The Young Turks - Build Back Belated

Episode Date: December 16, 2021

Senate Democrats are pushing Biden’s Build Back Better to the back burner and are ‘aggressively’ pursuing voting rights legislation. The House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol released new text messages obtained from former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that were sent to him in the days leading up to the insurrection and while the Capitol was under siege. Laura Ingraham responded to Rep. Liz Cheney reading aloud a text the Fox News host sent to Trump chief-of-staff Mark Meadows on January 6th. Sen. Rand Paul lamented on Fox News on Tuesday what he called CNN’s “dishonest” coverage of his view of disaster relief following tornadoes that devastated Kentucky and other Midwest states over the weekend. The Biden administration won’t extend student loan relief and confirmed student loan payments restart on February 1, 2022. The largest modern home in America could be auctioned in January starting at $250 million. 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. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. We're going to be able to be. What is up? Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Kasparian and we have a monstrously large show ahead for you guys today.

So many topics that I hope we get to, including later on in the show, Senator Rand Paul, very hurt, very upset at the notion that anyone would dare call him what he is, a hip- I can't wait to share that story with you. Later in the show, we'll also talk about where Joe Biden stands on student loans. In fact, he is now calling for students to repay their loans. So debt repayments will now begin in the beginning of next year. I'll tell you the reasoning behind that and why Democrats just can't seem to stop losing when it comes to policy. In the second hour, John Iderola will be joining me. We'll be talking about some lighter stories, yes. One of my favorite stories in the rundown today is one in which we will be able to dunk on a real estate developer who made probably one of the worst investment mistakes imaginable.

Dunkin on billionaires is definitely something I enjoy and love to do. But before we get to all of that, a story that caught my attention just before we went live today. And so I wanted to do a little bit of a free flow rant on it because nothing infuriates me more than the feckless nature of Democrats in Congress. So let's get right to it. You know, it's been a while since Americans heard anything about the ongoing negotiations in regard to Biden's build back better agenda. You know, the legislation that would actually include provisions that would improve Americans' lives, you know, do things. things like provide universal child care, I'm sorry, universal pre-K, some help with child care, maybe, maybe a little bit of time off that would be mandatory paid family leave.

You know, those provisions that would really improve people's lives. Now it turns out, according to an NBC news reporter, Jesse Rodriguez, that Senate Democrats have decided to move on. In fact, they're shelving the build back better agenda and instead, allegedly focusing aggressively, aggressively on voting rights. So Democrats apparently don't know how to win. They know how to pressure the American people over and over again in one election cycle after the next to vote for them. They know how to shame voters if they don't go to the polls and vote for them because

they might feel uninspired by, you know, the lack of representation they get from Democratic lawmakers. They know how to shame, they know how to fearmonger about the other side, they know how to campaign about what a monumental threat someone like Donald Trump is. But once they hold the levers of power, once they're in charge of Congress, once they take control of the executive branch, they then turn around and give you all these pathetic excuses for why they can't accomplish a damn thing to improve your life. Now let's take a little step back, okay? Because I want to give the full context for what really happened and why it is that I'm as salty as I am in this given moment, okay? Biden's agenda initially was one piece of legislation, a multi-trillion dollar piece of legislation that included both physical infrastructure and what he referred to as human infrastructure.

Now, the human infrastructure was basically all of those provisions that I mentioned earlier, okay, help with elder care, universal pre-K, paid family leave, all of these things that would actually help ordinary Americans. At some point, in order to give this illusion that bipartisanship is still possible in Congress, Biden decided and agreed to essentially split that piece of legislation up into two parts. Okay? And one of them ended up being the physical infrastructure bill that corporations love because there's room for them to benefit off of it. And then all the human infrastructure, all of the important provisions that corporate America is not in favor of, the GOP lawmakers certainly aren't in favor of, and corporate Democrats are paid to be against, ends up going in a separate bill. The build back better agenda ends up essentially being separated from physical infrastructure.

And wow, would you look at that? The corporate handout bill, otherwise known as the bipartisan infrastructure bill, breezes on through. Okay, we got that done. Nancy Pelosi, House leadership, okay, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, at first promised that there would be no passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill until there was passage of the build back better agenda, the social spending bill. She reneged on that promise after she received light pressure from moderate Democrats in the House.

So she lied, let's just keep it real. She lied, she reneged, call it whatever you want. She didn't end up fulfilling what she promised to do as House Speaker. And then you have corporate media giving her a massive pat on the back as if she's a master legislator who accomplish something so incredible. Let me just say, accomplishing legislation on behalf of corporate donors is not really much of accomplishment. That is the easiest thing to do as a lawmaker in this country, where legalized bribery has led to complete corporate rule. The real question is, well, what would happen to the build back better agenda? What happened to the social spending? Other shelving it now. And for all the

progressive lawmakers in the House who ended up reneging themselves by voting in favor of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, they're garbage lawmakers. Harsh words, but it's true. They turn their backs on the American people. They turn their backs on their voters. And sure, they're going to give you all of these cutesy little fantasy stories about how the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which allocates a measly $550 billion in new spending, is going to do amazing things for the American people. It's going to do incredible things for our infrastructure. They leave out that it's also going to privatize public infrastructure, which means that corporations will be in charge.

