The Young Turks - Cenk Will Face Off With Fox's Tucker Carlson

Episode Date: September 22, 2018

Cenk is set to hit up Politicon 2018 and debate Tucker Carlson of CNN. Jake Tapper and Chris Cillizza love using biased studies to attack Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's progressive plans for office. Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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. Young Turks, drop it. Pow, power panel. J.R. Jackson, Nomi, Prince, John Iderola. I'm J. Huger. How you doing, Nomi?

I'm great. How are you? I'm awesome. Okay. So we have tons of exciting news for you guys. We are at the turning point. We will explain a little bit later in the program. What do I mean by that? There is two piece of news today that I think will begin the final countdown.

Now, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. So, yes, so you can sing along with me, John. So is it Kavanaugh? No, we have huge story on Kavanaugh, but that is not it. Is it Michael Cohen flipping even more and cooperating with the prosecutors? Partly, but the biggest story today is Rosenstein. So we're going to get to that a little bit, and it will likely set off the dominoes. So at some point there's some chance on the show today, we will yell Domino's mother.

No. Okay, probably will not do that, okay. We also have major news about an interesting thing related to the young Turks. I'm gonna do that in a second, hold. All right, so first about today's proceedings. Not only we're doing the show at 6 to 8 p.m. as we always do, of course, as you know. But John is gonna do double duty today. He's going to host the first hour, then he's going to run over, and for the members,

host the Beto-O-O-Rourke Ted Cruz debate. So that is happening tonight. It's a 7 o'clock. That's only for the members' live play-by-play coverage with John and Brooke Thomas, okay? You guys are going to love that. Now, here's the thing. You're thinking, but wait a minute, you guys are also on air. What am I supposed to watch?

Well, don't worry. That's obvious. Okay. I see you. Okay. You're members, so you can watch either one in live and the other one later, because obviously members not only get it live, but they get it afterwards as well. So t-y-t.com slash join to become a member and to get that.

And I want to do a special thank you and a shout out to DallasNews.com, NBC5 in Dallas for sharing their live stream of the debate. They're sharing it with our national audience, and that is greatly, greatly appreciated. So thank you NBC5 in Dallas. Yes. Yes, so you clarify that, but just to be super clear, if you tune into our stream, Not only will you have our commentary, but you'll have the actual stream of the debate as it's going on. We will also be taking member comments and questions live during the actual debate analysis.

So if you want to interact with myself or with Brooke, you can do that live while we're doing our breakdown. So that's in about an hour. And so t.wit.com slash join to become a member. But then once you're a member, you got to go to t.com slash members live. That's how you watch old school when it's live, post game when it's live, and this debate coverage. So Beto versus Beta begins tonight. Okay, fun for everybody. I want to do an ad about that next week.

Okay, so now announcement number two, this is also important for all of you out there. Progressives, you need to participate. So Ben and Jerry's has partnered with MoveOn.org. So this is a super fun partnership. They are going to come up with, no wrong, you are going to come up with seven new flavors for wonderfully progressive candidates running for Congress. That's why I love Ben and Jerry, other than the fact that it's delicious. But Ben Cohen is one of the great heroes of not only the progressive movement, but specifically

getting money out of politics. So he's done some amazing work for that and move on obviously a huge progressive group. So the endorsed candidates include, and you guys have to come up with innovative flavors for them. And if there's a contest, I'm gonna tell you about the contest in a second, but the candidates are Jess King, she's a just Democrat out of Pennsylvania. Amar Kampanajar, a just Democrat that's been on a power panel with us and interviewed many times in Duncan Hunter Jr.'s seat there.

And so looking forward to those flavors. Lauren Underwood in Illinois, off top Purval in Ohio, J.D. Shulton in Iowa. Stephanie Rose Spalding in Colorado, another just Democrat. And again, another person who's been on the power panel here earlier, James Thompson from Kansas's 4th District. James is awesome and was on Rebel Headquarters just earlier this week. So how are you gonna do it? You're going to invent seven flavors and flavor names. We've already started thinking about them, so I might enter the contest.

I'm gonna get into a beef here over or an ice cream over who's gonna name the flavors better. There's no beef in any of these flavors, just enough. But you gotta capture this of the candidate, obviously. How you enter is go to moveon.org slash Ben and Jerry. Moveon.org slash Ben and Jerry. If you're watching this later, we'll, as always, we have the links down below in the description box or comment section on YouTube and Facebook.

And entries must be received by midnight basically on September 28th, 2018. So that's coming up. So put on your thinking hat and get to it. Winners will receive one pint of their own custom Ben and Jerry's ice cream. So that's a great innovative way to help progressives. Nice. Thank you, Ben and Jerry's, and move on. Okay, so here's the exciting news about the Young Turks.

Now look, you know we're home of progressives, you know that you're going to go to TYT.com slash join to become a member. You know that the activist level members get first dibs on tickets to our own events. Now, but this is not one of our own events, but we would like you to show up because I think you're gonna enjoy it. This year at Politicon, I will be debating Tucker Carlson. And so that happened. Oh my God, they got a photo of him making a different facial expression.

Oh, wow. No, they just shaded it a little bit. Oh, okay. Yeah. So you're going to go to, in order to get tickets, it's Sunday, October 21st, obviously, as you can see in that graphic. The whole convention is the 20th and 21st. Anna Kasparian will also be there.

Hassan Piker is also going to debate Charlie Kirk again. Kirk again. So a lot of the Young Turks crew will be there throughout. Go to Politicon.com and then enter the promo code TYT for the people who use that code. We will be communicating with you guys about what we're going to do that weekend. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. Okay, so that ought to be exciting. So make sure you enter the code TYT, Jank Uger versus Tucker Carlson.

It ought to be interesting. You don't want to miss it. But it said in conversation. We aren't just that's all we're doing. We're conversating. Gonna exchange ideas, thoughts and ideas? Yeah. No gloves.

