The Young Turks - Chuck It Out

Episode Date: March 20, 2025

Russia Strikes Ukraine HOURS After Putin Call with Trump. How LOW Can Chuck Schumer Go? Trump Finally Answers: Would You Cause A Constitutional Crisis? French Researcher Allegedly Detained Over Critical Comments of Trump. Investment Ghoul Wants YOUR Social Security Money. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH ☞ https:/www.shoptyt.com 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. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. The word grocery, a simple word, but it sort of means like the stomach is speaking, bacon.

Let's go! Bega! Oh, we got a massive show ahead for you guys. You're watching TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian. We're going to give you an update on Ukraine. We're going to give you an update on whether or not Donald Trump intends to listen to the courts when they rule against him.

We're going to give you updates on all sorts of stories, but we're also going to give you brand new stories, including private equity firms, salivating over the idea of partially, Not fully, but just partially privatizing your social security. We're going to dunk on them. That is not going to happen. We're not going to let it happen. So stick around for that story and more in the second hour. John Iderola will be joining us, as he always does on Wednesdays, to cover the news.

He will also be joining us for our bonus episodes. So make sure you check that out if you're a member. If you're not a member, you should consider being one. TYT.com slash join or you can smash that join button if you're watching us on on YouTube. All right, everyone, well, why don't we get started with some international news, some updates on U.S. foreign policy, and Trump's attempts to, you know, broker a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. President Trump and President Putin were in sync with one another. The call was outcome oriented. Could you set the stage for us, sir? How different was this call? I thought the call was epic. They were talking about how to save lives, how to save lives, how to save.

stop the carnage. Overnight, Russia sent 150 drones and hit Ukrainian energy. I just wonder what was actually agreed and whether Russia crossed the line. Well, just hours after President Vladimir Putin agreed to a partial ceasefire in a call with President Donald Trump, Russia and Ukraine exchanged aerial assaults. And it turns out, you know, the road to peace is a lot more complicated, a lot more complicated, more difficult than anyone would expect. Right, Donald? Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that ceasefire could be so complicated. Nobody knew.

Nobody knew that ceasefire could be so complicated. All right, in all seriousness, let's give you all the details because Trump not only had a lengthy phone conversation with Vladimir Putin yesterday. It It lasted hours, but he also had a phone conversation with Vladimir Zelensky, and here are all of the updates in regard to movement on a potential ceasefire. So look, to be fair, during Donald Trump's call with Vladimir Putin, while Putin did reject the 30-day truce that Donald Trump has been endorsing, has been pushing for, he did agree to temporarily stop attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Ukraine, on the other hand, did agree to a 30-day ceasefire, but it doesn't really matter if Vladimir Putin is refusing to also agree to the same ceasefire. So for now, Russia has agreed. We're not going to touch Ukraine's or we're not going to attack Ukraine's energy, but Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has already accused Putin of violating the narrow terms of

what he had agreed to. So Russia allegedly attacked Ukraine with hundreds of, of drone strikes overnight, including strikes on its energy facilities. So Russia attacked Ukraine with 145 drones, two ballistic missiles, and four anti-aircraft missiles. Ukraine's Air Force said Wednesday morning, 72 drones were shot down, the Air Force said. Now, civilian infrastructure was also struck as a result of the strikes carried out by Russia, including a hospital in eastern Sumi and an electricity system powering the railway in central Ukraine. Now, I should be clear that the railway was still able to function despite the attack. But nonetheless, the attack was on the electricity system for the railway.

Luckily, not many people have been killed. Tragically, one person in Ukraine was killed as a result of these Russian attacks and 14 others were injured. Now, during a press conference in Finland, Zelensky said that when Putin said that he was allegedly ordering a halt to strikes on Ukrainian energy, there were 150 drones overnight, including on energy facilities. There were strikes on transportation. Unfortunately, two hospitals were hit and on urban infrastructure. Now, Steve Whitkoff, who is, of course, Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, was involved in the conversations between Trump and Putin, Trump, and Zelensky in regard to brokering a ceasefire. And just curious to hear what he has to say about all this. Take a look. Could you set the stage for us, sir? How different was this call?

