The Young Turks - Borderline Insanity

Episode Date: December 20, 2022

El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser issued an emergency declaration Saturday night to address the increase in migrants crossing the southern border, citing the dangerous winter conditions and shelters lacking the capacity to meet the demand next week. A Tennessee man already facing charges in connection with the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was arrested for allegedly planning to kill FBI agents. A majority of Twitter users voted “yes” in a poll posted by owner Elon Musk asking if he should step down as CEO of the social media company. The fate of President Joe Biden’s multibillion-dollar student debt relief plan could hinge on an obscure financial services company just outside of St. Louis. Host: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur 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. On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants.

That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only theaters July 18th. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business back. 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 the 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. Woo! It's up!

We're going to be able to be. All right, well, the other church, Jake, you Granite, I'm with you guys. The January 6th committee has had made its recommendations, and they are stunning. Stunning. Stunning. We will not be covering them. Their recommendation is Trump bad. It is totally irrelevant.

If you're watching any other former media and they're telling you that it's relevant, they're making it up, it's just total horse crap. Okay, so keep in mind, the January 6th committee does not have the ability to charge Trump themselves with crimes. They are recommending to the DOJ, meaning Merrick Garland, that he'd be charged with crimes related to January 6th. It would be stunning once Merrick Garland and the DOJ actually pursues Donald Trump. If and when that happens, it won't. But if it does, and we're wrong, and I would love to be wrong, we will of course cover it and give you all the details.

Besides which, the Department of Justice is supposed to do its job. It's not supposed to wait for a recommendation from a committee in Congress. Like, all of this is made up. And of course, as usual, the people who run the play, that's mainstream media, is telling you, it's so important. Oh, my God. They threw the book at him. They threw a book of recommendations at him.

Recommendations that actually have no force of law and will have no effect whatsoever. Look, and this is not an indictment on the January 6th committee. They did their job. It's more a criticism, a harsh one, toward Merrick Garland and the DOJ. And the media. And the media, yes. Because, yeah, I agree. We covered January 6 committee hearings.

They did a good job laying out the case, presenting evidence that people hadn't seen before. I think that's a useful exercise. and we got to know who committed the coup and why I wish they spent more time on the actual fake electors plot and less on the actual ride on the ground. Having said all that, like the problem is the media pretending that there's going to be accountability for Trump. When this, even if there was one magical day that we get to that accountability, this ain't it.

All it is is a completely toothless recommendation to the Department of Justice, a category that doesn't even exist. Right. You know what I recommend, Jank, that we would. We get to the show. Boom. Let's do it. Roughly 2,500 migrants have crossed into El Paso every day this week, pushing the state to the brink. And that's before Title 42 is set to expire. When the Department of Homeland Security predicts the numbers along the southern border will swell to 18,000 a day. That was Martha Raditz over at ABC, and there is, in fact, a crisis at the border with a massive influx of migrants seeking asylum. Now, I want to be clear that there is a big difference between a group of migrants, many of them, looking to claim asylum versus what right-wing politicians, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have been claiming that this is some sort of violent invasion into the United States. We obviously have a process in place to process individuals seeking asylum at our southern border,

and that's what the story is really about. But there is failure all around, and it has now led to the mayor of El Paso, Oscar Liser, declaring a state of emergency in order to get the federal government to allocate the necessary resources to take care of these individuals as they come to the border seeking asylum. Temperatures are incredibly cold at night. They have run out of shelter and food to provide the asylum seekers. And that is why the El Paso mayor has declared a state of emergency. And keep in mind, the Title 42 information that you got in that video is true.

This week, Title 42 will expire on Wednesday. And the current influx of migrants is expected to increase further as a result of that. And so when I say failure all around, I really do mean failure all around. Long time failure by Congress failing to pass any type of comprehensive immigration reform. Failure by the Biden administration to be prepared for this moment, knowing full well that Title 42, which Trump had implemented citing COVID as the reason to expel migrants at the border, Biden knew this was going to happen. So he should have been prepared.

There should have been something in place. And there is also some criticism toward the mayor of El Paso because they wanted him to declare this emergency earlier to secure the resources necessary to take care of the individuals coming to the border. Now, Lisa said the mass migration of people seeking asylum Wednesday is expected to be incredible. He added that federal estimates provided to him indicate that the number of migrants crossing the border could go from 2,500 per day to potentially 6,000. per day. And I want to also note, I mean, in that ABC video, they mentioned 18,000 a day. Everyone's throwing around numbers. Keep in mind that these are estimates, but it would be a lie to say that you don't have thousands of people coming to the border every day. That is in fact happening. And I think this is honestly the result of Title 42, because the asylum seekers were

going to seek asylum no matter what. So think of this as a massive backlog of people seeking asylum, now knowing that Title 42 will expire, they're going to come at the border at once seeking to claim asylum. And of course, they're supposed to be processed. We don't have the resources in place as we speak. It seems like there are two different issues here. And not only that, but there are two issues that conflict and then hence cause mass confusion. And which no one ever clarifies, except us, we're going to try to do it right here. Number one is the backlog. But when the backlog is released, it'll seem like there's all these new immigrants that popped up overnight. Oh my God, it's a tsunami.

The caravan finally arrived, okay, but tons of them, right? But then there's a second issue is, wait, has the rate of immigration gone up or not gone up? And it appears that it has not gone up. So when you hear every politician and every media figure flip out over like an influx of immigrants, They make it appear that the rate of immigration has gone skyrocketing. And all of a sudden, everybody's pouring in from Honduras and Guatemala, and even Argentina, and even though they're ecstatic today generally, okay? But it doesn't appear to be the case.