The gloves are off. The gloves are off, and I believe the holds have not been barred. They have not been barred. So no holds barred, we'll see how that goes. I will be questioning some of the things he has said. I'm sure he will do likewise, so it'll be an interesting conversation. Okay, looking forward to seeing you guys there. All right, now, we got lots of news.

Now, like I said, Kavanaugh, Rosenstein, Cohen, huge stories. But yesterday I mentioned to you something that's really important in progressives, and how it got under my skin, it does happen from time to time. So I wanted to make sure that I followed up with you guys, and it is about a topic you are familiar with and probably have similar feelings as I do about the frustration that it causes with the mainstream media. Okay, so CNN has consistently been questioning progressives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in particular about her programs to help American people.

That's obviously an outrage. If you do tax cuts for the rich to the tune of trillions of dollars, well, of course we can afford that. Wars for trillions of dollars, well, of course we can afford that. But you want to help somebody get healthcare in America, so how we're gonna pay for it? So in fact, let me just show you a couple of quick clips here. We did this earlier with Jake Tapper. Chris Silliza has done a follow-up that I want to share with you guys and then we'll comment

on. But I want to show you the tone of Tapper's questioning and the substance of it as well. So we already shared with you Acosta Cortez's responses in an earlier clip. So this is just as a warm-up to Szilza. Let's remind you Tapper's questions, let's watch. According to nonpartisan and left-leaning studies friendly to your cause, including the center on budget and policy priorities or the tax policy The overall price tag is more than $40 trillion in the next decade.

You recently said in an interview that increasing taxes on the very wealthy plus an increased corporate tax rate would make $2 trillion over the next 10 years. So where's the other $38 trillion going to come from? So as we explained to you earlier, that is greatly misleading. First of all, he said from left-leaning think tanks. Yes, some of the smaller numbers, the $32 trillion number, which I think is the great majority of the 40 trillion, if I can do my math, right, and I'm pretty sure I can, comes from the Coke-funded study at George Washington University, but he made it seem like, oh, no, these are all liberal

think tanks that are coming out with it. But more important than that, as we've gone now over several times, that $32 trillion number does not exist on its own. That is the cost of health care in the country. And so every proposal would counter that. You would take away some percentage of that money. Now, progressives have shown, and we've shown on this program over and over again, even that Coke funded study shows you if you actually applied Medicare for all, as it currently exists, it would save us $34 trillion. That's the thing that Jake Tapper left out.

So that would be a net $2 trillion in savings. And instead of talking about this monstrous $40 trillion number, we'd be talking about obviously a much smaller number, $6 trillion. But even if you thought, hey, you know what? It's not going to save us $2 trillion, it's going to cost us $2 trillion. And that's what the conservatives might argue, well, you're still not talking about $40 trillion. You're talking about $10 trillion at that point. So the whole thing is grossly misleading.

And Alexandria Ocasier-Cortez countered by, hey, health care, actually, the Medicare for all proposal saves money, a very similar to the point to the one I'm making right now. But Tapper was not convinced, and at the end of the interview, he ended it this way. Assuming I'm not going to get an answer for the other $38 trillion. I'm assuming I'm not going to get an answer for that. Okay, I'm not sure that you wanted that answer. But still, CNN persists. So Chris Zeliza, apparently progressives' responses to this, I don't know if it got under his skin

or they just love this topic so much because they can't wait to show that they're not liberal media by beating up on progressives. and of course it depends on whether you're right or not. So facts do matter. So let me quote Soliza here. He said on Sunday, Sanchez Jake Tapper put a very simple question to Alexandria Ocasio-Gortez. How are you planning to pay for the many and various expensive programs and plans that you're either proposing or support? The New York soon-to-be congresswoman didn't have any answers.

Like none, he said. But wait a minute. Chris, she explained for three minutes how Medicare for all would save money. Now, I guess you're hanging your hat on, well, she didn't go through the math that Jake Tapper presented. Let us know it, and we looked into this, and we asked CNN about it, and we asked some of the groups that they cited, is there, does this number exist anywhere else, the $40 trillion number that Tapper asked her about right there?

And no, it appears that it's CNN's math. They took a number of studies and put them together. So the reason why that's important is because this is the first time Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or anyone has ever heard of that number. So you couldn't possibly have prepared ahead of time for this question. So then they say, okay, here's $40 trillion. I put it up in a graphic which you might or might not be able to see as a guest. And I need you to answer right away.

She gives the best answer she can. Wait a minute, the $32 trillion number actually is not accurate because Medicare for all would save us money. And they go, she had no answers, like none. None. That's not true, because you're not paying attention, because you don't want to pay attention. So he goes on, he says, let's buy into Ocasier-Cortez's case that cost would shrink of the government rather than the free market rampings.

Pause there to note that apparently she did have an answer, okay, not none. So apparently you acknowledge that. He goes on to say, let's even say that it would have the cost of the programs that she supports making the law, that's still $20 trillion, which has to come from somewhere, right? No, Chris, Chris, look, it's incredible how smug they are and how condescending they are when they're preposterously wrong. Why would you have the number? That doesn't make any sense. That's a combination of college for all, Medicare for all, and a number of different programs. It's a weird thing to say, let's have the number. No, if you took out Medicare for a

all taking out the $32 trillion, you're having a completely different conversation. And by the way, as Tapper pointed out in the beginning, Ocasio Cortez has said, if you take away the Trump tax cuts, that's another $2 trillion. If you do the speculation tax, that's another $2 trillion. And so on and on, next to you know, there's actually very little to make up if you had to quote unquote make up anything. And I can get to the substance of how they're thinking about it wrong in a second. But their math is preposterously wrong.

