

because they don't want to lose their jobs. So that's what the facts of the matter happened to be. That's the truth on the ground. And when you see the media reports, just put it all in perspective, look at the numbers because that's where it matters. All right, we're gonna take a break, but when we come back,

John Ida Rolla will be joining me for the second hour. I wanted to have a little fun today. So it's gonna be a little different from what you guys are used to. We've got some fun stories, some not so fun climate change related stories as well, but you're gonna love it, don't miss it. We'll be right back.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Yugar, and I'll see you soon.