No, so understand that during the coronavirus pandemic, what Trump did actually worked for the time that it was implemented. Title 42 prevented most asylum seekers from entering the country. It allowed for border patrol to do automatic expulsions of people seeking asylum. And, you know, the Biden, not the Biden, the Trump administration claimed, well, you know, we can't have migration. Because of this pandemic, it's going to put us in a bad position. We want to make sure that we're not spreading the virus from one country to another. Okay, I mean, that's what he cited, but we knew that he wanted to stop the flow of migration anyway, right?

Biden continued that policy, and now because of a federal ruling on it, it is set to expire. You can't claim that you need Title 42 when you yourself as president of the United States has stated explicitly that the coronavirus pandemic is over. Now, obviously, there's a big debate about that. I don't want to get off on a tangent on that coronavirus issue. Let's focus on the migration situation. Now, at the same time, Biden knew this was coming, okay? there was a federal judge early on in his tenure who said to him, listen, you can't

automatically expel unaccompanied minors, for instance, seeking asylum at the border, you need to process them, you can't just turn them away. So during the Biden administration, because of that federal judge's ruling, the flow of migration started to trickle in a little bit, but for the most part, most people seeking asylum were prevented from coming into the country. Now, one other way that you can prove that is by the labor market. There has been an incredibly tight labor market because of the lack of flow of migration into the country, which you'll hear about in reports as well. But overall, these are people who are going to seek asylum anyway. And now that Title 42 is about to expire, they're planning on coming to the

border, they've been coming to the border to get processed. Yeah, so but let me clarify one more time. So if you guys say, or for anybody says, as we are saying here, hey, Biden should have been better prepared. And, you know, we, one of the advantages of Biden over Trump was supposed to be competence. And you know what? I give him a mid rating on competence. Sometimes I look at it and go, well, that is way better than Trump would have done.

And we've talked about that on air. But remember, it's a low bar. So when he clears that bar, it's not like that means he's the most. competent person in the world. There's a lot of things they didn't anticipate at all. It's kind of stunning how they didn't anticipate it. And this appears to be one of them. Guys, what are you waiting for? I mean, this same thing happened with Dobbs, right? They knew Roe was going to get overturned. They waited and waited and the last second. They seemed surprised and they were totally unprepared. So this is another one of those examples. So that's a

problem for Biden. But I'm worried that people are then going to take it and they're doing it as we speak, not just the right wing, but also mainstream media, and pretend that there's a giant rise in immigration, we have to pass new laws against immigrants, because there's a new wave of them. No, it's an old wave of them in a sense. Yeah, I mean, it's, it's the old wave that were prevented from coming into the country to begin with because of Title 42, in addition to people who would have, you know, who would seek asylum anyway, right? So the regular flow of migration and the, I guess, for lack of a better phrase, this is the easiest way for me to understand it,

the backlog of asylum seekers throughout the pandemic. In fact, why don't we go to this next video? Because this gives you a sense of how many migrants were prevented from coming into the country as a result of Title 42. Watch. We joined Governor Greg Abbott of Texas as he surveyed the border this week,

one of the Republican governors fighting to keep Title 42 in place. that Trump policy implemented at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which allows the U.S. government to immediately expel most migrants as a public health risk. Since March of 2020, it's been used nearly two and a half million times. So it's been used two and a half million times. Those two and a half million people don't just turn around and say, okay, I guess, I guess there's no way we're going to get in. No, they come back seeking asylum once they know that Title IV.

is going to be lifted. Now, there's another part of this that I think is important. While a federal judge has struck down Title 42, and so it is set to expire, Donald Trump's remain in Mexico plan was upheld by a federal judge. So I'm curious to see how that plays out, whether the Biden administration will put the onus on Mexico to essentially shelter and take care of these asylum seekers as they get processed by judges. Because remember, if you, if you you have a legitimate asylum claim and a judge deems it legitimate, you will be allowed into the country. But there are a lot of people to process. And the problem is we don't have the resources in place to do so in a timely manner. Here we are having, I hope, a fairly intelligent

conversation about the nuances of this policy. Do you see that anywhere else? What I see is there's no borders left. There are borders. There aren't borders. What does that even mean? Of course, there are borders, right? And are there laws against coming in to the country? Oh, wow. Yes. Sorry, this just broke. So apologies.

Someone has yelled at Trump again? No. Chief Justice Roberts pauses lifting of Title 42, keeping migrant policy in place for now. Listen, what I think everyone fails to understand is that these people aren't just going to go away. They're fleeing their countries for various. reasons. And by the way, from all over the world, right? That ABC News report had migrants trying to come in from Cuba, for instance, from Venezuela, all over the place. They're trying to seek

asylum. Just kicking the can down the road isn't going to solve the problem. But really, look, Chief Justice Roberts doing this is one thing. The real problem here is the ineffective and incompetent nature of Congress, the lack of comprehensive immigration reform, the lack of policy necessary to deal with this issue in a way that it needs to be dealt with, providing the resources necessary, the judge is necessary to process individuals and determine whether or not their asylum claims are legitimate. It's a failure all around. This is a failed state.

And I think this migration story is a perfect example of it. Okay, my favorite part of the story now, now that we've got this. breaking news is the concern that all conservatives in general have, but specifically the conservatives on the Supreme Court about COVID. Really? Really? Because Title 42 is supposed to be about, hey, we're so worried about COVID. We don't want immigrants seeking asylum to spread the disease here.