But yet the condescending idea of like, you don't have any answers. Whereas we made up a bunch of numbers, and then we made up having them, and then we claim that you don't have an answer for things that we made up out of whole cloth. So let me give you the rest, and I want everybody to jump in. He goes on to say, the truth that Acosta Cortez doesn't want to acknowledge is that the only or at least the most likely way that she fills the gap between cost savings and the actual cost of the programs she's proposing is to raise tax. taxes. Yes, on the wealthy, but also if we're being honest, on more than just the wealthy,

raising taxes is never popular. No, correction, Chris. It is actually quite popular among the American people if you actually looked at the polling, but you don't. Instead, you're in Groupthink and in Washington. All my Republican friends told me raising taxes is not popular. All my rich friends told me that raising taxes is not popular. Look at a poll, Chris. It actually is popular. These tax cuts where they cut taxes to the tune of two, million. At one point, I think, polled at 17%. Have you ever looked at any polling? So I'm sorry if I'm being condescending, but I believe you started it. Okay, Tapper is doing an important, he says, I love this one. Tapper is doing an important public service here.

Saliza says, well, we really appreciate it. He's highlighting the difference between campaigning and governing. The truth is that as a candidate, you can be for almost anything because you don't have any responsibility. You aren't in charge of managing the federal budget. or reducing our deficit and debt obligations, free stuff sounds great, but free stuff is almost never free. Oh, look at the condescension tripping from his mouth. Unless it's the market. Yes.

Yes. Free, stuff isn't free unless we're giving it to the rich. And then all of a sudden, trillions of dollars materialized out of nowhere. And he concludes with, as Jake's interview made very, very clear, Ocasio-Cortez isn't there yet. And by the way, that's just a little bit of sexism sprinkled in there. Like, oh, Casio-Cortez, young woman doesn't understand how to, and ageism, perhaps, et cetera, doesn't know how to govern. But the most important thing, if you put that sexism, ageism, et cetera, aside is progressives

don't know how to govern. But Chris, Jake, did you guys for one second ever considered how we're governing today? And I don't mean just under Donald Trump, I mean under your beloved establishment, under your beloved status quo. It's been an absolute disaster, epic deficit after deficit under Republicans and Democrats. And the tax cuts and the wars and the spending and all those things that never got us any of the results that they promised. Do you remember that the Bush administration and congressional hearings said that the Iraq

war would cost $1.7 billion. Instead it cost several trillion dollars. And did you ever ask them, how dare you? You obviously don't know how to govern. Look at these children in the Bush administration. Child Dick Cheney doesn't know how to govern. Foolish John Bolton doesn't understand anything about money. Did you ever put up a graphing and say, John Bolton, where's the money?

Where's the money? Where's the trillions of dollars you wasted? No. Never, because you assume the status quo is a great thing, whereas the rest of the country does not. We think the status quo is a disaster. Well, I mean, I think, look, obviously going back to the skyrocketing cost of the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's certainly true, but we don't even need to go back that far. I mean, they just passed a defense budget this week, $673 billion.

That's never expressed in the same way. What does that actually mean over the course of a decade? Well, we assume if it doesn't go up, and of course it always goes up, that that's $6.7 trillion right there. How are we going to afford it? Some of my favorite free stuff is military stuff, but free stuff isn't free, so how are we gonna afford that. They would never ask that question of anyone, Democrat or Republican, Lib, or conservative. Because with certain types of programs, the assumption is that the value is there.

If they say we need $700 billion in the actual budget, not including continuing expenses and things like Syria, obviously we need that. We need to have military defense budget levels that are similar to under Vietnam. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turk's fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's

generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it. You must have learned 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. Even though we're not in a war or even close to comparable, if they do the tax cuts. The assumption is that the value is there. Republicans always say that if you cut taxes, that will actually generate more government revenue. So they just assume that that is the case. I didn't hear him going through that list of the programs under the DSA as he was labeling it and talking about all the benefits of that. If you cut these student loans, what do you think happens to the money that the people

would have been spending on their loans? They'll be spending on other things, which not only stimulates the economy, but also produces more government revenue. We know that on the opposite way, when you cut people's taxes, people who are already making millions or potentially more each year, they're not then plowing that saved money back into, you know, Starbucks and buying cars. They're generally putting the money offshore. So they've got it exactly twisted. Jake Tapper could take that same sort of condescending attitude and make a great career out of applying that same sort of rigorous standard, hopefully attached to the facts to every politician that comes before him. But he, of course, will not do that. He will do that with

libs and probably just young Latina female libs like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He will never take that tone with Steve King or anyone like that. Mick Mulvaney, Paul Ryan, tax cuts, all these things that happen. They'll criticize Donald Trump. Somebody who's not ready for prime time. The guy for the entire election talked about all the promises. You can make promises when you're a lib. He brought up, of course, he brought up a...

One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients, designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more. With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24,

seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. Along with Alexandria Ocaster-Cortez, he also brought up Andrew Gillum, just, I don't know, just sides to that name in there too. Because, you know, all these guys, who are new to the scene, at least in your mind, it's not like he hasn't been doing anything in Tallahassee for all these years.

It's just that, oh, you just heard their name, Nash. It means they don't know what they're doing. Of course, yes, there's criticism for Donald Trump for his craziness, his over-the-top rhetoric in the way he talks. And the response is always, oh, but he's connecting with the people. It's okay to connect with the people, know the country that you're saying of the heartland of the country, but not for the people who, she's in New York, somebody's in California. All those crazy libs, all they want is handouts.

When you see a rich person getting handouts, which they did, and then it all gets siphoned out. We had terror fights where people are losing jobs. I remember he was Trump was promising carrier jobs. Harley Davidson's losing. He doesn't know how these things work. They'll point out that that's happening, but they then won't say, and why should we trust them with anything else? They'll just say, hey, he went crazy with that. The next step is the next thing he says is going to screw you over too. They'll say that here because I'm telling you, there's something deep down and it happens with liberals. And Jake Tapper's pretty good on a lot of socially progressive of things, I think, from what I've seen.

But there's still something inside, even from a lot of liberals, that they see a young woman, a young minority of either gender, and they'll go, I just, I can't see her making legislation that I have to follow. It doesn't feel good to them. There's still something in the pit of some people's stomachs. They don't like seeing that face do something for the country that they have to then follow. There might be a thing on women in math, too. I mean, I have a degree in math.