of roads and bridges and parts of the infrastructure that we get to use right now for free. But once corporations take over, they're going to implement those tolls, they're going to implement fees. It's going to be a little more expensive to just get to and from work. So that's what they accomplished with the bipartisan infrastructure bill. The fact that you had Republican lawmakers also vote in favor of that bill tells you quite a bit. means that their donors wanted it. Corporate America was salivating over it. If Biden was genuine in wanting to pass his full agenda,

he wouldn't have split his legislation into two bills. And if Democratic leadership in Congress was genuine in wanting to pass that bill, in passing Biden's full agenda, they wouldn't allow those two bills, that one piece of legislation to be split. into two. And they certainly wouldn't have passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill without having first passed the social spending bill. This was their play all along. Now that's speculation. But how could you not think that? I mean, these are lawmakers. They know to some extent what they're doing. I don't think that they're all stupid. They know that if they split

the bill into two different parts, one being favored by corporate America and and the other not being favored by their donors, gee, I wonder what's going to happen. And after the leader of the Progressive Caucus, Pramila Jayapal, decided to fold and play ball with Nancy Pelosi and corporate Democrats, what does she get in return? You know what she got in return? Nancy Pelosi throwing a fit, not taking her seriously, not speaking to her for some number of days, according to a CNN article that we talked about on the show recently. What did she get in return?

It's just so incredibly pathetic. Now let's go back to the claim that the Senate will now aggressively focus on voting rights. No, they won't. In order to pass a voting rights bill, whether it's the original voting rights bill that's more robust, or Senator Joe Manchin's paired back voting rights bill, which does away with any provision that would reform campaign finance, they would need to reform the filibuster. They would need to either do away with or reform

the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 senators to vote in favor of any piece of legislation in order for it to pass. You think you're going to get 60 senators to vote in favor of a voting rights bill in a 50-50 split Senate? That ain't going to happen. You think they're going to reform the filibuster? That ain't going to happen. You have at least, at least two vociferous corporate Democrats in the Senate who refused to do a damn thing about the legislative filibuster. And they have the audacity to now turn around and tell you the American people, yeah, you know, we're going to shelve, build back better for now because we want to aggressively focus on voting rights. They're lying to you and they're insulting your intelligence.

And so when the Democratic Party experiences the shalacking that they deserve in the midterm elections, don't let them tell you that they lost because of voter apathy. Don't let them tell you that they lost because people wouldn't get out the vote. Don't let them tell you that they lost because progressives like me want to hold them accountable for their gross, feckless behavior. They're the ones who failed. They're the ones who turn their backs on the American people. They're the ones who use the same games over and over again in every single election cycle. The thing that is incredibly unfair about all of this is that while they deserve to lose, there's no question that they deserve to lose. We don't deserve the Republican Party.

We don't deserve these vicious lawmakers who essentially just focus on their hatred of people of color, their hatred of anyone who doesn't conform to their lifestyle and what they deem acceptable. I mean, the Republican Party is nothing more than manufactured culture wars day in, day out. We don't deserve that. They're not going to do anything better for us. But Democrats, they lose and they lose on purpose. They're paid to lose by their donors. And really the only thing that gave me a little sliver of hope

during the Biden administration was that progressives would really hold the line, that progressives would do what needed to be done and use whatever leverage they have to get provisions that Americans desperately need. But even some of those progressives, not all of them, But some of those progressives let us down as well. And as negative as I sound right now and as black-pilled as I might sound right now, I'm not experiencing this sense of hopelessness.

Because there are good things happening in the country. We're seeing labor movement that we have not seen in this country for decades. And really, that's our only hope at this point. I've given up on Congress. I'm going to vote strategically. you know, I'm not a nihilist. But to only focus on electoral politics is a massive mistake. Because if workers don't have power, if the people are not organized, then Congress really

doesn't feel like they need to answer to us. They certainly do feel like they need to answer to their corporate donors and the corporate overlords who actually rule this country. But if workers aren't organized and if they don't flex their power, we're going to running into the same issue over and over and over again. Take a look at this country's history. The only time ordinary Americans received policies that they deserved, worker protections that they deserved was when they got together, they organized their workplaces, and they applied pressure. That's the only thing that works, period. I'm done with Congress. Vote strategically,

vote however you feel you need to vote. But I'm done with all of these games and all of these ridiculous campaigns about how these lawmakers are going to really represent the working American and how they're going to change things around and speak truth to power. They're not going to do any of it because all of the incentives right now are in the wrong place. Under the system of legalized bribery, the incentives are in the wrong place, period. I said that that rant would take five minutes, so apologies to the producers for going over.