And that's why, of course, as they gave this decision, the six conservatives on the Supreme Court were wearing masks and had booster shots all over them, right? Look, I don't know if they got vaccinated, whatever they did. they're Supreme Court just, they probably protecting themselves, right? But overall, the right wing now pretending they care about COVID is nothing short of hilarious. There's guys, there's the real world where there's real issues and things that have to be sorted out. And this incredibly fake world that we live in through media where everything is distorted, simplified, like dumbed down and completely incorrect, presented incorrect ways. Right wingers are like, oh, of course we're concerned about COVID now.

That's why we don't want those immigrants coming in, as if they didn't say it a second ago. And then we have nonsense debates about what a border is and whether politicians should go look at the border. That's my favorite one. I know, I know. Oh, I looked at the border, so I'm an expert. Hey, Biden did not look at the border, which does not actually, it's not an actual line in the sand. So he is not an expert. That means he doesn't care about this issue.

No, he doesn't care about this issue because he didn't prepare for the end of Title 42. That's exactly right. By the way, Henry Quayar, a Democratic congressman from Texas made that accusation against Joe Biden. Hey, you're a member of Congress, okay? Joe Biden can't deal with this issue unilaterally. You actually need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. How about you get on that? And by the way, I'm not taking blame off of Biden at all. There's failure from the Biden administration. 100%. I definitely agree with that critique. But the same goes for Congress. They keep kicking down, you know, kicking the can down the road, kicking the can down the road. They don't want to actually pass legislation to deal with this, and that's the reason why we're dealing with this issue today.

And it is incredibly cruel to have literally, I mean, when you think about how many people were immediately rejected at the border since the beginning of Title 42, literally millions of migrants who have gone through torture, hell to get to the border, we're just giving them the middle finger and telling them maybe it'll expire at some point. We don't take COVID seriously in this country. The president of the United States has said that coronavirus is, the pandemic is effectively over, but we're still going to cite Title 42 and the coronavirus pandemic for rejecting you. Yeah, so we end on this ironic note where two well-known ass kickers come out against can kicking. Do not kick the can down the road. No, you got to deal with it. Okay, anti-can kicking.

Yes. Pro ass kicking. All right. I'm going to reset for the Martha Radich drums part of this, okay? Because there was some drums and I think it's actually telling. Let's do drums. Because it really depends on what kind of meteor you're consuming. But I think it's important for you to know what the truth is.

Recently, Greg Abbott had a sit-down interview with Martha Radditz for ABC. And during that interview, Martha Raddett said something that has gotten her in a little bit of trouble with conservatives. She claimed that Joe Biden had never claimed to have an open border policy. In fact, let's take a look at that moment right now. I don't think I've ever heard President Biden say, we have an open border policy. Open board and come on over. But people I have heard say, are you, are former President Trump, or Ron DeSantis. That message reverberates in Mexico and beyond.

So Martha Radd's got a lot of backlash from conservatives over that statement because conservatives believe that Biden did in fact say that he has an open border policy. I wanted to do a little digging, right? I didn't want to take Martha Raditz and what she said at face value, just figure out whether or not there's some truth behind Biden allegedly calling for an open border policy. And what they cite is his statements on the debate stage back in 2019. So I'm gonna show you those statements, and then we'll discuss. Let's watch.

Those who come seeking asylum, we should immediately have the capacity to absorb them, keep them safe until they can be heard. A 15 second, if you could, if you wish to answer, should someone who is here without documents, and that is his only offense, should that person be deported? That person should not be the focus of deportation. We should fundamentally change the way we deal with them. I would in fact make sure that there is, we immediately surge to the border. All those people are seeking asylum. They deserve to be heard.

That's who we are. Where a nation says if you want to flee and you're fleeing oppression, you should come. So those are the statements that they keep citing. And it's nuanced, but it is different from an open border policy. We have laws in place pertaining to asylum seekers at the border. When someone seeks asylum at the border, they are supposed to have their day before a judge who determines whether or not their asylum claims are legitimate. So again, that is very different from, we have no border. We have no border. Everyone come in.

Yeah. So I'm going to be fair. unfair to the right wing here. So look, in the middle there, he appears to misspeak and say when pressed on someone has come in here without papers. And again, it's even an open to interpretation on whether he's a misspeaker or he's referring to asylum seekers. If he's referring to just asylum seekers, then he's not saying anything wrong. He's saying the stated American policy of every president, right, and our laws. But let's say that he misspeaks and he's not referring to just asylum seekers, but everyone who came here without papers. Well, is that his official policy? No, he's been president for two years. That is not his policy, nor is that the

law. So any discussion, like, oh, we found a gap, maybe a 10 second gaffe in the middle of every other answer that is consistent. And that gap has not been executed into policy at all, but we're going to pretend that it's real and hence that we don't have any borders anymore and anyone can cross at any time. Well, if that was true, Why are they all in Mexico? Why did, why is this title 42 exist? Why aren't they already inside the country? The idea that we don't have a border and then anybody can come in because Biden changed

that policy, it's not a little wrong. It's a purposeful lie. I get it that some right wing voters maybe saw that clip or saw a right wing pundit lie about it. And they genuinely believe that. I bet that's true for it. Why just survive back to school when you can thrive by creating a space that does it all for you, no matter the size. Whether you're taking over your parents' basement or moving to campus, IKEA has hundreds of design ideas and affordable options to complement any budget. After all, you're in your small space era. It's time to own it. Shop now at IKEA.ca.

Tons of people, right? Yeah, it's definitely. But for the right-wing media and the right-wing politicians, They're 100% lying on purpose. They are lying on purpose for political reasons, right? They believe that it is politically advantageous to make it appear as though the Biden administration has an open border policy. Anyone who wants to come in can come in. It's completely unchecked.

