The Young Turks - Cenk Breaks Unwritten Rule Of Politics

Episode Date: May 2, 2019

We need to elect politicians that are committed to getting money out of politics! Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola, and Maytha Alhassen, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. If you like the Young Turks podcast, I think you'll love a lot of the podcasts on the TYT network. Old school, it's one of my favorites, one of the favorites for a lot of the listeners. Please check that out, subscribe, share it, that makes a big difference, and give it a five-star rating. Thank you.

All right, welcome the Young Turks, a huge show ahead for you guys. So in the third hour, we have two different things that you've got to stay here for. Number one is Peter Dow is going to join us. He was one of the biggest, well, I think it's fair to call him an attack dog for Hillary Clinton. And who was he attacking, Bernie Sanders. He says that he has passed it. We're gonna find out if that's really the case a little bit later in the program when he joins us.

We're gonna do an extended interview with him because there is a lot to talk about. So do not miss that. Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell Randy Gazzalus, it's right here on t.t.com. And then after that we're doing a review of Knock Down the House. So that's the movie about AOC and three other just Democrats who ran for office and they actually won the award as Sundance for Best Film, and Ida Rodriguez and Brooke Thomas and I are going to review it. That's actually post game there, we're making available to everyone so that you guys can

all check out our review. We'll have a little extra as always for the members, so t.yt.com slash join to become a member, we rely on you guys to be able to do this show. And then of course, we got a lot of programming in the first two hours as well, and folks are gonna join me in just a little bit to make that happen, including somebody at the Trump administration might be getting impeached. Is it Trump? Probably not.

Okay, but Nancy Pelosi all of a sudden, here comes master legislator. Interesting, really. Okay, and how about the polling in the presidential race, is it accurate? All that amazing stuff coming up, but I got one quick story for you guys. So recently I told you guys that Wolfpack was in Hawaii. Of course, a lot of you know Wolf Pax get money out of politics, we need an amendment. We go big on everything in the progressive community, right? Green New Deal, Medicare for all, I myself am a progressive.

But actually the one thing that progressives, conservatives, libertarians, independence, almost all of us agree on over 90% of America is get money out of politics. We gotta fix the system. In fact, a lot of Republicans, voters, not the politicians, but the voters agree more often than not, even more so than Democratic voters, that yeah, the politics. Politicians are corrupt. At the national level, there is nothing but checks that they pay attention to. Nobody ever changed their mind.

There's no debate. There's no honorable gentlemen who are like, hmm, which way should I go? Now often at times I tell you on the show that at the state level is totally different. And there are wonderful legislators, and you've heard me call out a lot of their names in a lot of different states in states that the Wolfpack resolution to get that constitutional amendment to fix our system have passed. also in ones that haven't passed, but there's wonderful fighters for our cause. And in a lot of ways, I think they're the founding fathers and mothers, including the state

of Hawaii, where we passed in the Senate for the second year in a row. And I did a video about that and told you all the wonderful, heroic, smart, progressive, and non-progressive as well, senators that voted for that. So unfortunately, as usual, it has been blocked in the House in Hawaii. They always find a way to block it in one house or another, and it's usually one person in a critical place. The whole rest of the house is ready to vote. They almost certainly would have passed it.

In fact, in the Judiciary Committee, they almost certainly would have passed it because the majority of the Judiciary Committee actually has sponsored the resolution. But in Hawaii, in every state, there's someone else that is in charge of whether you can even have a vote, whether you could even have a hearing. For whatever reason, in Hawaii, it is the vice chairs of the committees. And if you don't get it out of the committee, you can't get a vote on it. So we've got everything lined up, but one person blocked it. Now, that actually happened a couple of weeks ago, and I've been hesitating in telling

you about it. That's curious. Why? Well, Democrats are a little different than Republicans. If you, if a Republican votes against you and you target them, the Democrats find that to be not just normal and good, but pretty much awesome, like yeah, of course, go get the Republican. But even the other Republicans usually understand. They're like, well, he voted against you, what are you going to do?

Or he didn't let you have a hearing. What are you going to do? I get it. And then they'll bring in a lot of money and then you guys will have a political fight, right? But if you say to anyone, hey, this Democratic group or this Democratic politician is the one blocking progress and getting money out of politics, other Democrats get so hurt by that. They're like, don't! What are you doing?

Don't do it. Don't do it. But wait, we've been in Hawaii for so many years now. For four years, we've been stuck in that Judiciary Committee. So if I tell you who it is that's blocking it, I guarantee you a lot of people in Hawaii, including a lot of the Democratic Party is going to go, oh my God, I can't believe you would tell people what's actually happening in the state of Hawaii, people are going to get upset at this legislator. But if I don't tell you who it is, well, we're never going to move.

She's been blocking it for four straight years. So what am I going to do? We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. And it's passed in the Senate two years in a row. And it will pass in that committee and it will pass in the House. There's only one person blocking it. But in Hawaii, they're like, no, no, especially in the Democratic Party. Hey, we have our traditions and our rules.

And the vice chair decides, and for her, it appears to be personal. She says, well, I don't like Wolfpack. Okay, well, can we get a, put aside the public hearing. Can we talk to you? Can we have a conversation where we come to your office and we explain our case? No, I already heard from the national Washington groups backed by Nancy Pelosi. I don't want to hear anything. I don't want to hear it.

She says, well, look, I let a hearing happen three years ago. You know what the hearing was? She said, okay, the Wolfpack's resolution is to call for a convention. That's why we're going to the states. There's two ways to get an amendment, one is through Congress, which is nearly impossible right now. I challenge anybody working on this. Do you really think two-thirds of Congress is going to say, oh, yeah, let's get the money

out of politics. The way we all won our elections, almost all now, okay? No, forget it, forget it. Let's just, instead, let's go pass an amendment. And by the way, if that's the case, why don't they do it? Are you kidding me? I would love it. The only reason we're pursuing a convention path is because it's the only chance of success

to actually get money out of politics and actually fix our broken campaign finance system. We have private financing of elections. The actual progressive and Democratic voters can't stand it because the Koch brothers and the Mercer's and Adelson buy all these elections and sort of Exxon Mobil and the drug companies. A progressive saying, no, we shouldn't get money out of politics. Unbelievable. But actually a lot of Republican voters hated to, almost all the Republican voters hated. Why?