But I was pretty furious about that. All right, let's move over to the Republican Party. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has been found to be in criminal contempt of Congress. Well, at least that's what members of Congress have voted on. And now that charge will be sent to the Justice Department, where a decision will be made as to whether or not Mark Meadows will be tried for this charge of criminal contempt of Congress. Now, this vote happened just yesterday. The vote of 222 to 208 sent the matter to the Justice Department to consider whether to prosecute Meadows, who would be the first former

member of Congress to be held in contempt of the body he once served in nearly 200 years. Now, this is all surrounding the investigation into what happened in our nation's capital on January 6th. Mark Meadows was the White House chief of staff, meaning he was Trump's chief of staff. And in the beginning of this investigation, he was cooperating with Congress. He was cooperating with this select committee looking into the incident. But then he stopped cooperating. And he refused to answer any questions. He's refusing to testify, and he is citing privilege, executive privilege, as a reason for why he's no longer cooperating. And to be clear, he could have a much stronger argument than, say, Steve Bannon

when it comes to this situation. And I'll get to those details in just a second. But in regard to Republican members of Congress and how they voted on this issue, only two GOP lawmakers voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. That includes Adam Kinsinger and Liz Cheney. Now again, Meadows refuses to cooperate with the investigation, but that wasn't always the case. In fact, we've been talking about some of these text messages that were sent to Mark Meadows as the riots were taking place. And the only reason why we know about those text messages is because at one time Mark Meadows was cooperating and he handed those messages along with thousands of other documents over to investigators. Meadow's initial cooperation with the inquiry, including around 9,000 pages of documents he turned over, has already given the committee its first substantial burst of momentum and political traction as it tries to establish a full accounting of the events that led to the deadly riot. Now, that's why we know about the text message, as I mentioned.

But there were Republican lawmakers who also sent Meadows text messages as the riots were taking place. Now, we've known about the Fox News hosts who were texting him and urging him to do something to encourage Donald Trump to end the riots, say something, do something. We know about Don Jr. also sending panicky text messages to Mark Meadows, urging him to convince his own father to stop the riots. But we didn't know about the various Republican members of Congress who were also messaging him. And remember, these are people who were in the Capitol building as the riots were taking place. So I'm sure that they were pretty terrified and in fear of their lives. And Cheney read aloud text messages that Republicans in Congress sent to Meadows on January 6th as violence engulfed the Capitol. Some of those messages included statements like, it's really bad up here on the hill.

another said the president needs to stop this ASAP another said fix this now and I think that these messages are relevant mostly because of the fact that on that day when they feared for their lives as they were experiencing the viciousness of these Trump supporters who breached the Capitol and were coming after them they were sending these panicky messages to Meadows but But then they turned around and just downplayed what happened that day. Because their daddy, Donald Trump, might have given them a spanking and they don't want a spanking. They certainly do not want Donald Trump to bully them. So they either remain silent or downplayed what happened that day, even though they experienced

the viciousness firsthand. So I think that's relevant. Now, does that mean that we've seen this incredible proof that, you know, with GOP lawmakers We're coordinating what happened that day. I haven't seen that yet. I mean, that's why this investigation is ongoing. But it is fascinating to see how Republican lawmakers really feel internally and what they're willing to say publicly. So here's some more of the text messages that Liz Cheney read on the House floor.

Let's watch. Mr. Meadows received said, quote, we are under siege here at the Capitol. another quote they have breached the capital in a third mark protesters are literally storming the capital breaking windows on doors rushing in is trump going to say something a fourth there's an armed standoff at the house chamber door and another from someone inside the capital we are all helpless. Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the president. Quote, HOTIS has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed. It would take Donald Trump a whopping 187 minutes to do a

damn thing. 187 minutes to do anything at all. In the meantime, you have all these terrified GOP lawmakers, you know, incessantly texting Mark Meadows, begging him to do something. It really is incredible. By the way, only two GOP lawmakers, Adam Kinsinger and Liz Cheney, voted to hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress. The committee also divulged a November 4th message from the Senate.

an unidentified Republican member of Congress to Meadows before states were even finished counting ballots proposing an aggressive strategy in which Republican-controlled legislatures in Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and other states would just send their own electors instead of potential Biden electors chosen by voters. So far, I think that's the most, that's the strongest evidence of a coordinated effort. I'm not really understanding why the select committee has chosen to withhold the names of various GOP lawmakers who were sending these text messages and in this case, possibly doing some serious coordinating in terms of trying to steal the election, not necessarily coordinating to carry out the riots. But for the first time, we're starting to find some

pretty fascinating information through this investigation, which I had kind of lost a little bit of hope on. I felt like this had become nothing more than political theater. Part of political theater meant to essentially be part of the Democratic campaigning for the midterms. But no, it turns out we're learning some interesting facts through this investigation. Now, Representative Jamie Raskin says, look through the documents that were provided, the non-privileged documents that were provided by former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Now that we know about GOP lawmakers trying to find various ways to overturn the results of the election, we need to actually have a talk with Mark Meadows. He needs to testify. He needs to respond to the subpoena. And he gives some more reasoning for

that in this next clip. We have hundreds of questions for Mr. Meadows about information he has already admitted is not privileged in any way at all by the executive privilege, the Fifth Amendment, or anything else. Here's one of them. How did the following text from a House lawmaker influence Trump's plans to overthrow Joe Biden's electoral college majority of 306 to 232 after Joe Biden beat Donald Trump. And here's what that lawmaker wrote him.