I've got a graduate degree in statistics. I want to talk a little bit about, you know, some of the things you mentioned about how we can dig into what Jake Tapper didn't do and think about how this really benefits the economy, whatever the cost is, because a cost is also a reallocation. That's what happened when, for example, the Fed created out of nowhere $4.5 trillion to give to the U.S. banking system, to allow them to be prosperous. Instead of, say, taking a third of that, $1.4 trillion, which is a $1.4 trillion, which is a $1. correct number on Tapper's list, and using it to diffuse the student debt so that when

students actually graduate, they can go ahead and pay for things and not have to pay for all their debt. Similar with healthcare. Right now, and that's I think where this number came from, we pay as Americans $3.4 trillion a year in health care. So what the basic study that Tapper chose to use in that interview said, okay, well, 10 times that's $34 trillion. And so that's the number, which has nothing to do with anything.

First of all, that is a number that includes increases in hospital costs, increases in premiums. It doesn't look at, more importantly, the deflection of any money, whatever the right number is, from paying premiums and paying additional health care and paying from other things that could go into the economy into preserving one's life or one's health. For example, right now, the average family in the United States pays about $8,000 a year in Health care costs, $5,000 sometimes per individual. If you told everyone you're getting a $5,000 or $8,000 tax cut, in other words, we are reappropriating that money in order for you to actually use that

in your pocket so that you can put that into the economy, that looks like a really great gain. And that is a much smaller gain than the $1.5 trillion of tax cuts that went to corporations who only pay for 9% of the federal budget. So all of how we should be looking at the essence of what Alexander, said and what Bernie Sanders says and what progressives say, which is that we need to choose how we grow our economy. Do we grow our economy by funding stuff that doesn't go into the economy but makes GDP look better?

Or do we fund the economy by taking things into the economy that can allow citizens to be healthier and citizens to be more productive economically and raise GDP? Nowhere in any of the conversations that attack what progressives want to do with their spending indicates the increase that happens on the other side of reallocating funds away from helping those that don't need it, and re-attributing that to people who can use it into the real economy, whether that is after school, whether that is instead of health care costs, whether that's to grow businesses, whatever that might be, raised GDP, actually inflate the economy so that as a country, we're not paying 17% of GDP in health care costs versus 9% in

almost every other developed country, almost more than basically double, but we're actually increasing GDP and reducing health care costs so that we are healthier as a nation and for people. So I want to make one final comment about their view of the status quo. And look, I agree with JR that they're probably socially liberal, and I've credited Jake Tapper in the past for some good segments, and we try to be fair here. And I'll here, I'll try even more here. Look, I think you guys might make some good points that I mentioned too about, you know, is it their age, is it, is it that they're new onto the scene. I think it's mainly, this is an ironic way of being fair to them, but they're disdain

for progressives in general because they have showed the same disdain to Bernie Sanders. And so, and he's in obviously a different category. And so, but in their worldview, these guys are all outsiders and don't know how to govern. They've thought of Bernie Sanders that way for the last 40 years. To them, he seems like a radical for proposing things that in almost every issue, about 60% or higher of Americans agree with. It is not a radical position. Again, I ask you to look at the polling. I ask you that from the outside because you almost never invite us on the inside.

So sometimes you'll talk to Bernie Sanders. You did a three-minute segment with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And then you follow up with like, like, progressives can never answer the questions. That's because you don't ask them. You ambushed her with a made-up number and then never followed up with that. any other progressive, other than to keep pounding, they can't answer it, they can't answer it. Well, you don't actually have them on air. Look at the answer, Nomi just gave. She's a former managing director of Goldman Sachs, has written a number of best-selling books

about these issues. I think there's plenty of progressives to choose from, but somehow Sienna never gets them on air. There's wall-to-wall Trump people, there's wall-to-wall Clinton people, but when it comes to progressives, what do they know? Here, ambush them for three minutes, and they make fun of them for a week afterwards, and don't let them defend themselves. But, and maybe they're, look, again, I guess I'm going to sound a little condescending here, but two can play at this game, maybe they're afraid of the answer. That if we came out there and we made these points, they'd be like, whoa, that's rude. We don't talk about that on there.

So, for example, JR alluded to, you know, with progressives, they were always saying, oh, you want free stuff, you want free stuff. That's a Republican talking point. Oh, welfare, the welfare queens want stuff. But hey, how come you guys almost never talk about corporate welfare? I mean, an amazing study between 2010 and 2015, the 200 top companies who gave money to politicians gave an astounding $5.8 billion. But you know what they received in return?

$4.4 trillion in subsidies. Where's your graphic about that? Oh, right, you're a multi-billion dollar corporation. So maybe that's what makes you uncomfortable. But, and a lot of those people advertise on your air, let's keep it real. And maybe that's why you don't want progressives on air. But the reality is that if there is welfare in this country, people who want free stuff, it's corporate welfare.

And they've robbed us to the tune of trillions of dollars. So you'll excuse us that when someone proposes to spend money on the American people, that we get excited by that. Because for the first time, it would be our representatives representing us rather than their corporate donors. Okay, look, I can go on and on at the whole point about cops, but we got to go because we've got a lot of different stories for you guys.

We've got to take a quick break here. Then some of the most important things, I believe the dominoes are about to begin with Rosenstein and Cohen, so come back and do that. All right, back on a young church, too many comments here. I'm going to power through them. Romantic Warrior says, TYT's the bomb. Honored to be a member. Thank you.

We appreciate it. TYT.com slash join, of course, to become a member. Being Plain Jane, this is YouTube super chat, says, yes, you're debating Tucker. This is great. Should be interesting. Dr. Pepperow Doom writes it on Twitter using hashtag TYT Live. The right wing better get those thoughts and prayers ready for Tucker Carlson. He's going to need him.