And they're like, oh my God, Soros is buying all the elections, Bloomberg, et cetera, right? Well, let's get all of it out, get all of the private financing out. But no, in Hawaii, she will not let it pass. So three years ago, we go to a committee hearing and she says, okay, I'm going to take the, I did a hearing and I'm taking the convention part of the bill out. The whole point of the bill is a convention. So then that's nothing. That's passing air.

It's passing nothing at all. Oh, we're gonna ask Congress to act. Dozens of states have asked Congress to act. Can I ask you something? How's that going? Okay, but that is not our resolution. Our resolution is for a convention call. So I'm gonna say her name and I'm gonna ask you, look, it's not just about Hawaii.

We got elections all across the country in Maryland, Connecticut, et cetera. Sometimes we're running against Republicans, sometimes we're running against Democrats, because it is really a nonpartisan group. Over 90% of Americans, you get it. By the way, if you want to help, this makes all the difference, because pretty please ain't working, wolf dash pack.com slash elections, wolf dash pack.com slash elections. Okay, that's how we get things done. Because we've asked nicely a thousand times.

And by the way, should we continue to ask nicely? Of course. We're animated about the issue, but are we polite? Yes, go ask the legislators in all these states. And do we do it in a political way? Yes, of course, of course we do. But if you disagree with someone on the Democratic side, they say, I can't believe how uncivil you are.

You should just take your loss and know that I'm never going to allow for a vote and just be done with it and surrender. No, sorry, we don't surrender. So we will continue to fight. But always just politically, and always in a civil fashion, doesn't mean we can't be energetic and passionate, we are. Because then they say, well, why don't you have sophisticated lobbyists? All we got is volunteers.

We got 45,000 volunteers, four staffers making a ridiculously low salary. They're fighting all throughout the different place. They're going to Washington, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Nevada, Nebraska, and the list goes on. So anyway, okay, here it is. It's Representative Joy San Benaventura. She is the, she's in the fourth district in Hawaii, she's a state representative there. My guess is that on a great number of issues, we would agree on a great number of issues, but not on this issue.

And this issue is the most important issue. So look, in the context of the young Turks, I care about all the issues. In the context of other groups that I'm involved with, I care about progressive issues. In the context of Wolfpack, I only care about one issue. If we don't fix these elections and we don't fix how we run this government, both at the state level and at the national level, well, all the rest of the conversations are irrelevant. So if you're a Republican and you support ending the private financing of elections, Wolfpack will support you.

I might not support you, but Wolfpack will support you. If you're a Republican who fights against it, we're gonna fight against you. If you're a Democrat who supports getting money out of politics, Wolfpack's gonna love you, and Republican as well, if you're a Democrat who's opposed to and you said, well, Nancy Pelosi told me, common cause told me, I didn't bother listening to you guys, I didn't bother looking at the facts, I didn't bother to look that the Justice Department agrees that a convention cannot run away, so does the American Power Association, so does Congressional Research Service, that all the fear-mongering and conspiracy theories that those groups are putting out are, are for

false, they're actually originally by a right-wing group that started a crazy, John Birch society, crazy right-wing group, started conspiracy theories about runaway elections. No lawyers actually believe that, and nonetheless, and they misquote people like Professor Lawrence Tribe from Harvard Law School, and the list goes on and on. But those are facts, those are facts. In fact, there's already 38 calls for a convention in Congress, count it already, and you go, well, if you could have a runaway convention on any issue. issue, you only need 34 states, we don't already have one.

They're like, I don't care about your facts. So I don't know what else to do about someone like Representative Benaventura. So four years, and it'll be five, it'll be six, it'll be seven. So whatever you do, look, don't get upset at her, it's not about that. And so it's about making a difference. So whether it's her or anywhere else in the country, we have got to fund the elections that Wolfpack runs, otherwise we're playing paddock. cakes, and they're not gonna listen.

They're just gonna go, yes, but my lobbyist friends say otherwise, and I don't care about the facts, and I am never going to even allow a vote, not allow a vote. So anyone who stands in that way politically, gotta go, that's what elections are for. That's what elections for, and if you're a Democrat and you're upset by that, do you believe in democracy at all? Oh, no, no, no, I should be immune from elections. You are impolite for suggesting that I should lose for making sure that you lose and that you never ever, ever, ever win on your issue, the most important issue in the world.

And by the way, if you don't believe in getting money out of politics and you don't believe in fighting for that in every way possible, I'll guarantee you you're not a progressive. You might think you're a progressive on other issues, oh well, you know, I believe in clean streets and clean air, but I don't want big money out of politics, no way, then you're not a progressive. Okay, it doesn't matter, I happen to be a progressive, but this is a nonpartisan group. I've said it a thousand times, wolf dash pack.com slash elections, okay, that makes all the difference.

You give now, you do anything you can, man, you volunteer, you join, wolf dash pack. com slash join, get in the fight, and it's not just about Hawaii at all, it's about all of these different states. We ran elections in Connecticut, Maryland, and other places, and it has made a difference. Let's go make a difference together. Otherwise, these politicians are never going to listen to us. Let's actually use the political process. Let's use democracy and make a difference.

Because if they're not ever going to give us a hearing, then we've got to get new representatives who actually will listen to their constituents. Speaking of which, by the way, you know how many people emailed or hundreds of our own constituents emailed her, don't care. They even made a video. Don't care. You want to see the video? Here's a video. My name's Carrie Porter, and I live on the island of Rahu in District 48. And the reason I'm making this video for you is to urge you to call for a public hearing on SCR 131. My name is Michi McConnell, and I live on Maui.