On November 4th, a member of this body wrote to Meadows, here's an aggressive strategy. One day after the election, why can't the states of Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and other Republican-controlled state houses declare this is BS, where, conflicts and election, not called that night, and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States. How did this text influence the planning of Mark Meadows and Donald Trump to try to destroy the lawful electoral college majority that had been established by the people of the United States and the states for Joe Biden? And I think Raskin makes a great point there. I mean, I do.

ideally, Mark Meadows would cooperate and would answer the questions. Again, I don't understand why they're withholding the name of the GOP lawmaker who was involved in that text message. But nonetheless, I think that, you know, Mark Meadows testifying could be incredibly helpful. Now, will he do it? Of course not. And what he's claiming is that this is a privileged situation, meaning that, hey, I was working for Donald Trump at the time. And so my communication with Donald Trump, my correspondence with other members of Trump's administration, all of that is privileged communication. And as a result, I do not need to respond to this subpoena.

And unlike the situation with Steve Bannon, I do think that he has more of an argument. Okay. So unlike Bannon, who was not a member of government during the run up to you, January 6th, Meadows, who was one of Trump's closest White House advisors during the attack, may have a stronger case against cooperating with a congressional inquiry that seeks confidential communications with a president that could be protected by executive privilege. Now, Democrats think that Meadows wanted to cooperate, but then later decided against it due to bullying from Donald Trump. And there might be some truth behind that. I mean, we know

what kind of person Donald Trump is. He is known to bully individuals around him if they don't do exactly as they're told. Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, and he was fired as attorney general because Trump was furious that he recused himself. And to be sure, the fact that Mark Meadows cooperated in this investigation at all has Trump in a complete fury. He is furious with Meadows. He's furious with. He's furious with Meadows about this, he's furious with Meadows about his book. I mean, he's just an angry guy who wants everything to be completely controlled by his wishes. And so you can't ever please Donald Trump, but they fall for it every time. Meadows is going to continue carrying out what Trump wants

him to do. I don't personally think that the DOJ is going to prosecute Meadows for criminal contempt of Congress. I could be wrong. And the reason why I think that is because he has more of a case here, more of an excuse here compared to what we've seen with Steve Bannon. He was privileged because he was the president's chief of staff. So we'll see how that all plays out. The other thing that makes me think this will go a little differently from the Bannon situation is, I mean, the Justice Department is run by Democrats. Democrats are notoriously weak. I was actually shocked that they decided to pursue Bannon. But Bannon's argument regarding privilege was just so ridiculous and so egregious that I think Merrick Garland decided, okay, we should try him for this. But we'll see with

Mark Meadows. Finally, Mark Meadows is filing a suit in regard to this investigation. Meadows has filed suit against the panel to seek a court ruling to determine the validity of Trump's assertions of executive privilege. So we'll see where that goes. But again, what the American people are getting in terms of public statements from GOP lawmakers is very different from what they were communicating with Mark Meadows as the capital riots were underway. It's fascinating stuff. A bunch of feckless lawmakers who just lied to the American people over and over again, even when our democratic process is at stake, just self-serving narcissistic losers.

We got to take a break. When we come back, we have some more insight on the text messages that were sent to Mark Meadows. You don't want to miss it. Lots of interesting stuff there. We'll be right back. Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian. And I wanted to read a quick comment in our super chat section from Little Mac, who says,

Anna, I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for not being Chris Cuomo. Dana Bash or Don Lemon, Breonna Keeler, or Jake Tapper, and instead being, I didn't read this part ahead of time, being America's greatest news anchor, which I don't think I am, but thank you. That's very sweet. America's only news anchor working for Americans, thank you. I just, I don't know why you would be involved in this line of work unless you actually wanted to change things for the better.

Like, I get it. If you're working in cable news, you probably have a very lucrefer. contract, you're probably making great money. But I just don't, I don't know, I just don't feel like it's worth it. Like, why spend your days talking about things that you couldn't care less about, that you're totally untouched by, that you're totally insulated from? Anyway, let's get back to the news. So, poor Fox News hosts. Fox News hosts are reeling over the fact that Representative of Liz Cheney would have the audacity to read their text messages to former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, as the Capitol riots were underway on January 6th. Now, before we get

to their whining, which I particularly enjoyed, I just want to remind you all of the moment during the House Select Committee that these anchors are so upset about. Quote, Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy, Laura Ingram wrote. Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished, Brian Kilmead texted. Quote, can he make a statement?

Ask people to leave the Capitol. Sean Hannity urged. As the violence continued, one of the president's sons, texted Mr. Meadows, quote, he's got to condemn this ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough. Donald Trump, Jr. texted. Meadows responded, quote,

I'm pushing it hard. I agree. Still, President Trump did not immediately act. Now, these text messages were fantastic because it gave you a sense of what these Fox News anchors were really thinking, what they were feeling, as the riots were taking place. And it was pretty easy to juxtapose those messages to what they were saying over and over again on their own programming, whether it was minimizing what happened that day or muddying the narrative. so there would be confusion about who actually carried out the riots. So it's illuminating. It's more than just interesting text messages. We're more than just voyeuristic and wanting to know about this.