Obviously, that's not true. Okay. But on the other hand, I think what Martha Radd had said there, I don't want it to be lost on anyone because I actually think that was a good point. So Biden had made those statements on a debate stage, and I couldn't even remember that he made those statements, right? They were pretty forgettable because of the fact that, yeah, we do have asylum laws and we have to follow those asylum laws. If you don't like it, well, Congress needs to change it. Okay, so that's number one. But number two, with Republican lawmakers constantly repeating over and over and over again that Biden has an open border policy, what do you think migrants are going to hear?

They're going to hear, oh, well, I guess there's an open border policy. Let's go to the border. Yeah, that's so true. And that's one, it's a great point by Rattits. And two, your clarification of it makes it even clearer. If there is an issue of too many immigrants coming in, it's almost certainly because they heard in the media that there was no border anymore that they could just walk in. But we all know they can't walk in. So the right wing media not only lied to us to try to trick right wingers and centrists,

et cetera, but they lied to the rest of the world, thereby leading them to do this incredibly dangerous trek on a false promise that they could just walk across the border when they clearly can't. But maybe that was the plan all along because that allows for them to play footage of thousands of migrants at the border over and over again on a loop and blame it on Biden. Yeah, no, look, if that's actually what they intended, again, being fair, because we're the fairest show in America, that's kind of politically genius. I mean, it's a loathsome thing to do, and it's a lie on purpose and its aim is to deceive you. But that is four-dimensional chess.

If they lied on purpose to get it into Latin American media, to drive up immigration, and they go, can you believe that immigration is on the rise? It's all Biden's fault. But by the way, even though it was a great question by Rattits, I will say one more follow-up is so necessary by her or anyone else. Because she's won, the rest of the reporters on this issue are zero combined, right? We're looking at it from a World Cup point of view. It's one-nothing at this point on the pitch. So why don't you just ask Republicans that say there's an open border policy? So can anyone walk into the country?

If they can't, why can't they? Because you say there's an open border. So are you lying or is it proverbial? Is it symbolic? What do you mean an open border? Because they have to admit no one can walk right in. Or show me someone just walking right in. And border patrol lets them, the Biden administration lets them because there's an open border

policy. Is it true? Oh, okay. so you're all lying on purpose. That's a hell of a thing. And, you know, as the lies continue, we still deal with absolutely no solutions and complete inaction from Congress, and it's infuriating. So everyone should be angry and furious regardless of where you stand on the immigration

issue with Congress and their incompetence and impotence. That's all I can think about when it comes to this story. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we've got more news, including a man from Tennessee who has been re-arrested for attempting to murder FBI agents, and he was re-arrested after he also took part in the January 6th riots. That and more coming right up. All right, back up to IT, Jen, get on it with you guys.

All right, let's get right to our next story. Because sometimes these guys don't quit. And this is a good example. A Tennessee man who had already been facing charges in connection with his participation in the January 6th Capitol riots is now facing additional charges for, let's see, plotting to kill FBI agents. Great idea, except it's not. So according to an affidavit, Eric Kelly. and Austin Carter had a list of names of 37 law enforcement members to assassinate. Now, Austin Carter later turned on Edward Kelly and became an informant for the FBI.

He did end up getting arrested anyway, though, which we'll get to in just a moment. But the list noted which officers were involved in Kelly's arrest in May in Knoxville, Tennessee, on the January 6 related charges or present during the search of his home and it included some of their phone numbers according to the affidavit. An acquaintance of Kelly and Carter gave the list, I apologize. So he's the one who gave the list. The acquaintance of Kelly and Carter gave the list to police and began cooperating with investigators according to the affidavit. So Kelly and Carter luckily are in detention right now. They're in custody and they are facing some very serious charges, including conspiracy, retaliating against a federal official,

interstate threats, and solicitation to commit a crime of violence. And Edward Kelly was really front and center when it came to the Capitol riots. In fact, take a look at this video where it shows just how front and center he really was. Now at some point on January 6th, the Department of Justice says in an indictment, Kelly armored up with riot gear, a helmet, gas mask, mask and gloves. The affidavit points to several videos that showed Kelly's face, this one here, and this one as well. But since then, a lot of those users have been suspended.

Luckily, there is still one video online, and that's the video that proves he was the fourth person to enter the breached window. Cameras inside the Capitol building tracked his whereabouts, and Special Agent Man was able to put together the pieces. What's fascinating about someone like Edward Kelly is the amount of confidence he has in two different ways. Number one, of course, the thought that he could overturn a presidential election through a riot. And number two, the thought that he could literally assassinate FBI agents. Now, one of his own turned on him luckily, and I want to think that the FBI would be able to foil this plot regardless.

But we do have some of the communications that these gentlemen had with one another in regard to this in regard to these assassination plots. For instance, the DOJ was monitoring what they were talking about. And in one text, Edwards writes this, Edward Kelly writes this, if I'm extradited to DC or you don't hear about my status within 24 or 48 hours, if they are coming to arrest me again, started Kelly told the acquaintance during a requirement. call. Also, he said, you guys are taking them out at their office because they were supposed to attack them at their Knoxville FBI office. What you and Carter need to do is recruit as many as you can and you're going to attack their office. And then there were some other messages that I thought were interesting. When the acquaintance asked if Carter was in support of

part of Kelly's plans, Carter told the individual that this is the time, add up or put up, and to definitely make sure you got everything racked, locked up, and loaded. I mean, yep, but that's what they told them to do. So look, let's be clear about this. Sometimes we say things on the show that are so obviously true that no one else says, that makes you go, wait, well, that is weird. Why is nobody else saying that? So when they say rise up against the tyrannical government, who do you think they're talking about? They're talking about FBI agents, military and cops, the right wing, when they say, hey,