My name is Mishka Salva. I am a constituent in House District 21. My name is Brian Doran, and I'm a constituent of yours living in Pahoa. My name is Nau. I live in Honore. It's why we cannot take care of the environment. It's why we cannot take care of health care for the people. This is a pressing issue. We don't have time to postpone it year to year. And the country doesn't have time to wait for Congress.

Please schedule hearing for SCR 131. Please, please, please. Ben Gathright from Manoa Valley, District 23. Now, she's already seen this, and she doesn't care. And she says there'll never be a vote. Well, there is a vote, and there'll be a vote on her seat. All right, we'll see you over there. That's what elections are for.

That's what a democracy is for. All right, we're going to take a quick break here. We'll come right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-Inging the Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom.

In each episode of Un-F-The-Republic or UNFTA, The host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling. and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school.

For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained, all at the same time. All right, back on Young Turks, Jayh, Hugo, John I to roll up. Athal Hassan is here. All right.

Hey, I'm good. It's been a while since we sat right next to each other. Yeah, you've been on the show when I was off, et cetera, but it's good to be together. So, we got a lot of stories coming up for you guys. Let me read a couple of quick comments. I'm gonna let John Rip, okay. Lieutenant Mack McGee writes in the member section. Proud to be a member, Wolfpack, frustrating story, but glad to know you're still fighting

the good fight, Jenk. Going to donate some more now. Well, thank you. It's deeply appreciated. Wolf-dashpack.com slash join or slash elections. The elections one goes to strictly fighting on electoral fund, and so people who vote against Wolfpack, we go to take them out politically, obviously. I say that even though it's so obvious, partly because there's like a monstrous right wing,

and to them it's not obvious, and partly because there's a wing of the Democratic Party who likes to pretend like, oh yeah, if you dare to fight back with ideas, I'm gonna say that you're disrespectful or something. And then like implies the ridiculous things. Anyway, society troll says, proud to be a Wolfpack volunteer, well, I love that too. Any way you can do it. If you can volunteer, great, if you can donate great either way. It makes all the difference.

In fact, we're totally volunteer powered. So anyway, Denise says you have no idea how many times I wish I could retire so I could donate my time to a worthy cause instead of having to spend 50 to 80 hours a week trying to survive. At least my job allows me to listen while I type. Look, Denise and everyone else, I just want to say, it doesn't matter how you help, even listening so that you are armed with information and knowledge so that when you talk to family members and friends, that makes a difference. If you do simple things like sharing this live stream, sharing a video, tweeting it out,

and like five seconds worth of stuff, still makes a difference. So thank you, Denise, appreciate it. And you could do just Democrats time, you could do Wolfpack, you could do Young Turks. By the way, all of them have to work together. Because without us doing the progressive message out here, nobody would ever hear Wolfpack or in the beginning, nobody would have heard of just, not nobody, but pretty close to nobody would have heard of Justice Democrats in the beginning. That's for, I think that's for sure.

Anyway, Gabby Marita says, if you don't want to get big money out of politics, you don't get the claim you believe in democracy. I totally agree. All right, well, we got a lot of stories, John, you're up. We do. Let's have a little bit of fun. Just days after announcing his candidacy, Joe Biden apparently got a big bounce in the polls. Or did he?

Because the headlines all seemed pretty clear than he shot up. But when you look closer, it's not as clear as the headlines make it seem. So on Tuesday, there's a CNN poll showing Biden at 39, Sanders at 15, and Warren at 8. So look, that is not only a big lead for Biden over Bernie Sanders, it's also a gigantic jump for Biden, who had generally been in the high 20s, occasionally like 30, 31. That's a big jump. So I want to skip ahead just a little bit to show you the actual breakdown of the demographics in the CNN poll.

So let's go to that. Don't expect that you're going to be able to make much sense of this. Texas is very small. And there's a lot of stuff there. But what you will notice immediately is that as you go down, that's a whole bunch of different candidates, there's a lot of NAs. And the NAs are in the categories of people between 18 to 34 and 35 to 49. Now a lot of people notice that relatively quickly.

Now that does not mean that they did not have any respondents in those age ranges, they did. It just means that there weren't enough for them to consider it to be a sort of representative sample for opinions held by those people. There's just not enough of them. And overall, it means that the results overall are going to be a good bit biased because what you are really polling in actuality are not people, it's the oldest aged groups in America. And is it a shock that they might prefer Joe Biden over some of the other candidates? And again, it doesn't mean by itself that he did not experience some sort of bump or that

bump might not be sustainable, they might not find in other places. But the headlines never said Joe Biden gets big bump from pole of septuagenarians. It says Joe Biden's up big, pack this thing in, it's done. He announced, yeah, it's over. Yeah, so I complained last time around in 2016 that the media was, I think it was accidental, subconscious, et cetera, I don't think that it was a plot. Some of you might disagree, but I really don't think so. that was favoring Hillary Clinton by doing a number of things, including, and the most prominent

one is, they were counting superdelegates before the superdelegates ever voted. The superdelegates voted at the end, not at the beginning. They were doing endorsements, but superdelegate endorsements changed all the time. In fact, in the last big Democratic primary, the superdelegates were on Hillary Clinton's side in the beginning, and then they switched over in the middle, and then eventually voted for Obama. So counting the superdelegates in the beginning as if they had already voted, and as if it was actual voters voting instead of politicians, that's the superdelegance voting, it made

a giant difference because it seemed like, oh, it's this thing's already over. Why is Bernie, like, no votes yet, right? And people are like, why is Bernie Sanders still in the race? This thing's over. Look at the, I saw on CNN, it's like 190 to one. What is this crazy guy doing in the race? He's illegitimate. So that was a subtle message that was sent.