I think it's important for the American people to know what these news people really think. Because they're terrified of Donald Trump. They're terrified of Daddy Trump. So they would never dare hold him accountable or speak out against. him on their programming. But behind the scenes, they're hitting up Mark Meadows like, yo, bro, you got to do something about this right now. This is not good. Even Trump's own son, Don Jr. was sending those text messages. Now, with that said, people like Laura Ingram, not too happy, not too pleased that Liz Cheney

read her text messages. And so she tried to defend herself. Let's hear what she had to say. Of course, the regime media was somehow trying to twist this message to try to tar me as a liar, a hypocrite, who privately sounded the alarm on January 6, but publicly downplayed it. Had they bothered to actually watch what I said the night of January 6th or read any of my public tweets from the afternoon of January 6th, well, then they couldn't have denied the truth. Now, first, here's the opening of this show on the night of January 6th. Earlier today, the Capitol was under siege by people who can only be described as antithetical to the MAGA movement.

Now, there were likely not all Trump supporters, and there are some reports that Antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd. We'll have more on that later. But the point remains, if you were a Trump supporter hoping to display your support for the president, well, today's antics at the Capitol did just the opposite. But those who breached the Capitol Hill security today, whoever they were, they were criminals. I've been to literally dozens of Trump events and the criminal actions we saw today do not represent this movement. Now, does that sound like I was downplaying it to you?

Yeah, yeah, it sounded like you were muddying what actually happened that day by immediately floating this idea that there were provocateurs who caused all this trouble, that Antifa was involved. Why did you mention Antifa when there was absolutely no evidence, not a shred of evidence indicating that there were provocateurs or Antifa involved? Why would you do that, Laura Ingram? And if you really genuinely thought that was the possibility, that that was what happened that day, why did she feel the need to message Mark Meadows and urge him to get the president of the United States, Donald Trump, to stop it, to do something about it. Why would she tell Mark Meadows that it's destroying Trump's legacy?

If provocateurs were carrying it out, if Antifa was carrying it out, why would it destroy Trump's legacy, Laura Ingram? And, you know, she mentions her tweets. One of the tweets that I wanted to bring to your attention is this one. when there is any big crowd, there will invariably be bad actors mixed in. But blame will be laid at the feet of White House if capital not cleared quickly. So she again, immediately tries to blame it on provocateurs or Antifa. She knows that that's not the case. She knows that Donald Trump needs to do something about it.

And so she immediately texts Mark Meadows, much like other Fox News hosts and tries to get him to do something about it. But I will say this. First off, she claims that what happened that day was antithetical, antithetical, she says, to the MAGA movement. No, it's not. They were encouraged not just by other GOP lawmakers, but by Donald Trump himself to march over there, to fight like hell. to take the country back. No, that was part and parcel of the culture that was fostered by Donald Trump and his campaign. There's no question about it.

Now, she's not the only one who got, you know, salty about this. We're going to get to Sean Hannity in a second. But the other thing I wanted to mention is that. Hungry now. Now. What about now? Whenever it hits you, wherever you are, grab an O'Henry bar to satisfy your hunger.

With its delicious combination of big, crunchy, salty peanuts covered in creamy caramel and chewy fudge with a chocolatey coating. Swing by a gas station and get an O'Henry today. Oh hungry, oh Henry. You know, she claims that I clearly stated that Donald Trump lost the election. I wasn't someone who perpetuated this lie, the big lie.

Except she waited until November 23rd to finally admit to her audience that Donald Trump lost the election. For those of you who may have forgotten, the election took place on November 3rd. She waited 20 days to finally air a segment telling Trump like time to throw in the towel, homeboy. But she didn't quite say it that way. Let's watch. What was perhaps the most consequential tweet sent since Election Day, President Trump gave the go-ahead for the transition. You see it there.

And as unpleasant and disappointing as these past three weeks have been to so many of us, as much as we wish things were different, this is where things stand tonight. Now, legal challenges continue in a number of states, serious questions about vote counting, poll watcher access are outstanding. But unless the legal situation changes in a dramatic and frankly an unlikely manner, Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th. Now, to say this does not mean I don't think that this election was rife with problems and potential fraud. Rife with problems and potential fraud.

Fascinating how there's been multiple recounts in states like Georgia. any evidence of any widespread fraud and any anecdotal evidence that we have of fraud usually involves Trump supporters who tried to vote multiple times or vote multiple times in two different states. We haven't seen any problems with the 2020 election. But she kept perpetuating that nonsense, which only emboldens individuals in her audience who have bought into the big lie. So I do find fascinating that she puts out this segment trying to defend herself, but she only incriminates herself even more by providing examples and evidence of how she emboldened the bad behavior that we saw after the election, after Trump lost the election. Now let's get to Sean Hannity.