you need the Second Amendment to fight against the tyranny of government. What do you think fight means? We're talking about the Second Amendment. So it means weapons, guns, to shoot and kill, in this case, not hunting, to shoot and kill people. And it's the government. Who in the government? Again, FBI, military and police. So the right wing has been telling its followers to get ready to murder the cops and the military for decades. But the rest of the media just ignores it. Like, oh, it's normally don't, you don't want to offend Republican voters. The sacred, sacred Republican voters, you don't want

to offend them when they're talking about murdering government officials. No, I do want to offend them. I offend them with the truth, the truth of what they're doing. So when this guy goes to murder FBI officials, that's a relatively logical conclusion to come to if you're a right winger. Because all the right wing media and politicians have been telling you your whole life, you should get ready to murder government officials. And he's like, well, I don't get it. I just did it. I did what you told me to do. I attacked the Capitol and I was ready to fight against government tyranny with my Second Amendment rights. Where did I go wrong? So hey, right wing politicians, tell them where you went wrong.

Because you've never said it before. You never told them, oh, don't actually use your weapons. Don't actually murder government officials. We were just egging you on. We were just lying to you and getting you all excited. So you'd vote for us so we'd have more power to pass tax cuts for the rich. Well, you know, what's also interesting about this is in this current for-profit media landscape, sensationalism is everything, right?

I mean, that's how you get eyeballs to watch your broadcast or to read your paper, whatever it is. And so when it comes to what constitutes a tyrannical government, I mean, think about that. There's this assumption that the majority of the people will be in agreement as to what a tyrannical government is. Great point. Right. But there's obviously there's sensationalism in right wing press in regard to the government, especially if it's under the leadership of a Democratic president or if Democrats have control of both, you know, the House and the Senate. it. So automatically you'll hear the cries about, oh my God, this is authoritarian, this is tyrannical, this and that. I hear some in the mainstream press say similar things kind of

when it comes to like, let's say, Republicans in charge. And so it's just a recipe for disaster really. Yeah, no, no, that's this, that point is so good in so many different levels. So number one, think about what the different forms of tyranny that they talk about, right? I mean, for the right wingers, first of all, anything is tyranny. Obama wore a tan suit and likes mustard on his hamburgers. Terror government, tyranny murder! I mean, Second Amendment rights against tyrannical government, right? Okay, then there's their actual issues where they think, oh my God, they stole this. And they, remember, they genuinely believe it. They stole this election from Trump. Man, I mean, if the end of democracy isn't the beginning of tyrannical government,

what is? So that guy who probably genuinely thought that, that, you know, that, you know, Trump had won, but he was robbed by Biden and the pedophiles or whoever, whatever lunatic theory he began to believe because the right wing kept pushing it out. So he thought, yeah, this is me fighting against the tyrannical government, right? Now think about this other layer to it. Now we think as people on the left that there is tyrannical government. That comes from Republicans who say women, you're not allowed to control your body anymore. The government will seize your body if you get pregnant and make the decisions for

you and the rest of your life based on not your opinions, not your freedom, but our opinions about our religion. You don't even have to be in the religion, but the government tyranny is going to seize your body and make you a chattel slave to the system. Okay, now, but do you ever hear people on the left saying, that's why you should shoot government officials or use your Second Amendment rights? No, you never hear that, right? Why?

Because we're not trying to get you to murder government officials, but Republicans are. So tell me what it means to use your Second Amendment rights against the tyrannical government if it doesn't mean to shoot government officials. You can't do it. So yes, I just told you what the rest of the media has been hiding from you. Not just right wing media, but mainstream media for your whole life. Republican officials have been trying to convince guys like that to go shoot FBI agents for decades now.

And, you know, we're seeing more and more of these stories. And luckily again, this particular plot was foiled, and now the two potential perpetrators are in custody pending a trial. So we'll see how it all plays out. But we are seeing more and more political violence, and it shouldn't be surprising when you consider the, again, the for-profit media landscape and how there's a lot of sensationalism taking place in order to fearmonger, in order to get eyeballs to watch these shows, it's devastating and I, of course, it's a recipe for disaster.

is such a goofball. Compared to that story, this is definitely lighter. So, Elon Musk decided to ask Twitter users whether he should step down as CEO in another one of his notorious Twitter polls. Now, the majority of respondents said, yes, yes, you should step down. Should I step down as head of Twitter, I will abide by the results of this poll. 57.5% said yes, 42.5% said no. Now, I participated in this poll, me too, even though I was warned against it because voting yes, they believed would create a list of new individuals for Elon Musk to ban on Twitter. Have added hosts. Which I don't care about. But nonetheless, I don't think that was actually the reason for it. I think there's actually some investment related issue, which I'll give you some details about in just a moment. But, Jenk, you want to jump in and tell me what you think about all this so far?

Yeah. So he's been doing these fake polls on Twitter. They're not scientific polls. They're driven by- They're not scientific? I know. It'd be a big surprise. It might even be a surprise of Elon Musk, which makes me think, uh-oh, what kind of science are they doing in SpaceX and Tesla? Because this guy doesn't understand that at all. Anyway, it usually goes to his right-wing audience. They're geared to just reinforce what he wants anyway, right? And so they're push polls in a sense. And a friend of mine has says, look, nobody ever actually asked for advice. They just want whatever they're going to do to be confirmed. And they're asking a friend to confirm it for them, right?