We'll see, we'll see. It'll be fun. Chaos, magician 77 says, just convinced my Trump supporter parents to support Medicare for all. Whoa, I love that one, that's my favorite comment. Gabby Marita says, anyone fixating on the notion that Medicare for all will cost X while deliberately admitting that it will overall save Y is being intentionally dishonest. And that is a fair point. You have to wonder why they're doing that. And Axia 66, and these are now in the member comments, and we prioritize those, of course, for our members.

Could the White House have made up and leaked the Rosenstein info so that they could use it? to fire him. Trump Jr. didn't waste a second to attack tweet him. So hold, we're getting to that story and that is an interesting hypothesis. One last thing, poll results from yesterday. We asked you guys if Christine Blaise Ford should testify in the Kavanaugh hearings. And I was very curious to see which way you guys are going to go and the poll still open at t.yt.com slash poll.

80% said yes. And animated spirited case against it and there's good reasons against it. But 80% wanted to testify. Okay. Interesting, I'm going to watch that. All right. And oh, by the way, I should mention, if they're happening on Monday, we're going to cover them live on t-yt.com slash live. That's for everybody, okay?

Members of course always get all the content afterwards as well if you miss it live. But those are really, really important hearings. So we'll be here at 10 a.m. Eastern if they're on Monday. If they're on a later day, we will cover it on that day. So we will definitely be covering it live. Make sure you're tune into TYT. All right. Yeah, and to be clear, the entire run of the entire day, okay?

All right, go ahead. Okay, let's talk about this, actually. There have been any number of people in both media and politics who have stepped up in the past week or so to launch absolutely horrible and worsening attacks against Christine Blasey Ford for having accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her several decades ago. But up until this morning, Donald Trump had chosen to mostly sit on the sidelines, which is not really, that's not really normal for him, especially. considering his own dark past in this area of both harassment and assault, and his steadfast support for any man accused of these things, including Rob Porter, and all of that. But as of this morning, he is off the sidelines. He's in the game, and here is how he has decided to weigh in on this topic, saying Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a fine man with an impeccable reputation who

is under assault by radical left-wing politicians who don't want to know the answers. They just want to destroy and delay. Facts don't matter. I go through this with them every single day. in D.C. The interesting thing to remember about that as we proceed to his other tweets is that he says the other side doesn't want to know the fact. So bear that in mind. Second tweet. I have no doubt that if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have

been immediately filed with local law enforcement authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place. Again, he wants to learn date, time, and place. He wants the facts in that second tweet. But now we get to the third where he says, the radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved now. Why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago? Well, that's the interesting thing.

You seem to desperately want to know what was going on, and then you attack them for involving the FBI, an organization whose job is to find out what is going on. I think that we would all like to understand a little bit more about what is going on right now, but also what happened 36 years ago. He seems to have a very weird, tenuous approach to that. That's just one part of it, though. Of course, the thrust of his main argument is that her not willing to go forward to the police when it happened as a 17-year-old should really make you question whether she knows what happened, is remembering it wrong, maybe is making up the entire thing. There's shades of a conspiracy in some of those tweets.

This has been described, of course, as slut shaming, also advancing long, many times debunked myths about how sexual assault survivors choose to function and whether we should believe them based on the way that they act, as Rain made clear an organization that deals with sexual violence, in reality, seven out of every ten victims don't report to the police. And they go on to explain that while seven out of ten don't report, of those who do very, very few, a far smaller fraction, get any sort of justice. All of these things are contributing factors to people not wanting to come forward. And I would now add to that list the fact that the President of the United States, possibly the single most powerful person in the world, is coming out.

in attacking a victim of sexual assault. Well, this is a president who tends to pay people off not to talk about things that he imagines not to have happened. So it could be that the method in which Kavanaugh could have handled something that may have happened in his mind would have been how he would have handled it. So that's all convoluted. The reality is, you know, as you said in those stats, not proportionally most victims of any kind of assault don't come through.

And they don't come through specifically for the reason that they could be shame. They might not be heard. They are dealing with it in their own personally. And in her case, that's what she was doing for all that time. It wasn't like she wasn't potentially stressed or that she didn't go to therapy or she didn't have all of the activity around the past and what happened in her mind and in how she developed her life. But that said, you know, the guy who is the president of the United States.

States. And, you know, kudos to him for like holding it together for two days and not going after her for him. But that is just, just another in the litany of shameful ways in which he misbehaves. Because the reality is, his job is to say just part of what you just went over. I want to know what happened. And we should continue to determine what happened as well as what Kavanaugh's other questioning might amount to by the committee as he goes through his hearing. This is a guy who could possibly or not be taking over a major seat for a long time, possibly more than 36 years in the Supreme Court. That's all he should be doing. So let's note a couple of things for the record here. The FBI would not have been able to

investigate that crime 36 years ago. It would be local law enforcement. Trump doesn't know that. On the other hand, what does Trump know? And on the other hand, he said just the other day that destroying the FBI would be one of his crowning achievements of his administration. So, and you have to know this is an important fact, that only the president can ask the FBI to do a further background check in this case. And so he's saying, well, I mean, if only we could know these facts, to John's point, Well, there is one way to know if you ask the FBI to look into it.

But if you don't, then yes, then the rest of us can do about it. Yeah, he doesn't want to set a precedent where the FBI is looking at a credible claims of sexual assault amongst powerful Republicans. Because hello. It's a dangerous. Right. Yeah, he doesn't want to dip his toe in that. Yeah.

And we said earlier in the week. I'm like, hmm, he's showing some degree of restraint. That seems amazing. Well, let's see how long it lasts. But we said it, we said, hey, look, man, you got to call it as it is. That's restraint. He didn't attack her, right? And he said, we just want the facts.

Like, somebody gave him that talking point, but he stuck with it. Okay, it's a really low bar to give Donald Trump a compliment. Like, hey, good job. You didn't viciously attack someone who alleged an attempted rape. But, of course he couldn't hold it. Of course he couldn't. Couldn't do it. So today, blah, why didn't she do?