And I talked about that when I was on CNN and Bryce Delta on Reliable Services. was good enough to have me on to make that point. Now, this time around they're doing things like this. Big poll, that's all Biden announces, got a big lead, here we go. Now look, it's, again, I don't think that it's conscious that they're certainly not getting together in a room and be like, all right, how do we fix the poll? So we don't ask young people, okay, we just ask old people that pretend Biden's winning. I would be shocked if that were the case, totally shocked.

But when you see a poll that has all those not applicables, right, and you see that it's for older people, and you run a giant headline that says, Biden takes commanding lead, surges 10 points, that's problematic. And what does it do? It gives Biden a perception of having a big, insurmountable lead, and then the Nate Silvers, et cetera, come in and start writing about how Bernie Sanders is sliding and Biden's got a commanding lead. I mean, I literally saw this movie before.

I just, it was just a couple of years ago when we did these things. And then when I say, again, it's like people love to be offended in Washington. They could do these things and they don't find that offensive. But if you point it out, it reminds me the right wing. If you, for the right wing, doing racist stuff is not a problem. But if you point out racism, you're doing identity politics. And with the mainstream media, we point out bias, we're not like the right wing. We don't think you're enemy of the people, but we point out something that it appears

been unconscious bias here, and they get so offended. They get so offended. Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, you guys love Sanders. I'm not the one who did the poll. You're the one who did the poll. And when I ask you, hey, shouldn't the editors be careful about this stuff? Then they're like, oh, what are you trying to get me fired?

Look, but it's my job to tell you this is not a good poll. I'm a journalist checking you. You're supposed to be checking the government. But yet we have situations like this. And I want to be clear to. I agree with John. Other polls could be totally legitimate. And maybe Biden is surging.

But you got to give me a poll that doesn't do this to make your case. Absolutely. And there is such a thing in media called framing. And framing does sometimes arise from unconscious bias. But clearly what I interpret this polling and polling of only septuagenarians and above to mean is that they want to introduce a candidate that seems like they're a winning candidate. If somebody has more than 20 plus points above the next candidate is supposed to challenge them, then that's supposed to look like a Democratic Party that has their stuff together and can

mount a challenge to Trump. But also, we didn't just see this in 2015, 2016 against Bernie in favor of Hillary Clinton and the airplay that she got or the polling, as you explain, the breakdown around the super delegate count. But we saw this with Trump. We saw the coverage of Trump from June 2015 by all the cable networks to triple the amount that they gave Obama when he was running for reelection 2012. And so I think that they're over coverage, and Amy Goodman has talked about this. She started talking about this in 2016, April 2016. She thought that it was really dangerous and damaging.

And she was one of the first to point out how much coverage that Trump was getting, full rallies were being covered on cable news. So this is, I count as a kind of version of overrepresenting a certain candidate. Yeah, yeah. And I think, let's jump ahead to the two examples. Just to give you an idea of how these polls were relayed to the people. So we have from, I believe, Politico, Biden extends lead by 11 points in CNN poll with post-announcement surge.

And then Axios had three new polls show former VP extends lead over 2020 field. And again, like, I don't even necessarily blame them. I wish that they, I guess it's laziness of a form, but they're not going to dig into the cross tabs and everything in every poll. Unfortunately, I wish that they would because it's important. But they definitely, they want, first of all, they're worried about missing something. So if Biden is surging, they want to make sure that they had a headline about it. But also, they want to capitalize on any drama.

Nobody wants, like, the headline to be polls roughly similar. Like, you can't do that headline every three days or anything. So if he shoots up, it's going to be drama. I mean, hopefully if it was like Warren at 40 points, they would also have a lot of headlines about that. But I think that they are trying to capture the drama, and I just hope that they can be a little bit more critical in the future. And we're talking about how I'm gonna bring this guy up, might anger you a little bit,

but in terms of how you frame these sorts of results, I mean, this is definitely played into the past couple of days of social media activity of Nate Silver, the numbers guy. He loves to, you know, digging out of the polls and all that, he's got his not to be taken too seriously presidential tears. If we could bring that up, it's the third last graphic. And you'll see Biden is going to be all by himself. And then there's a little gap. I don't know what that represents. And then you see Harris going down, Sanders going down. Warren going up a little bit because in some of the polls, actually one poll, she was above Sanders. And what I've noticed, I don't know if you've been following his Twitter activity, every way, the way that he interprets

literally everything in this primary in terms of how durable lead is, what electability means, All of it, coincidentally, none of it favors Bernie Sanders. I just noticed from issue to issue to issue, always, he doesn't necessarily talk about Bernie Sanders, but it is always pitched as things are working out for the other candidates. And you know, Bernie's got lots of name recognition, probably gonna fall after this. Like that same thing doesn't apply to Biden or anything. It's this weird inconsistency in how the things are supposed to work. So here's a good example of it, Klobuchar versus Tulsi-Yabbard, okay?

So, look, people assume that I'm on some side or another side. When I'm on a side, I don't hide it, okay, I'll tell you. So, but in the case of Klobuchar, tremendous hype all throughout the media. Klobuchar, Klobuchar, she gets a town hall, even though she's polling in. Never, I don't think, I'm not sure she's ever gotten above 3%, but consistently 2%, 1%, etc. Klobuchar. Right now, Klobuchar and Gabbard are both at 2%, no, where's Tulsi Gabbard? I don't see, other than this program and a couple of others, I don't see Tulsa Gabbard.

She's on the list. He has her in 3B. That's right. He has-Clobuchar's 2B. And Yang has 1% stike. Why is Klobuchar in 2B at 2% and Gabbard's in 3B at 2%? Why? He does have Gabbard going up though.

Yeah, up to 3B, up to 3B when she's pulling at the same number as Klobuchar. The reason is a subconscious bias that Nate doesn't even realize he has. because he watches cable news all day, and cable news tells him, and Washington tells you, Klobuchar is a real candidate, backed up by no evidence, has never polled well, has never done anything in terms of small donations, volunteers, any other metric that you can measure. But they have their implicit biases, and they get so offended when you point out. If the right wing points it out, and the right wing says maniacal things, they respect them. They go, oh, okay, sorry, sorry, I don't want to be liberal.