And so that's, in essence, what Elon Musk is doing on the national stage. So when I saw this, I thought, oh, that's weird. Does he not want to be CEO of Twitter anymore? Because you wouldn't ask this question if you wanted to stay on in your job. You just stay on in your job. You'd only ask this question if you didn't want to stay on in your job. And that's why when I went to go vote, I was like, I kind of want him to stick around.

We might launch a platform later. I want him to ruin this one eventually so that it'll be an advantage. Plus, I'm at, like, people think, oh, you guys on the left are so owned by Elon Musk. Oh, I'm so owned. Do we look owned? We look, I look, I think it's hilarious. So I kind of want him to keep going and show me what a clown he is. And by the way, guys, you see this?

That's the richest, the guy who was the richest man in the world. Don't ever do hero worship. They're all really clowns. He just had amazing opportunities because his dad own emerald minds. Anyways, so then it turns out maybe he doesn't want to be CEO anymore for a very specific reason. Now, that specific reason has to do with the money Lobowski, as Cenk likes to say. Of course.

So this tweet caught my attention. Just overheard Elon Musk discussing investment opportunities from the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad, and other Saudi royals for his businesses, especially Twitter. But from their body language and diplomatic response, it didn't seem very positive. They asked him to find a suitable CEO. I'm sure that's what advertisers are also asking for, a suitable CEO. Now, there is some truth behind that. Let me give you the rest of the Twitter thread here.

That tweet followed by this pretend poll asking if he should step down his CEO to save the embarrassment. Remember that Saudi Prince, you know, that guy. Bin Talal Al-Aweed. Thank you for that. Invested 1.89 billion in, and Qatar, about 400 million in Twitter, they are the real power at Twitter. And that's true, right? So there are private investors, even though Twitter was taken from, you know, being on the stock exchange. It was taken private by Elon Musk, they're still investors behind the scenes. And the largest investors happen to be the Saudis and people from Qatar. And so the investment references in those tweets are accurate. So according to Forbes, Prince Al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia,

you're welcome, announced in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that he'd made good on his $1.9 billion commitment, making him the social media company's second largest shareholder after Musk. And the Qatar investment fund announced in an SEC filing that it had committed a previously agreed upon $375 million. Okay, wait till the right wing finds out. No, this was about owning someone, right? You know, oh yeah, boss bought Twitter to own the lips. No, it turns out Muslim royalty bought Twitter to own Christian America. Oops. And by the way, all your anti-Semites out there, Kanye, Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, etc. etc. It looks like the really powerful people are Muslims, not the Jews. What happened?

Because it isn't the Muslims or the Jews, it's whoever has money, which leads to the next picture, which is the perfect symbol of what actually happens behind the scenes in the world today. Here, let's show you where Elon Musk was over the weekend. So that's Elon Musk with Jared Kushner and a number of presumably Saudi and or Qatar royals. Okay. So those are the princes of the different places that are making deals together. You know the one thing that unites them all? La Mani Lebowski, okay? And so there's Muslims, Jews, and Christians conspiring to rule us all,

because they're obsessed with the green. And so bottom line is, Elon Musk for all of his wealth doesn't actually have the money lying around. And he doesn't give a damn about soccer. He went there, he didn't go there to watch what was turned out to be the greatest game of all time. He went there to go kiss Saudi ass and Qatari ass. And then his overlords told him, bitch, step down and maybe we'll give you more money. And he's like, okay, okay. And then all of a sudden a Twitter poll pops up.

Should I step down as CEO? I will abide by the results of this. I love your embellishments, by the way, right? It's a good story. Look for a suitable CEO. Like that's what allegedly happened. But Jake is like, yeah, he's kissing the ass. No, no, no, but wait a minute, hold on.

No, no, no, no, no. Was I there? Of course not, right? I don't have enough money to be in that box. So am I embellishing the details? And they were having bagel on locks, which is really weird. That sounds delicious, actually. That does sound great.

And pigs in a blanket. All right, no, look, guys, the bottom line is, since he's going to ask for money, they are demanding certain concessions. It's a normal business deal, right? And among the concessions that they're demanding, is puckering up to their mother's Muslim asses. Okay, okay. But in the business world, what that means is I'm going to attach conditions.

And one of the conditions is you look like a goddamn lunatic. By the way, I'm kidding about Muslim Jewish, it doesn't have anything to do with that, right? So what it does is the concession I want is you look like you're mentally unstable. If you put a stable person in a CEO and restart this as an actual business, then we might have a business interest and might want to invest. And that's how it works. Well, to me, what you're really missing from this story, the most important point is to keep in mind is that free speech is really thriving.

Because for free speech, you got to go ask the Saudis. Hey, how much free speech should we give to the Americans? You right wingers, you think he cares what you think? No, he cares what the Saudis think. Do you remember that rap song back in the day? I forget who it's by. God, I feel so old. The one, the Arab money song.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Was that Buster Rhymes? I don't remember. Get Arab money. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, these days, he'd be canceled for that song. I know, I know. So I was like, should I even bring this up?

It was a real song, believe me, believe me. But that's exactly what Elon must say. But to be fair, the Saudis are notoriously in favor of freedom of speech. I mean, they don't chop up every single person that criticizes them, only some of them. They'd like to chop up every single person that does. Anyway, we got to take a break when we come back. Now, the most insane story involving a Republican congressman, and that's saying a lot. Come right back.

Elon. I think Elon has left. He's not gone. That's the whole point. He's never gone. and Anna with you guys. News. All right, just get your seatbelt, okay? Because you've got to buckle up for this one. Buckle up. Buckle up. Because the story's insane, and I don't like hype anything up the way I'm hyping this up because it deserves to be hyped, okay? There you go. All right.