I thought the call was epic. Jonathan, I thought it was epic, transformational. Those are the sorts of adjectives that I use about this call. Because earlier on this morning, we heard from the Ukrainian leader who said that overnight, Russia sent 150 drones and hit Ukrainian energy. I have it on good information from a telephone call I had before I went on this show that President Putin issued an order within 10 minutes of his call with the president, directing Russian forces not to be attacking any Ukrainian energy infrastructure. And any attacks that happened last night would have happened before that order was given. In fact, the Russians tell me this morning that seven of their drones were on their way when

President Putin issued his order and they were shot down by Russian forces. Not quite. So let me break down the timeline for you all. So as you just heard Wikoff say, 10 minutes after Putin and Trump hung up on each other, ended their call, Putin gave the order to the Russian military letting them know you are not not to strike Ukrainian energy, but hours after the call, Russia struck Ukrainian energy. So I don't really understand what's going on here, why this need to provide cover for Russia violating the most narrowest ceasefire agreement imaginable. I mean, it's not even a ceasefire.

Russia says they're going to continue striking Ukraine, but they had promised Trump that they will not strike Ukrainian energy, but they did. So just something to think about as you consider how these negotiations are playing out. You can kind of understand some of the frustration that Zelensky has allowed to kind of come out from his government, from the way he feels about how these negotiations are going. But to be clear, as I had shared with you all last week, Zelensky absolutely did agree to that 30-day truce, hoping that Russia would do the same, but also warning Trump that Russia tends to renege on its promises. And that certainly seems to be the case in this situation. Now, I should also note that Russia has accused Ukraine of attacking as well.

The Kremlin also condemned an overnight attack on an oil facility in Russia, saying it showed Ukraine's lack of will to reach a deal, although Kiv was not part of the negotiation talks and no formal agreement has been signed. Also, Russia's defense ministry, said, it had shot down 57 drones launched by Ukraine overnight, with 35 of those intercepted and destroyed over the Kursk border region. So a Ukrainian drone had actually caused a fire at an oil depot near the village of Kav Kassava. And also, as of Wednesday morning, more than a hundred Russian personnel, or hundreds of Russian personnel, I should say, were seen on the ground attempting to extinguish that fire. So that blaze did exist. That wasn't something that was made up by the

Russians. But of course, Ukraine is going to retaliate against Russian aggression. And that's what's currently playing out as we speak. Now, Trump and Zelensky spoke by phone today. And both parties say that the conversation was productive. Trump described the call with Zelensky is very good. Trump said in a special media post or social media post that much of the discussion was based on the call made yesterday with President Putin in order to align both Russia and Ukraine in terms of their requests and needs. And look, there's a territory in Russia that the Ukrainian military has been able to take control of. And they're really using that land. It's about 77 square miles of land within Russia. Zelensky is hoping that the Ukrainian control of that territory,

The fact that they took over that territory will be a bargaining chip to kind of get Russia to agree to a real ceasefire. However, right now, Russia does seem to be very emboldened, and they think that they can actually beat Ukrainian forces on that territory and essentially push them out without having to negotiate a damn thing with Ukraine. But it's becoming clear, I hope, to Donald Trump that the party here that's not really interested in a ceasefire deal. is Russia, is Vladimir Putin? He wouldn't even agree to a 30-day truce. And this, I think, shows without a shadow of the doubt, Ukraine wants peace. Russia wants to continue this war. Now, there's more. U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz said that the United States and Russia, Russian technical teams would meet in Saudi Arabia in the coming days to continue these negotiations. I think that's a good thing. They should try to continue brokering a cease

fire deal. However, through that process, it again needs to be abundantly clear that Zelensky and Ukraine, they're not really the aggressors here. They want peace. But Putin is pushing back on that whole notion. And, you know, one thing that's clear is that brokering peace ain't easy. Right, Donald? It's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that ceasefire could be so complicated. Nobody knew. Nobody knew. One final thing that I want to put on everyone's radar is the fact that it appears that Trump is not only eyeing a mineral deal in Ukraine. He's also seeking control of Ukrainian energy. And that's based on a White House readout that was released following Trump's phone conversation with Vladimir Zelensky. In that readout, it reads, President Trump also discussed Ukraine's electrical supply and nuclear power plants, he said that the United States could be very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise. American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure and support for Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