But my, like, the part of the tweets that was most despicable, so questioning whether someone actually went through an experience, you know, because they didn't have the, they didn't come forward when they were 15, she was scared to death, she said, that her parents would find out that she was drinking at that party and that she got herself in trouble. She's 15 years old at the time, et cetera. So that's all terrible enough. But did you notice the worst part of it or her loving parents comment? In other words, it's her parents' fault for not coming forward.

They didn't even know about it. He's such a bad guy. He can't help but viciously attack people that are in any way in his way. I think that comment actually went to her credibility as someone today as well. Even though, yes, he was attacking her parents for not knowing something they didn't know back then or not doing something they couldn't know about to do back then. But I just think it was also super condescending. I mean, you know, here is a, you know, Dr. Ford, you know, here is someone who's actually come quite a long ways in life, right? And to kind of infantilize that in this

tweet, I thought it was like an additional extra Trumpian dig. There's small words. Always look at details. Because actually, I was waiting for all this for days. As you said, he's been holding it in. The only thing of the trifecta of she took too long to come forward, where was the police involved, all this stuff happening. The other part of this that he forgot to go with, which maybe it'll happen tomorrow, is, do you see her face? Do you see her body? Why would Judge Kavanaugh want anything to do with this girl?

That's the only thing left in Trump's normal toolbox is to talk about how she looks and why that's not a thing. Lastly, on that tweet he goes, if this attack was as bad as she says, so that's kind of admitting that there could have been an attack, and it wasn't that bad. It was just some, as one of the supporters from the Judicial Watch Network, one of those, It was just some rough horseplay. So it was an attack, but it just wasn't that bad. So she's bringing us up and all he did was just try to get in her bands.

Oh, that's just all that happened. Yeah, let me just, my shade of difference on that is he's saying either it wasn't that bad, right? It was just rough horseplay as the Judicial Crisis Network spokesperson said it. Or it was really, if it, or she's making it up. Because if it was that bad, obviously you'd go report it to the police. Because in his mind, remember one of the things he's charged, he was accused of, is while his pregnant wife was upstairs, in the middle of an interview, he cornered a reporter, pressed her against the wall, and started funneling her.

And you remember from the Access Hollywood tapes, he says, you just grab him by the genitalia, if you're powerful, there's nothing you could do about it. He views that as not bad, right? Right. He views like, hey, a stranger in an alleyway, I guess, as that's bad. And obviously you would go to the cops with that, everything else, you just shut up about. As Pregris said, Dennis Prager said earlier in the week, oh, people grab my mom's breasts all the time. They grab my wife's breasts.

And they were empowered enough to say knock it out. Yeah. So I want to add just one more development today to this because I think it needs to be acknowledged. And he's gotten into this. Many of the other defenders of Kavanaugh have gotten into this. There is no one whose life story and choices and actions and communication. 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 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. 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 EXPRE SVPN.com slash TYT. WIT, check it out today. Are examined with more of a fine-tooth comb than survivors of sexual assault. And God help you if you were not the perfect victim who acts exactly the way they expect based on mythology they've created. If you don't report it in the right way, at the right time, all of that.

So they've been saying this whole time, she waited a really long time. It was a really long time ago, I just don't buy it, there's no evidence, okay? Well, we are finding out more now that we know about this and reporters can look into it. about what was happening to her and her social group around that time. So the New York Times talked with an unnamed male friend of hers that said that after the summer of the alleged attack, Ford, then known as Chrissy Blazy, fell off the face of the earth socially, that's a quote, then says, all I remember, this is the gentleman, all I remember is after my junior thinking, where is she?

She was the sort of person a lot of people paid attention to. She was a leader. She was great. I was like, where did she go? So I don't expect that that will actually convince anyone of anything if they already believe that she's a liar, but she is acting and has act through the course of her life, up to and including her fears about what testifying next week could actually be like. She is acting exactly like the victim of sexual assault. And that behavior can come in many different forms. The idea that we should be picking apart her behavior to say, eh, that's not how I would have acted if I had almost been raped, is utterly absurd, utterly insulting, and also leads to more women not being willing to. come forward when they're attacked in similar ways.

So last thing here is Kellyanne Conway was on TV minutes before the tweet and said, there's no reason the president would attack her. What are you doing, Kellyanne? You should know better than that by now. You know that he's gonna have you go say that and then attack her the very next minute. And in this case, it was literally, it was minutes after she said that on TV, he sent the tweets. And as we told you earlier in the live show, we will be covering the hearings if she's going to testify, we'll cover all of them at tyt.com slash live, and we'll give our analysis on the spot

as we cover it live. So don't miss that. And it's our wish. And as our poll showed on tyt.com slash poll, 80% of you guys also want her to testify because we want to get at the truth. Okay, we've got to take another break here, guys. When we come back, Rosenstein. This one is huge. We'll be right back. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free saying. All right, back on the air turks, Paul in the member section says, should Kavanaugh be

nominated if he doesn't ask for an FBI investigation? Shouldn't a potential Supreme Court judge want this when ruling on cases? So that's an interesting point. And a very interesting article I read today made a similar point saying, we want someone who is deliberate and deliberative. And so you want someone to say, whoa, hey, let's consider this. You know how they always say, we just want to call balls and strikes, right? So do you want a Supreme Court justice who's like, let's rush your decision before getting

all the information, okay? Look, if I was accused, I would want a further investigation because I didn't do it. But anyway, we've been over that, but thank you for the comment. Last one is YouTube Super Chat. For stability, a representative democracy must provide for the welfare of the people. Authoritarian governments are stabilized by brutality and poverty. The right are not in a legitimate debate. They have a goal.

So, and it is interesting when cable news hosts question when you are looking for the welfare of the people, but not others. Okay. That reference to the different debating styles, something you should keep in mind, as you tangle with Tucker Carlson. Indeed. There aren't necessarily the same goals. Speaking of debates, in about eight minutes, Beto versus Beta begins.