He was, I mean, honestly, his response to having his text messages read aloud by Liz Cheney was even worse. Let's watch. The question is this corrupt committee. The question is why this riot and not 574 other rights. The question is, is there any privacy in this country anymore? Or do they get to release thousands more of individual private citizens' texts? I beg you, Sean, to remember the frame of mind you were in when you wrote that text on January 6th. and when Laura did, and when Brian did, and when Don Jr. did.

Remember the concern you had. Remember the frustration at our beloved 45th president. Yeah, because I wanted a riot to end. Why doesn't he say something? Why? Okay. But the point is he did. You saw unfolding before your very eyes an attack on democracy.

Let me give it to Dan. An attack on the Constitution. And attack on the capital. He said peacefully, and then he did do it, Dan, you have less than a minute. Let me give it to Dan. Let me give it to Dan. Let me give it to Dan. Yeah, Hannity. Why? Why do they want to investigate this riot and not other riots? I don't know, Sean. It could be because this was a massive riot where Trump supporters, who were incited by Trump himself, marched to the Capitol, breach the Capitol while chanting, hang Mike Pence, with what intention? What was their intention?

What were they trying to do that day, Sean? Try to keep up, okay? Try to keep up with us. I know you're a well-paid Fox News anchor who doesn't really have to do much work. You don't have to do much research or much thinking for yourself. But just consider the fact that the intentions that day were, you know, a little devastating to our democratic process if we just allow it to stand as if it's no problem at all. And of course, he continued to downplay what Donald Trump said in his speech during the rally right before the riots took place. So let me remind him, since he seems to either have memory loss or can't be bothered to look

into it himself or is just flat out lying to his own audience. Let's watch. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. We're going to try and give our republics. Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take

back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. Got to fight like hell, you got to take the country back. No, no, no, he was just very politely and pleasantly. I mean, he was meek. According to Hannity, poor Donald Trump, he was So meek in that speech. Just absolute clowns. Let them cry. Love watching it. Can't stand Liz Cheney. She's an awful GOP lawmaker. But if she can make these Fox News anchors cry some more, got to give her props for that because I'm definitely enjoying it. All right. Let's take a break. When we come back, Senator Rand Paul cries. And I love that as well. You will too. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. DJ Bark Kyle on the ones and twos, Craig Lowry holding it down, holding it down on the stage as stage manager. We've got a great team here. All right, well, let's move on to Rand Paul because he's mad. He's very mad. He doesn't like being called a hypocrite, even though he is one. Man, being in Congress really does make people soft, doesn't it? Senator Rand Paul is comically defensive about the fact that people are calling him a hypocrite

because he's urging the Biden administration to offer federal relief funding to his state of Kentucky. And to be sure, Kentucky absolutely should receive federal funding and disaster relief funds following the awful tornado that ripped across the state and other states, took out entire towns. it has been a complete and utter disaster. And so it's the correct thing to do for the federal government to step in, to provide the funding necessary, to get the people of Kentucky back on their own two feet. But he didn't always think that way. And so in previous instances, he was against offering financial relief to states that had been completely devastated by natural disasters. We'll get to those examples in just a second.

But first, here's his reaction to those of us who have accurately referred to him as a hypocrite. There's been some criticism of you asking for aid requests for the Tordino damage in your state, federal aid, while some are pointing out that you opposed it in other instances, including Hurricane Sandy. How are you responding to that criticism? You know, I think it's sad. We haven't even buried our dead yet. And networks like CNN, we're frankly. they're just fundamentally dishonest people are saying things that are untrue.

When I was first elected in 2010 within months, I was advocating for disaster relief for Kentucky. I've never had a problem with the program. I've never really opposed disaster relief for any other part of the country. But I have said when it goes over budget, when we spend everything that's within our budget, that it should be paid for by taking money from places in the budget that are less essential. I think that's a very reasonable fiscally conservative. But you know, you watch CNN and you have people who basically all they care about is attack, attack, attack, you know, like I say, we're still trying to bury our dead and CNN's busy fighting some kind of left-wing partisan war founded on dishonesty. No, this isn't about CNN.

Like, I get it. CNN's got its problems, okay? But CNN can't be the scapegoat for all of the bad behavior that we see among members of Congress, whether it be Democratic. Democrats or Republicans. In this case, we're talking about a hypocrite who happens to be a GOP lawmaker, a Republican senator, who just lied, by the way, in that interview on Fox News. And was there any follow-up question? Was there any fact-checking happening in real time? Of course not. Would he lie about? Well, it could be the fact that he has voted against providing disaster relief funds to various states that were devastated by natural disasters. And he's done it multiple times. Let me give you examples. In 2017, for instance, not that long ago,

2017, he voted against hurricane relief for Texas, Puerto Rico, and Florida. In 2019, he did it again. He voted against the disaster relief bill. By the way, he criticized Chris Christie after Hurricane Sandy because Chris Christie, who was the governor of New Jersey at the time, desperately needed financial relief. Like, relief thought. in order to, you know, help with the disaster relief efforts to get people in New Jersey back on their own two feet. He said that, you know, Chris Christie is just like, give me, give me, give me, you know, just mocking the governor who is rightly calling on the federal government to do its job. The role of the government is to protect the American people.