I don't know what to be liberal. Well, how can I help? I'll just fluff up your number somehow and said, I'm not saying about Nate, I'm saying overall in the establishment. If the progressives say, hey, you're being biased, like, oh yeah, weirdos, I bet you like Bernie Sanders, he's got no chance, right? What do you, I mean, we did a story yesterday about how the Wall Street bankers are like, we're scared of death of Elizabeth Warren, even though Bernie Sanders is polling better, way better,

they're like, he's crazy, no one I know thinks he can win. And yes, that does filter down to the media, that does filter down the media, that does filter down I don't mean from the banks. I mean that group think in New York and Washington, and does even filter down the guys like Nate Silver, who we want to do better. So look, last thing about the polls for me, I think, I love it. I do love analyzing it, is that there are other polls. Like the poll that we pointed out, the CNN one, it's got a massive issue, as you can tell.

But Biden is picking up steam, that makes sense, he just announced, and he actually did a good political strategy with pointing out Charlottesville, Trump attacked him, that's gonna lift up his numbers, you can talk about that and be doing it in a fair way. I thought Warren's policy proposals would do well. I've been telling you for about a week on the show, if not more, that her numbers would start to go up, and they have. And that's also shown in the same polls. And she's got up about three points, and now she's solidly in third place.

So that's real, and they do mention that as well. And look, so I like Elizabeth Warren a lot, I like Bernie Sanders. I told you if I like someone, I tell you, there it is, right? And Bernie Sanders, for a while, looked like he was going to overtake Biden, and I thought that made sense politically, let alone what I think about his policy. Now he's not in as commanding as second place as I would have thought, and I point that out. And it's two different hats. One is, who do you think is right on the policy?

And the other is, what's actually happening? What's the reality on the ground? We thought Trump might win. We couldn't stand Trump. But we gave you the actual numbers and talked about likely versus not. So it is, I have to confess, it is frustrating where we say we're home of progressives, we clearly label who we are, we talk honestly about our point of view, and then we actually analyze the numbers because it's our job to give you facts.

And they call us biased, then they turn around and have an actual bias where they put the numbers There's an acute perspective to favor their own candidates, and then when you pointed out, they get all hurt and emotional over it. But that is the reality, and we're gonna keep on delivering those facts to you guys, and then our perspective, no matter what. What was really fascinating about this Nate Silver article that was based on some of his most recent numbers was that he was stacking everything around Biden leading the pact, and he was sizing up every other candidate.

And I was like, this is so stunning that we've already gotten to this point that Biden's the one to beat this early on, one, two, based on these kind of polling numbers, which are, should be suspicious to people based on who they've polled. And again, people like Nate Silver, who, you know, up until the bell rang in November 2016, was in the Hillary camp. So, I mean, yeah, there's, it's this kind of premature coverage. this kind of premature polling, I would say just be skeptical around it. And the other thing that, you know, I'm sure you've talked about a lot here is that there is, with cable news networks, a lot of coverage around Biden, Boudida, I can never. Boudidijed. I'm sorry, I'm probably never gonna talk to this man ever in real life.

But- No, he might also struggle with your name. No, actually, he wouldn't. He wouldn't, because he probably speaks like 12 languages then. And I can beat him a little bit on that too. Well, that's true. I just didn't serve in the military and I don't think I'm ever going to do that. But that's a whole other story. Anyways, him and that obsession with him and Beto, it's fascinating because they're three white

men from different age generations. So I think what they're trying to do is point out their sort of picks for people that wouldn't size up between each other, like the Bernie Sanders, like the Biden. And of course, clearly people who are a little bit more moderate than the rest of the folks like the Warrens and the Sanders. that scare the hell out of the banks. I know I shouldn't have said last point. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, I just-

No, no, no, no, no, because I gotta say two things about what you're saying. First of all, look, I wanna be fair to Nate Silver, because that's what we tried to do very hard. So he was more right than the rest of the establishment on Trump. So he didn't get it right either, but he was closer to being right. And he's the only one I've seen point out that Elizabeth Warren is surging probably based on the incredibly detailed policy proposals that she has put forward. And we've been telling you that people care about policy.

And people thought, on TV they're like, no, everybody just cares about gloss and shine and whether you're rolling up your sleeves well, right? It's all about image and who's young and who's hip and who speaks Farsi and who speaks Norwegian, right? Do you play the piano? Oh, it's all about image, right? Eating fried chicken with Al Sharpton. Right.

But we told you, we told you ahead of time, Elizabeth Warren's got amazing policies she unveiled. I bet she goes up in the polls. Boom, she goes up in the polls. It's not like we're Monday morning quarterbacking it. So, hey, the rest of the media, I know you're super impressed by, you know, and those things are impressive, by the way, that Buttigieg speaks Norwegian and plays great piano, et cetera. But what's more impressive is policy that affects our lives, right? And that you should make equal note of that, and you most certainly have not.

Alex Sites Wald, who I'm sure is a perfectly lovely guy, I asked him to be on the show, but he did, along with another report on NBC News, this fawning report of Buttigieg. I gotta be honest with you. It was embarrassing. If we had done something similar about Bernie Sanders, we were like, ha ha, we knew it, right? But it was like, Buttigieg is so smart, so data driven, so, oh my God, he's so great. But you know what, it turns out he had a couple of problems, but we have a great explanation for that.