Beto O'Rourke versus Ted Cruz. John's going to stay with us because this story's probably going to take a little bit longer. But the debate will start, and then John and Burke will start the analysis of it. Members, you can go either place. T.Y.T.com slash join to become a member. And then if you're a member, t.com slash members live, to watch it live. And you don't have to watch it live. You can watch it later as well.

Okay, you get all members get all the programming anytime they want. All right, John, let's do the most important story. Okay, let's do it. Dramatic news for a number of different reasons. Different reasons for different groups, I think you'll come to see. The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein apparently suggested last year that he could wear a wire to secretly record the president and at least once, if not more than once, suggested the possibility of deploying the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump prematurely from office.

We're going to talk about the implications of that, but you should understand going into it that Rod Rosenstein disputes the New York Times' reporting, saying that the story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. He says I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this, based on my personal dealings with the president, there's no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, which is one stance on that. Now, what's interesting about this is this information has now come out. There are multiple sources for this information.

Who would have actually leaked to this? Who benefits from this information getting out? Now, you might say, well, if there was discussion about removing Donald Trump from office by people like Rod Rosenstein, that is concerning. So perhaps an enemy of the president might have leaked this to cause some sort of scandal surrounding his presidency. However, there are many people, big allies of Donald Trump, that would love to get Rod Rosenstein out of office.

And Donald Trump values loyalty above all else. And so if this information comes out and Rod Rosenstein is not capable of reassuring Donald Trump that it's not true, it could lead to him being fired, someone else being put in into his position who could theoretically end the Mueller investigation. And we actually do have some information we can get to in a little bit about if fraud Rosenstein was removed, who would then be in charge of the investigation, which is also interesting. So having looked at the report, my assessment is that it is clearly allies of the president who have leaked this. And I believe that the president will fire Rosenstein imminently.

I would be really surprised if he made it past the weekend. This president is not known for restraint. and he was looking for an excuse to fire Rosenstein anyway because he had appointed Robert Mueller, the special counsel, and if he replaces Rosenstein with someone who is personally loyal to him and makes clear that he's personally loyal to him, that person could fire Mueller, they need an excuse, this will probably serve plenty well enough for their purposes. Now, this is important, it doesn't mean that the story isn't true. The story might be true anyway, and then they use it as a reason of, are Rosenstein. Now, we're, now it is on name sources. I do question their motives, but overall,

I was left with the impression that the story is true. So I'm curious what you guys think about that. Yeah, I think reading some of that as well, it does appear that there, there is truth to it. We don't know for sure, but, but it does seem like that. And it's interesting the level to which either his allies or the president has sunk. And again, low bar. to try and remove an investigation or, you know, a pillar of an investigation or someone related to Mueller out of his way. And I really think that the timing of this is particularly interesting. There's two things going on.

Of course, we're moving into the election that always changes the timing of everything that helps his base like him better and all of that, and therefore other Republicans he might endorse. But also, it's in the wake of what's been going on in terms of the discoveries from tax implications on Cohen, on Manafort, and so forth. And it's on, I think, the back of Mueller getting closer and closer, not just to what may or may not have happened regarding Russia, but what may or may not be going on in the Trump organization itself.

And so I think he even has a double reason to try and shut things down. How his allies do to try and shut things down to keep him where he is? It's not just that investigation. I think now we're looking at shutting down a lot of investigation around that into. his own finances, which hopefully we will get to know much more about someday. I guess the hard part is, I mean, so the refusals or the accurate, the inaccuracy and factually incorrect talk about it. Someone has to be lying.

Every time there's someone that's lying, because everyone says they dispute the validity of such statements from this particular place. So while on one side there's that, he's trying to save his position. Maybe he's one of the guys who wants to get to the bottom of this, is, you know, we can assume that that's a thing since he's part of the head of it. So he has to somehow deny all of it. You can't come on and say, yeah, yeah, sure, sure. I totally said that, man.

This guy is out of his mind. We've got to do somebody. He can't say that. So someone is lying on some point. But, Jake, to your point, about whether or not someone wants to come out and do something to get him out of there. Whether it's not true or not, Trump has to believe that this, which was it, was it Washington Post, New York Times? New York Times. He has to believe in New York Times.

That's a great point. He continues to not believe any of these newspapers, but he has to believe one of them, which he has before. He's quoted the New York Times about things that help him carry his point along, but then when it's something that's detrimental to what he wants to do, it's like whatever. Plus it's anonymous sources, which we know he hates. So I thought this was the failing New York Times. I'm sure that Donald Trump wouldn't trust what the fake news media is saying about his own deputy attorney general, even if it suits his purposes, would he?

Of course he's gonna trust the anonymous sources in the New York Times when it suits him. So clearly this is the situation is far too straightforward, so let me throw a couple complications here away, a few curves. So he says that it's factually inaccurate. He doesn't necessarily say that the exact quotes that are attributed to him are not true. And the interesting thing about that is that you can say something but mean one of many things depending on how you say it. And so one added complication is that one of the sources says that he did say those things

about wearing a wire, but he was speaking sarcastically. which if you report that to the New York Times, not saying that it was sarcastic, implying that he meant it, then that maybe goes to the possibility that it was enemies or supporters of Donald Trump that would have leaked to this. What's interesting, though, is that while he claims that there's no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, you have things like a memo from FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who we've heard a lot about, she did a contemporaneous note-taking of that meeting, and there were no references is to the 25th Amendment in her notes, seems like the sort of thing that you would probably

take note of, since it's such a drastic action. But then other people's notes say that not only did he mention the 25th Amendment, but it wasn't the only time that he mentioned the 25th Amendment. And that specifically, he also said that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John Kelly, then Secretary of Homeland Security, now obviously chief of staff, to be involved in it. So this is not, you know, an offhand comment if there can be one of the 25th Amendment, but it's one that apparently he had put some thought into how strategically he would proceed. Yeah, so some more nuance here.