When we pay taxes, I know this is a crazy thought, okay, but just hear me out here. When we pay our federal taxes, it's not supposed to just simply go to corporate welfare or to, I don't know, endless defense spending. The role of the government is supposed to be about protecting the American people. That's it. That is the core of what government is supposed to be. So when Americans, when our fellow Americans, regardless of their political ideology, regardless of what they believe, are experiencing the devastating.

of natural disasters, in many cases, climate-fueled natural disasters, it is absolutely the responsibility and obligation of the federal government to step in, period, period. When I pay my taxes, I'm not thinking to myself, oh, I can't wait to see my taxes fund more private military contractors. It's great. No, I want my tax money to help my fellow Americans in their time of need. I want my tax money to create opportunities for federal. fellow Americans, regardless of their religion, regardless of their political beliefs. Period. That's what this is supposed to be about.

That's what patriotism is. But Rand Paul, on multiple occasions, voted against providing relief to our fellow Americans. That's who he is. And I guess being in Senate has made him so incredibly soft that the audacity to call him a hypocrite has him in a tizzy. He's so defensive about it. But that's what he is. He's a hypocrite.

He's a goon who turns his back on the American people unless, unless it's his own state and his political career might depend on urging the federal government to provide disaster relief funds. And I do want to give you an example of what he has said on the Senate floor after he voted against providing disaster relief funds. Let's watch. The people here will say they have great compassion and they want to help the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Texas and the people of Florida. But notice they have great compassion with someone else's money. Ask them if they're giving any money to Puerto Rico. Ask them if they're giving money to Texas. Ask them what they're doing to help their fellow man.

And you'll find often that it's easy to be compassionate with someone else's money. Real easy for Rand Paul to show no compassion and then get really. real angry when people actually look at his voting record and notice that he's a massive hypocrite, real easy. But let him cry. He deserves to be called out. And he's not the only lawmaker. We see it happen over and over again, where the very people who are constantly screaming on the rooftops about how we need austerity, then turn around and vote in favor of corporate welfare, then turn around and vote in favor of providing $10 billion to Bezos and Elon Musk for their cutesy little space hobbies. They usually don't have a problem when it comes to that

kind of spending. But when it comes to stepping up on behalf of ordinary Americans, yeah, there's a lot of hypocrites in Congress. And Rand Paul is just one of them. So go ahead and cry, Rand Paul. You're a hypocrite and it's absolutely pathetic that he just lied on national television about how, oh no, I got a long history of being in favor of providing disaster relief funds. Complete BS. Absolute liar. Oh man, we've got so much more news to get to. I'm going to do one more and then we'll bring John in for the second hour. It's important to give you guys an update on student loans. So let's do it. President Joe Biden plans on restarting federal student loan payments, which were halted because of the coronavirus pandemic. Now, if you have federal

student loans, you should be expecting to make payments once again beginning in February of 2022. Now, White House Press Secretary Jen Saki addressed this during a recent press conference. Let's watch. You're talking about the student loan payment pass that expires in February, just for clarity. So in the coming weeks, we will release more details about our plans and will engage directly with federal student loan borrowers to ensure they have the resources they need and are in the appropriate repayment plan. We're still assessing the impact of the Omicron variant, but a smooth transition back into repayment is a high priority for the administration. The Department of Education is already communicating with borrowers to help them to prepare

for return to repayment on February 1st. Democrats love to lose. They love to lose. So Biden just lost on his build back better agenda, the Senate has decided to shelve the social spending program. At the same time, he has decided, no, we're gonna, I mean, look, the pandemic is still ongoing. We're learning about this new variant Omicron. But who cares? February is when the payments need to start up again. But why? But why? Why do they need to start up again? What is the reasoning behind that. Now, borrower balances have effectively been frozen for nearly two years, with no payments required on most federal student loans since March of 2020, again, because

of the pandemic. During this time, interest has stopped adding up on, and collections on defaulted loans have been on hold. Now, before the pause, borrowers were paying an average of $393 a month for their federal student loans. And that's according to to analysis from the Roosevelt industry or institute, that means that collectively borrowers will be paying roughly $7 billion a month or about $85 billion a year once the payments resume. So that's a lot of money. And it's because we have $1.7 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, debt that cannot be discharged under almost any circumstance. The only way you get your debt forgiven as a student in this country is if you have been defrauded and the fraud was so

heinous and so obvious that the federal government might, if you're lucky, agree to forgive some of those loans. But you cannot discharge your student loans in a bankruptcy. So if you're experiencing financial hardship, if you are defaulting on those loans, if you're having trouble feeding your own family, it does not matter. You can't get rid of it. That debt follows you around for the rest of your life. And by the way, that was Joe Biden's doing. That's what he did through his bankruptcy bill. And that's what makes this story so much more frustrating.