Then he realized he was missing the human touch, and then he found that human touch and became a real leader. Now, with the human touch and all the data driven smartness, what an unbelievable leader. By the way, if you think I'm exaggerating, read the piece. I am not exaggerating, it was unreal. If I was a PR person for Buttigieg, I would have been embarrassed to write that and give it to the press. I mean, they made it seem like his significant problems with racial relations in South Bend

were a wonderful thing that led him to be even a more heroic leader with big heart. That is not how a lot of people in South Bend perceived it. Yeah, and I would also say, as many of you have probably seen going around, the policy walk with sex appeal headline of him, like choking himself with his tie or whatever. First of all, if you're gonna designate a policy wonk in this current crop of candidates, it's kinda messed up not to give it to Elizabeth Warren, especially when the person you do give it to has explicitly said that he is a new type of candidate, and that is why you can't find any details about policies on his website.

No, you cannot call Buttigieg policy wonk when he says, I don't do policy won't. I do values. He is the least policy oriented. He tells you he's the least policy oriented out of all the candidates. He proudly declares I want to talk about values, not policies. So when you do that, how could you not see the bias? How could you not see your own bias? If you're gonna talk about policy, there's only two people here, and I'm not saying

that because I'm a progressive. Bernie Sanders, admittedly, you have to admit, a lot of people have admitted, is the one who proposed all these policies in the first place, and has been proposing him in 40 years. In fact, the mainstream media then turns around and goes, Well, since you've been the leader on this, we don't need you anymore. What kind of logic is that? That's crazy. And then Warren is killing it with detailed, brilliant policy initiatives that affect so many Americans.

If you're gonna talk about who's the policy won, you're, like, I mean, that proves bias more than anything else. If you say, if you don't say that Sanders and Warren are clear one and two, head and shoulders above everyone else, if you say, well, no, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, they might be good, candidates otherwise. But they also believe in Medicare for all, Bernie's idea. Greenfield, in a lot of ways, originally Bernie's idea, and you go down the list. And it's almost all Bernie's ideas in the beginning.

And then you could argue that Warren made them better or Warren has added to them. But you can't make the argument that the other people have got those two beat on policy. That is not an argument that you could possibly make. If you want to come on the show, I'd love to have that conversation because I don't think it's backed up by the facts. Have you had any silver on the show? No, he won't come on. Yeah, look, I'll go talk to anybody, right?

But for them, there's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm gonna get challenged. I don't wanna get challenged. So let's just get real, that's what's happening right now. Because there's, look, I'm not talking about Nate now, but a lot of the mainstream media are so smug in their certainty that they've got almost their own set of alternative facts. And so when you pierce that bubble, they get super mad at you. They still, like the guys who were wrong about the Iraq war are paid millions upon millions of dollars on television.

The people who were right about the Iraq war shunned. So I mean, it's been going on for decades. Yeah, I would say that smugness is not necessarily just confined with the mainstream media. Basically everyone talking about politics is, in my view, incredibly smug about it. In any event, on this particular topic, I do want to thank the viewer and Nicholas Snowd who clued us into that particular, that facet of the polling. And so thank you for that.

We do have to take our break. Okay. All right, let's do it. All right, we'll be back. We've got so many more stories for you guys, including Barr. Is he going to be impeached? And look at Nancy Pelosi. A little twist there, a little turn.

All right, back. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of the a big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. And it's also

easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's X, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. From the Young Turks, if you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while

supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on a young turks. Time for only two comments here. Onakazi says, Nate Silver has become the type of guy he used to criticize when he first broke onto the scene. That's an interesting, perhaps fair point. And one more from the member section, Jay Luce 91 says, with all the media bias against Bernie,

other JD candidates and progressive ideas, I do not understand how Jank cannot agree with Trump saying the media is the enemy of the people. Fox News is a perfect example of bias in the media. No, actually, Fox News is not a perfect example. Everybody knows Fox News is conservative. I think that the CNNs of the world not owning their establishment bias is actually worse. But words matter, don't say enemy of the people, it's dangerous. So certain words do incite folks.

So there's a better way to criticize the media without using that kind of language. That's my take on it. Yeah, like I'm super harsh on Fox News. I don't call Fox News enemy of the people. Yeah, enemy of the people incites people to take physical action against them, don't do that. Okay, I would agree. Let's keep going.

Okay. Yesterday, William Barr was before the Senate today. He was supposed to be before the House, and he decided that he wasn't going to do that, and I would probably get used to a lot more of that type of relationship between the White House and the legislative branch. So we didn't have him, and that might be a problem for William Barr, according to Jerry Nadler, and also Nancy Pelosi had some pretty harsh words for him. What is deadly serious about it is the Attorney General of the United States of America was not

telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That's a crime. He lied to Congress. And he lied to Congress. And anybody else did that? It would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law, not the President of the United States and not the Attorney General. Should you go to jail for it? There's a process involved here. And as I said, I'll say it again. And how many of questions you have, the committee will act upon how we will proceed. Okay, so that started off kind of strong, and then once the actual consequences were brought up, then it kind of fizzled out a little bit.

But they are frustrated with him for both what he said in the first day and him not showing up for the second. So I'll give credit in the beginning, criticize in the middle, and credit at that, okay? So first of all, Nancy Pelosi talking about somebody in the Trump administration, committing migrant crime. Now, it's kind of obvious, but she usually doesn't do it, so great, super happy to hear it. And like John said, started out pretty strong, so that was surprising.

She doesn't usually proceed from strength. So now the critique of this. So look, I think Pelosi has some Washington assumptions built in, which is, I mean, we're not really going to do anything about the elite. That's why she frames it as like, I mean, a regular person would, you know, we're not really would be, would have consequences. It is a crime and so there would be consequences if you lied to Congress. She says that like, it's kind of a, like, wow, like if you ever think about it.

We think about that all the time. We think a lot of you guys are above the law and it's maddening. And so, but then when they press her on it, she can't help but protect the elite and she's like, well, we gotta follow a process. I mean, am I gonna put somebody in the club in jail? No, we're all in the club, right? I mean, but, and it reminds me of an old Bill Murray skid that none of you will remember from Saturday Night Live, where he's pretending to be a strong guy, maybe a caveman, I don't

even quite remember exactly right, but he's like, and they say, okay, can you lift that rock? And he's like, that rock is too big, I can lift a smaller rock. And that is what Pelosi's doing, Trump is too big, I can lift that smaller rock, I'm not going to impeach Trump because of politics, et cetera. But hey, William Barr, maybe that's something that's, we can, you know, we can handle That's a small rock guy might be able to lift. So it's kind of a proxy war in a sense. But again, I'm happy to see it.