Andrew McCabe is a guy that Donald Trump has attacked over and over and now has driven out of the FBI. McCabe writes notes at the time saying that Rosenstein did talk about wearing a wire. So now, McCabe also had conflicts with Comey. You know why? human beings and they agree and disagree in parts and there's different things that go into their calculations. Trump, on the other hand, lives in a black and white world and wants his followers to live

in that world. In his conspiracy, McCabe, Rosenstein, and Comey are all working together against them. In the real world, McCabe says, hey, Rosenstein's talking about wearing a wire with the president. I gotta write that down, that doesn't sound good. So that's McCabe actually in a sense helping Trump or making a note that winds up helping Trump, but Trump can't tell the difference, because he actually did do it. So he's like, I don't know, I hate the FBI. They're all bad at the FBI.

Right. But in reality, at different times, Comey, Rosenstein, and McCabe have supported Trump. In fact, Rosenstein's the guy who fired Comey, or he wrote the memo that was used as justification for firing Comey. And that leads to another important point. The New York Times reporters do not know who wrote the New York Times editorial, the senior administration official that said, yes, we were considering the 25th Amendment. So the op-ed section of the New York Times is keeping that as secret.

So the reporters, meanwhile, are looking to uncover the source that the other section of the paper has, right? And that's their job. And so as I read this, I thought, ah, looks like Rosenstein wrote that op-ed. I was wondering that. Yeah. This thing, once the part came when they talked about, yeah, and then he wanted, he asked a couple of the senior administration officials that they would do it, it's like, there's shades

of the editorial. Yes. Someone in the audience needs to Google Rod Rosenstein Lodestar and see what words he uses. Yeah. Ben and I had done a draft and picked the people

who might have written the op-ed in an episode of Bulls School which you could check out if you're a member at t.yt.com slash join. Anyway, I'm so mad when I read this that I didn't pick

Rosenstein. And so why? Rosenstein writes a memo saying, hey, Comey didn't treat Hillary Clinton investigation properly. And that's a fair memo, right? But he doesn't know that Trump is going to use it as an excuse to fire Comey.

And he actually really likes Comey. Comey was a role model to him. In fact, according to this new New York Times report, when he was considering who to appoint his special counsel, even though he had helped in essence getting rid of Comey, which he wanted to call Comey and ask him, who should I get his special counsel? Because he looked up to him. So, Trump takes the memo that Rosenstein wrote against Comey, goes, thank you very much, that's what I needed, Comey's fired because of Rosenstein.

And Rosenstein goes, no, you asked me to write a memo, I wrote a memo, he didn't handle that right, and I asked you to fire him. He feels like Trump threw him under a bus, and that he's wildly erratic. So that is why, according to these sources, he's going around telling people, does he look as erratic to you as he does to me? Is he the one, am I the one that took the crazy pill here? This guy is acting nuts. And plus, of course, there's something personal there because he threw Rosenstein under the bus.

And finally, maybe the most important part of this is I hope the Mueller team is gathering their papers, storing them somewhere and getting ready to hand it off to people because the dominoes can fall really quickly here. Trump is a ticking time bomb to begin with. He hates Rosenstein for appointing Mueller. Couldn't wait to get rid of him so he could put a lackey in his place. This probably will give him plenty good enough excuse. He'll likely fire Rosenstile. He'll likely put in someone he deeply, deeply trusts in that role. I don't know if it'll be Jared Kushner or Donald Trump Jr.

I don't know. The person who would naturally the power would fall to right now, everything about his legal philosophy implies that he would end the Mueller investigation. Yeah, whoever he puts in. to that place is unlikely to be a professional, more likely to be just an ally of Donald Trump in the world. And that person then would have the power to end the Mueller investigation. So that's why I say this could happen really, really quickly.

Mueller better save up every piece of evidence he's got and make sure that he could hand it off to somebody because they might be coming to shut the whole thing down. And if I could just say, I don't think that it would be wise for anyone who cares about continuing consequences for presidents when they break the law, for you to wait until this happens, the investigation is ended and then think, well, what could we have done or what might we do? There are already plans in effect right now. I believe Media Matters has promoted this. If not, you can search Jordan Ull on Twitter.

There's already rallies ready to launch when this happens, when he is actually fired. So you don't have to wait and then hope to find out something then. There are already contingencies in effect that you can sign on to get notifications for. And that also may be after the election. We wake up, other things are going on, and then he uses that moment to get rid of Mueller. The good thing is there are other investigations around him and his companies going on in New York State and at the state level. So it's not going to be over. There's no way Trump waits to the election.

So you just saw what he did with attacking Dr. Blasey. He can't restrain himself. Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. There's no way he waits to fire Rosenstein all the way to the election, let alone. No, no, no, not Rosenstein. Right. I think Rosenstein's going. Right.

But even with Mueller, I'd be surprised. And by the way, Mueller, let's go, man. You already talked to Michael Cohen. You already talked to Man of Ford. If you have something, this might be, this is not normal times. If you're thinking, oh, well, you don't want to go before an election and the president wouldn't fire me before. an election that would seem to, you know, political, these are not normal times. If you have it, go now, go public now.

But we don't know because we're not part of the investigation. And by the way, to be fair to Donald Trump, if he talked to all those people and Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong, people should know that before the election too. Either way, because they say, oh, it might affect the election. Well, it should affect the election. If the president is innocent, people should know that before the election. If he did do something and the entire Republican Party is covering for him, they should also know that before the election.

It would be political to keep that secret if you already know it. What is not political is going when you have it, okay, when you would normally announce it, as opposed to waiting for elections. Yeah. Okay, all right, we gotta go, there's a wonderful power panel. the Ted Cruz Beto O'Rourke debate has begun. It's a big one. I wanna thank NBC5 for letting us carry it for our members.

TYT.com slash join to become a member and watch it. John and Brooke are gonna cover it, and they'll be joining it in progress. But we have another power panel coming up here and the incredibly important Michael Cohen's story. We have not done that yet. And then we're gonna have a little bit of fun with outrageous Halloween costumes, et cetera, to lighten up the weekend as well. So we'll be right back and thank you all.

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