You know, the payment starting up again is one part of the story. But I would argue a bigger part of the story is that this Democratic Party, under the leadership of Joe Biden, refuses to really do anything about student loans. When he was running for president, he pretended as if he had some interest in maybe for giving $10,000 for students with crippling student loan debt. But he hasn't even done that. And so Biden is now arguing, well, look, you guys want to get some number or some amount of student loan debt canceled. Why don't you pass legislation? Like legislation like his build back better agenda?

Is that what he's talking about? He mentions Congress passing legislation because he knows that it'll never happen. And so the student loan debt will never be forgiven. Schumer, Warren, and Presley are also continuing to urge Biden to take further action and cancel up to $50,000 of student loan debt per borrower. Biden said during the presidential campaign, as I mentioned, that he supports canceling $10,000 per borrower, but has not taken action to do so beyond directing federal agencies. Oh, he loves to do this, to conduct reviews on whether he has the authority. Hey, everyone, I'm the most powerful man in the world.

I'm the president of the United States. I know nothing. And so instead of actually wielding the power that I have to better people's lives, I'm just going to keep asking people to study things. That's what the Biden administration has become, like a massive study group, in lieu of actually forcing or pushing for policy that would improve people's lives. That's what the Biden administration's all about. It's like a common room on a college campus.

They're all hanging out and studying together. Shouldn't you guys have done that prior to being in the position of power that you're in? I don't know. Call me crazy. Now one final part of this story is the reaction that you get from people who disagree with canceling any student loan debt. And oftentimes it's older Americans who had a much different experience with college tuition. So it's kind of hard for them to relate to current students who, in some cases, are in like hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, certainly if they get like a law degree or a medical degree. And so I turned to Greg Gutfeld, who had a knee-jerk reaction after hearing about progressive members of Congress, calling on the administration to cancel student loan debt.

Here's how we reacted to it. You know what? Screw you. No one has to pay your damn debt. That's on you. It is not a moral obligation on anybody for the decisions that you make. Hell, why don't we do this? You know what's better? Forget the student loan. I just saw that. I'm sorry.

Why not do car loan debt, Dagan? Because you know what, that's more egalitarian. AOC probably doesn't have a car in New York, right? She doesn't need one or she has a driver. I bet that driver has car loan debt. Why don't we do car loan debt? That's probably about 17 grand too. That's more for the working class than for these overeducated, overcaffeinated idiots.

Well, speaking of over-caffeinated idiots, Greg Gutfeld apparently doesn't know that you can discharge your car loan debt if you are unable to pay for it. You can't do that with student loan debt. So even if you file for bankruptcy, student loan debt is still there, can't get rid of it. A little different when it comes to other loans, including car loans. Let me inform Greg Gutfeld a little bit. So as a final option, like if you're having financial hardship, you can't pay your car payment. You can turn in the video. directly to the lender, get something in writing to prove that you surrendered it. Once you surrender the car, the lender will sell it, usually for less than the amount you

owe. The remaining balance, called the deficiency balance, should be eliminated in your bankruptcy. Can't do that with your student loans. Not an option. Not an option. And that's because Joe Biden pushed to make it so. So I would argue that Biden has a responsibility as someone who created this mess to get students out of the mess, to help them out, because it's not just about the individual experiencing the financial hardship that comes along with being hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt in some cases. It also has an overwhelming negative impact on our overall economy. But, I mean, are they, do they really care about that? They just like to think of everything as black and white. They don't really like to think

about the nuances of what makes the economy run smoothly. Anyway, and then I also want to just quickly talk about the fact that Greg Gutfeld had a very different experience as a college student. He graduated from UC Berkeley in 1987, a year after I was born, and he received a degree in English. And he was a resident of California, which means that the tuition he paid at UC Berkeley was in state tuition. So I wanted to look into, like, how much did UC Berkeley students pay for tuition back then? And here are the numbers. 1985 to 1986, annual tuition and fees for resident UC undergraduates total was $1,296 for the year. That was the tuition and fees for the year.

Now, if you're out of state, a non-resident undergraduate, the number would shoot up to $5,1212. $12. But he didn't have to pay that because he was from the state of California. Now let's take a look at how much Berkeley costs today. And this is from Berkeley's own website. Okay? Let's take a look. California residents can expect to pay $14,254 per year in tuition. The number actually shoots up to a lot more. So there's a non-resident supplemental tuition that forces the student to pay an additional. $29,754. That's on top of the $14,254. Okay. And if you're looking to pay for the student health insurance plan, room and board, food, books and supplies, you're looking at about $40,000 to pay for college at UC Berkeley if you are a California resident. A little different,

a little different from what Greg Gutfeld had to pay for college. So it's rich to hear all of these well paid cable news anchors give students a middle finger as they're struggling with $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. I think there's a huge problem in this country where you have lawmakers and the very people who give us the news and analysis being completely out of touch and disconnected from the realities that Americans are actually facing every single day. All right, I've gone way over. We've got to take a break. When we come back, John Iderola will join me for the second hour. Don't miss it. 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.