Happy to see it, happy to see her coming in this rig. Yeah, I mean, every candidate running on the Democratic side has called for Barr to resign. But Barr is somebody who has been deeply entrenched in the establishment. He's from the swamp. He is a swampite with all of them. And I think people don't realize how deeply he's been a part of this whole machine. He's going back to the 1980s. And what's really interesting is that in 1989, when he was tabbed by the Bush H.W. Bush of the senior,

to come in as a legal advisor, he's the one that wrote the legal opinions to invade Panama, to arrest Noriega, to get the FBI to go to foreign land without the host country's consent. And those opinions were so controversial that the Congress requested his opinions. And you know what he did? He gave them a summary. And I think you've seen that movie. Yeah. And they subpoenaed him, but then he departed and then he gave the full opinion.

And they were like, you omitted substantial details. So this is part of his playbook. He's been doing this. And also the Trump administration has been begging Barr to represent him for the Mueller probe since spring 2017. So this guy is not impartial. This guy is a big advocate of the unitary executive policy, and he's been doing this over and over again for decades.

So either he's possibly one of their own. If they find him out and have a process around him, maybe other folks also have to undergo a similar process, Cheney, but that's a whole notherst thing. Yeah, and they don't want to do that. I mean, Emma Viglin from the Young Turks broke a story today of Biden with overflowing praise for Dick Cheney. So you should check that out on Facebook.com. So in Biden's defense, offstage, Dick Cheney had a shotgun.

That's the problem with Biden. He doesn't need a shotgun. He just, he loves reaching out to the most loathsome Republicans. He thinks that's a cool bipartisan thing to do. Okay, back to this. By the way, to be fair to Biden, he said that they should take action against Barr. Bar should resign as almost all the presidential candidates said Bernie Sanders not calling for impeachment.

I continue to disagree with him on that in regards to Trump as well. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, let's go to Graphic 38, wrote about Barr. AG Barr is a disgrace and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that he's not a credible head of federal law enforcement. He should resign. And based on the actual facts of the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the president. She is coming out swinging.

Yeah, so she is fighting the hardest, I would say, for impeachment of Trump. And has been for a few days as she's moved up in the polling. That's right. If you, yeah, over a week now. And Marianne Williams, although had my favorite tweet. So I just love the way that it ended. She said, words spoken today by William Barr stoop beneath the level of any lawyer, much less the attorney general. He said if the president feels he's being falsely accused, he should be able to shut down an investigation into his conduct.

Wouldn't that be true of 90% of criminal defendants? Hashtag beyond. I love this, you wrote hashtag beyond. And we actually talked about impeachment when she was interviewed on the damage report yesterday, which is now available online. You can go watch that. That's right. And so Barr was, of course, summoned to not only testify in front of the Senate, but also in front of the House.

And he has decided not to show up. Now, the Democrats said we want to also be able to have our staff attorneys question you about the law. He said, nope, you're not allowed to do that. I will talk to the congresspeople, but I will not talk to their attorneys. Now, I was asking around, hey, what's the normal policy and precedent here? And Brett Ehrlich and John pointed out, you remember the Republicans brought in an attorney to question Christine Blasey Ford. In fact, they handed off all their questions on Christine Blasey Ford to an outside attorney,

even legal staff. So for the Republicans then to turn around and go, I can't believe the Democrats would want to use an attorney to question the attorney general, a little disingenuous. So two reasons why Barr might be in trouble, and that was the attorney right there, that question forward. First of all, Congress and the House has asked them subpoenaed the full Mueller report, the unredacted version, and he is not cooperating. If he does not cooperate within a couple of days, he might be in contempt of court.

So, that is legal problem number one, but the much bigger legal problem and the one that Nancy Pelosi and all the presidential candidates are referring to is he came in front of Congress earlier and said that Mueller's and his team had not raised any concerns about his summary. And now we found out that before that testimony, Mueller had written a very clear letter saying, we are expressing concerns about your summary. So it's a very clear lie, that is perjury, that is a crime, and yes, it should have consequences. And he did it before. And he has done it before. Yeah. Why don't we talk a little bit

about that letter then? Okay. So when Mueller's report, when Mueller's letter to William Barr, criticizing the initial memo that Barr put out in the media conversation about it, that looked bad for some of the people, especially on Fox News, who had been trumpeting the bar memo as the last word on this whole thing, we can all move on. Apparently Mueller didn't feel that way and sent him the letter because of that. When that News broke, Chris Wallace on Fox News, noted that this apparently was not good for those who had had this narrative they wanted to push. And just a little bit after that on Fox News, after Chris Wals talked about effectively

what many of the opinion people at Fox News had been saying at the time, Laura Ingram took issue with him. Now, I know Chris Wallace at the top of your hour was indicating that, I guess, that he kind of agrees with these other cable networks, that this was an attempt by. the DOJ to spin what the conversation was between Barr and Mueller. So I don't know if Chris Wallace has information that I don't

have, but that he's saying that that Barr is perpetuating a lie. I find the reporting on this and much of the commentary on this to be harmful and frankly very disturbing. And I'm watching this in real time.

And this is not spin, by the way. This is analysis. You know she's serious because this is not spin. Oh, okay. I wonder if she could do a show where there would be no spin zone on Fox News. Anyway. So that was kind of an interesting moment there where the Fox anchor seemed like she was trying to cut off Laura Ingram when the internal strife began.