A newly elected Republican congressman is a liar. I know, it's not breaking news, except this guy takes it to a whole new level. And the big failure here is really. the New York Times. What do I mean by that? Okay. This is a story that should have been, I don't know, published during his campaign, you know, maybe a little bit of an investigation during his campaign. But no, the New York Times just published this story about, again, a newly elected Republican congressman from Long Island. And it turns out that he has lied about everything. His name is George Santos. And when I say lied about everything, I mean everything in his resume. He is the son of Brazilian immigrants that we know is true. And the first openly gay

Republican, we don't know if that's true, to win a house seat as a non-incumbent. By his account, he catapulted himself from a New York City public college to become a seasoned Wall Street financier and investor with a family-owned real estate portfolio of 13 properties and an animal rescue charity that saved more than 2,500 dogs and cats. Wow, that is quite a resume. And it is awfully specific. It wasn't 2,600 cats and dogs or 2,400, it was 2,500. Now, the New York Times investigated these claims after he got elected, of course, and found that, wow, there's a lot of inconsistencies here. Looks like he might be lying about a lot of this stuff. No.

City Group in Goldman Sachs, the marquee Wall Street firms on Santos's campaign biography, had no record of him ever working there. Officials at Brasch College, which Santos has said he graduated from in 2010, could find no record of anyone matching his name and date of birth graduating that year. I just, it gets even crazier, okay? But how are we learning about this now? Well, I can tell you how. I ran for office for at the congressional level, as this guy did. And that led to two seemingly contradicting conclusions, but there's a reason for it.

So number one, local races get no coverage at all. So you could make up anything and you won't, nobody in the press will bother investigating. No one will call you out on it. But there's a catch. This is the contradictory part. So that's if you appear to be an insider, a moderate, a corporate, Republican or Democrat. If you are an outsider, then they will have all the time in the world to investigate everything about you, okay? And even find Microsoft of things that you did and deleted 15 years ago, just so they could say, aha, goddamn outsider. Okay, look at the thing that he deleted 17 and a half years ago. That's why you should never elect him now.

No, but there's a lot of truth to what he's saying. So take Jank out of it for a second and consider the fact that this guy actually ran for Congress back in 2020. Same time I did. But back in 2020, he presented himself as like this diehard Trump loyalist. He did not present himself as a moderate. This time around, though, he did present himself as a moderate. So look, I'm partly joking about him being openly gay and saying, I don't know if that's actually true. I don't know what his sexual orientation is or whatever.

But I say that because now I'm wondering. did he just say that to appear moderate? Yeah, if you say gay Republican to a mainstream media guy, they'd be like, oh, that's perfect. Moderate Republican, love it, right? Right. So, and this guy is obviously a pathological liar. So we don't know what's true and what's not true anymore,

including whether he's gay or not. Right, I mean, so when he ran again, the second time, he, like, scrubbed his website of any, like, Trump love and all of that stuff. So anyway, now let's get to some of his other lies. He also claimed that he went to NYU, no record of that. whatsoever he lied about that, Jesus Christ. There's also no record of his animal rescue group, Friends of Pets United, so it's a charity, right?

So it should have some sort of filing with the IRS. The New York Times looked into it, no filing with the IRS whatsoever. But he did hold a fundraiser, get a load of this, in New Jersey with the New Jersey Animal Rescue Group back in 2017. And as part of the fundraiser, the cost of entry to this big event was $50. And he claimed that the money was going to go to, you know, a specific organization, okay? Fopu? No, we don't know because the organization spoke to the New York Times.

They wanted to be anonymous because they're afraid of retaliation. But they're like, we didn't receive any funds. Of course. I'm kidding around about Fopu. I don't know what that is. Friends of Pets United. It sounds like something you name your dog. Come here, Fopu, come here.

Okay, all of it is made. No, no, it gets crazier, though. It gets so crazy. He said in an interview on WNYC that his company, which he did not identify, lost four employees at the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando in June of 2016. What an outrageous lie. But a Times review of news coverage and obituaries found that none of the 49 victims appear to have worked at the various firms named in his biography. Of course.

Oh, my God. And by the way, like, where did he get his money from? Because he did loan money to his own campaign. So there's something going on. His financial disclosure form suggests a life of some wealth. He lent his campaign more than $700,000 during the midterm election, has donated thousands of dollars to other candidates in the last two years, and reported a $750,000 salary and over $1 million in dividends from his company, the DeVolder. organization. So what is the DeVolder organization? Things that devolve? Well, this candidate,

or I should say now, congressman has devolved quite quickly, right? Now, his firm is shrouded in mystery. There's a lot we don't know about it. And on a campaign website, he described DeVolder as his family's firm that managed $80 million in assets. On his congressional financial disclosure, he described it as a capital introduction consulting company. Sure, of course. A type of boutique firm that serves as a liaison between investment funds and deep-pocketed investors. But Santos' disclosures did not reveal any clients.

An omission, three election law experts said, could be problematic if such clients exist. I just, okay, I just, I, I, what? So we don't even know what religion he is, because he's been inconsistent on that. So he has described himself as a non-practicing Jewish person, but at the same time has also said that he's Catholic. He also claimed that he made his family's fortune through real estate.

However, he has not disclosed any record of his property. So remember, he's like, I got 13 properties. But okay, well, all right, well, where's the documentation for that? There's some chance that he lied about his resume to seem more moderate, as we mentioned before. and new revelations uncovered by the times, including the omission of key information on Mr. Santos' personal financial disclosures and criminal charges for Czech fraud in Brazil have the potential to create ethical and possibly legal challenges once he takes office.