Anyway, they're fighting and it's fun. And let's see, let's figure out who is more likely to be right about the facts. Laura Ingram, or Chris Wallace, who actually is a reporter, I happen to think that, and then we've shown a clips here where he does have conservative framing on issues, that's why I think part of the reason why he's working on Fox News. Remember, he's originally picked by Roger Ailes, okay? Roger Ails, not in business, are picking a lot of liberals. He has token liberals like Shep Smith and Alan Combs in the past, but they're there for

purpose. The guests that are liberals are usually there to get their ass handed to them, and they pick weak people on purpose. They pick Chris Wallace because he was a right-leaning journalist, but still in the journalist camp. And so he has asked some questions that I think are questionable conservative framing, but he's also asked real questions. And he looks at this, and as a journalist, he says, well, okay, William Barr says that there was no concerns voiced by Mueller.

We have a letter clearly stating massive concerns by Robert Mueller. Well, that appears to be at odds. And Laura Ingram's like, now I'm not spinning, but I don't think they are at odds. And I think that Chris Wallace's bias for pointing out those facts. Do you want to see Chris Wallace's response to Laura Ingram? Oh yeah, so they're in a battle to throw the other under the bus. We'll see who will win. I'll take a look at this.

You know, I know there's some people who don't think that this March 27th letter is a big deal. And some opinion people, some opinion people who appear on this network who may be pushing a political agenda, but, you know, we have to deal in facts. And the fact is that this letter from the special counsel, and it was one of at least three contacts with the attorney general between March 25th and March 27th was a clear indication that the attorney general was upset, very upset, with the letter that had been sent out by the attorney general and wanted it changed or wanted at least added to, and the attorney general refuse to do so. And there are a lot of people having read now the full report, or as much as it has

been not redacted, you know, agree that he didn't reveal what was fully in the report. Again, those aren't opinions. That's not a political agenda. Those are the facts. So when it comes to on-screen personalities like that, especially a reporter like Chris Wallace, I mean, that's about as rough as he's ever going to get. He referred her as an opinion person pushing a political agenda. Wow, shots fired. Yeah, he might as well just said Dracarus because she's burning. And by the way, so who started the fight?

It was not Chris Walls. Chris Walls gave his opinion. Laura Ingram gives her opinion every night. So they're both, and Chris Walls' opinion, as he points out, is backed by stone cold facts. In fact, I'll read you parts of the letter in a second. Laura Ingram called into another show, even though she has her own show on Fox News. Because, I mean, that's like, that's pulling a Trump, right? And it's so animated watching Fox News, she calls in to take a personal shot at Chris Wallace.

So she started the fight. So Wallace comes back and goes, I don't know if you know this. I also work at Fox News. Because, I mean, it's not like Fox News guys are wilting flowers. So they're ready to fight. So let me give you the quotes from the letter. The Mueller told Barr in his letter to Barr, your summary failed to quote, fully captured the context, nature, and substance of our findings.

And he also said that Barr's summary, quote, threatens to undermine public confidence in our probe. So that is crystal clear. Then Barr, so Barr's summary was not accurate, according to Mueller of Mueller's report. That part is couldn't be clearer. Then you go to the second part, Barr goes in front of Congress after. You're receiving this letter from Mueller saying, you did not accurately summarize our report. And it undermined our report and we're concerned. He comes in front of Congress and says, Mueller has never told me that he's concerned about

my summary, perjury, no question, stone cold fact. So Lauren Grim can not spin all she likes, but Wallace is clearly right on the facts. Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think, I wonder if this is a new tactic, I would love it. if Fox decided or found that it got a lot more ratings with infighting as opposed to slinging shots for other networks? Because this is fascinating when the opinion folks, like the Laura Ingrams and previous to her, O'Reilly, and of course Tucker Carlson, those folks come up against reporters who

are there every single day trying to comb through the facts. And not that, again, that anybody on Fox News is necessarily somebody who I look to for information, but somebody like Wallace who's been in the game is a conservative. But I think what people don't understand about the conservative camp is that there are people who are worried that some probe like this not handled properly means in the future, there is a disintegration around legal processing. And so I think that, you know, that's why Chris Wallace is firing back as fiery as he can, as spicy as he can be.

And were there more shots fired? Well, tune in tonight, or don't, it's Fox News. So super last thing, look, there's some people in the conservative camp who have these theories that the liberals want all this power and they want to control our lives, et cetera. Those folks, I don't think, of course, I don't think they're right, but they're concerned that if you let Trump have this kind of unchecked power, that liberals will abuse it. And then there are the conservatives that go even farther and go, who cares, power is power. We have power now.

Let us use it to the maximum degree. And then if they get power later, precedent laws, rules, who cares? And then we will change our so-called principles and say that they're being outrageous in their abuse of power. The Ingram camp does not care about principles or ideology. It only cares about power. Right, absolutely. Is there a single person that thinks that Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram printed out

the Mueller report and then looked through it worried that they might find obstruction of justice? Nobody thinks that. Could you imagine Hannity's like, whoa, I didn't think about that. Oh, that was a close one. Oh, no, that's a good point though. I'm gonna come back to that one. No, does anybody think that anyone in Fox News, with the possible exception of Chris Walls, even read the report?

Yeah. Even Lindsey Graham, he admitted yesterday that he hadn't read it. Okay, we gotta go. Mitha, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate that you always add to our analysis in a wonderful way. And John, it was good to see you too. I love picking on John. All right, everybody check out damage reports, seriously, it's-

And just as a general rule, so right around this time actually is when a lot of the damage report clips are available on YouTube, so feel free to go watch those instead in the future. All right, seriously, members, you get to watch damage report live. So check that out every day. T.y.t.com slash join to become a member and watch John live, but also you can get clips on Facebook and YouTube. And a podcast. By the way, today somebody told me, the comments on your podcast are through the frickin' roof.

They are very nice. Yes. Niceest thing on the internet. Yeah, like five stars everywhere. So everybody check out the damage report. All right, guys. We got so much more for you guys, so much more drama and fighting, that's just what's in the news. we'll come back and do that in a second.

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