So back in 2008, back in 19 years old, he had decided to steal a checkbook from a man that his mother was actually caring for. and then use that checkbook to make all sorts of fraudulent purchases. Police and court records show that Santos used the checkbook to make those fraudulent purchases. He got arrested for that. But he also, two years later, he also confessed to the crime and was later charged. He also faced eviction two times once in 2015 and another time in 2017. In May of 2017, Santos faced another eviction case from a rent-stabilized apartment in Sunnyside, Queens.

Santos' landlord accused him of owing more than $10,000 in rent, stretching over five months and said in court records that one of his tenants' checks had bounced, a warrant of eviction was issued, and Santos was fined $12,208 in a civil judgment. But guess what? After that happened, he decided to campaign on behalf of landlords and against tenants. So here's a tweet to give you an example. He wrote, will we landlords ever be able to take? take back possession of our property, my family and I nearing a one year anniversary of not receiving

rent on 13 properties. The state is collecting their tax, yet we get zero help from the government. We worked hard to acquire these assets. Did you? Did you? So I got to give him credit. He's that's method acting. He's really like living the role. He's like in his head, he does have 13 properties. As I was going through this story, I thought to myself, there's only two possibilities for where he got the money. One is family. His family left him some decent chunk of money, but they're not doing any private financing or hedge funds or private equity or none of that stuff, right? Some family member left him a chunk of change, right? And this goof ball is playing around Or they're scamming going on.

Yeah, or he stole it, right? Those are the only two options, right? And so maybe there's a magical third option, but I don't look like it. And so it looks like it's the scams rather than the family. So, but it also reminded me of a story from my personal life. We once met this guy who was going to get married to a family friend's daughter. And he had gone to NYU, he said, for undergrad for business school. I was like, oh, that's what I asked.

That's what I asked, okay? I had gone to undergrad for business school. Then he applied for law school and I applied for law school. And he got into Harvard and I was like, wow, this is amazing. And my dad and I asked, and what did you get on the LSATs, right? Because we were super curious and we're at a family dinner. And then he gave us a number that made no sense. That didn't exist, okay?

It was above the maximum. Man, I just. It was above the maximum. Now, but you know, but look, we live in a society where people do not do their due diligence, okay? And I'm going to call you out. You have never checked to see whether or not I actually graduated from Cal State Northridge. That's true. I haven't. Maybe I lied about going to a Cal State school. Maybe I lied. On the other hand, a former employer of mine did do their due diligence.

He so didn't believe where I went to school that he said, if you show me a transfer from Columbia and Wharton, I'll just give you the job, okay? And I showed it to him the next day and he gave him the job. Man, that is not nice. That is not nice at all. I know. He assumed that I was a scam artist. See, there's a guy doing due diligence. Anyway, back to the other family friend.

We told the family that was involved was like, look, this is super awkward, but we think that don't get married to this guy. We think he might be a pathological liar. There is no such score in the LSATs, right? And of course, they didn't want to hear it, so they ignored us. which the reason I bring that up to you guys now is because that's the Republican voters. You tell them, look, these guys are obviously lying to you, right? And the Republican voters go, don't care.

I don't care. Was it not obvious that Trump is a pathological liar? They don't care. They want him to lie. But let's just be clear. In the case of Trump, you're right. But in the case of the Santos guy, you're wrong because literally no one knew what a pathological liar. allegedly this guy was until the New York Times decided after the midterm elections to investigate this.

Now look, so credit where credit is due and discredit as well. But so number one, you're right, to be fair to the Republican voters, they haven't had a chance to vote yet since they have found out the news that he's lied about everything. Are you sure he's not going to get reelected? Are you really sure? Okay. And then number two is credit to the New York Times that at least they did it afterwards. I mean, at least somebody turned them on to the story and they bothered to do an actual investigation. Should they have done it earlier? Of course. But they, to back to my race for one last comment, LA Times reporter talking to me, different times, but he's covering up a fake, he's covering a fake scandal. They're going to write a huge story about it to try to hurt

my chances of winning, but mainly Bernie Sanders' chances of winning, because that's when they care. That's when they want to do investigative journalism, right? And find out nonsense. But I say to him at the end of the interview that he did with me, are you guys that are going to the policies involved in this race. And he said, honestly, and I give him credit for being honest. He said, no, we'll probably never write a story about that. Well, I mean. And it's true, they didn't.

The proof is in the Putin. The LA Times and a congressional district in LA chose to write no articles about policy or anything else of substance. And that's why guys like this think, hey, if I want to lie on a massive record breaking scale, where would I go? I'd go into politics, where there's nothing but liars and the media barely ever checks. Now he denies that he's lying. I want to be fair and give you his statement because after the New York Times published this, his office released a statement. George Santos represents the kind of progress that the left is so threatened by. Bro, I didn't even know who you were until today. Yeah, so threatened by Santos, the Jewish Catholic real estate dude. A gay, Latino, first generation, American and Republican who won a Biden district in overwhelming

fashion by showing everyday voters that there is a better option than the broken promises and failed policies of the Democratic Party. You can read the rest for yourselves. I would like to see him actually respond to all of the inconsistencies that the New York Times has exposed in their peace. Yeah, show us FOPU. Where's FOPU? Where's Friends of Pets United? by it with a comment from one of our members, YouTube member, Dirtflyer wrote in,

Santos would fit in perfectly in Congress. That's true. And to be fair, that is an excellent point. In fact, it's such a good point. $100 gift card from Blue Apron, email rewards at t.com. They'll confirm who you are, and you'll get free food for contributing to the show. We love our members. All right, that does it for the first hour, but stick around for the second hour.

We've got a lot of bangers. You don't want to miss it, including CNN getting called out too much. its face. Come 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 slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.