So, of course, Trump is looking for, you know, something, something to get out of this potential ceasefire. And it is pretty gross considering the fact that Ukraine is in trouble, is in desperate need of, you know, U.S. aid and European aid, of course, in order to defend itself from the aggression that they've been experiencing, from the invasion they've been experiencing for years now by Vladimir Putin and Russia. So to, honestly, when I read that, it kind of reminded me of, you know, I have a family member who got into a really bad motorcycle accident. He's fine, but when he was lying on the street following that accident, someone approached him, reached into his pocket, pulled out his wallet, took his money, okay, took advantage of the

situation, and left. Didn't even call the police. So that's what I thought of when I read about how Trump is trying to shake down Ukraine as he is negotiating these peace deals and this potential ceasefire. So we'll see what happens. with that potential, you know, Ukrainian energy deal, if it's going to go anywhere. But that's all we know about it for now. Again, it was just contained in this White House readout. But if anyone in the White House is trying to persuade you or anyone else that they're inching closer to a ceasefire deal, that doesn't really appear to be the case.

I'm happy to see that Zelensky is willing to play ball. Putin is not. And we need to be clear about that. All right, well, let's move on to some other news, because I want to talk a little bit about the fallout in regard to, well, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his decision to aid and abet the GOP in passing a government spending bill. But I'm afraid that it may be time for the Senate Democrats to pick new leadership as we move forward. Do you still have faith in Senator Schumer to lead the Democratic caucus in the Senate? I myself don't give away anything for nothing. And I think that's what happened the other day.

I know. Everyone's beating up on Chuck, and I strongly disagree with them strongly. No one is in the caucus more critical of Schumer than I am. But it's not Schumer. It's the caucus. It's not the caucus. It's the Democratic Party. True, Bernie. It's not just about Schumer. It really has to do with the entirety of the Democratic Party at the moment. We're going to get back to Senator Sanders in just a moment.

But it's important to know that the backlash towards Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has grown in recent days, if you can believe it, with members of his own party publicly throwing him under the bus following his decision to help Republicans pass the government funding bill. Now, Democratic voters have also been absolutely furious about this, especially since Schumer had claimed that he was going to fight, not help Republicans in passing that CR bill continuing resolution that keeps the government funded through September.

Plus the continuing resolution bill includes a provision that effectively allows Donald Trump to reallocate the money in the the bill for other matters as he sees fit without any approval from Congress. So that gives Trump a lot more power in regard to taxpayer resources and where that money ends up going. Now, during an event to oppose House Republicans and their efforts to cut Medicaid, Nancy Pelosi was asked whether she trusts Senator Schumer to lead the Democratic caucus in the Senate. And she basically threw him under the bus. Take a look. I myself, don't give away anything for nothing.

And I think that's what happened the other day. We could have, in mind you, perhaps gotten them to agree to a third way, which was a bipartisan CR for two weeks, four weeks, in which we could have had bipartisan legislation to go forward. I'm an appropriator. Mr. Bishop is an appropriator with the Appropriations Committee. committee. They may not have agreed to it, but at least the public would have seen there is not agreeing to it. Okay, putting aside Pelosi's claim that she never agrees to something without

getting something in return, I find that kind of hard to believe. But just putting that aside for now. She is correct in calling Schumer out for, in the very least, failing to negotiate to get something in that bill on behalf of the Democratic Party. There was nothing, right? So Schumer never really planned on fighting Republicans. He was really banking on House Speaker Mike Johnson failing to whip up the votes in the house to pass the CR bill. And the reason why Schumer was under that impression is because there's that House Freedom Caucus, right? Those are the fiscal conservatives within the GOP. These are the individuals who tend to give folks like Mike Johnson a massive headache because they want to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut funding. They don't want to continue

with the current funding that we have. They don't want to increase funding. They're deficit hawks. At least they claim to be. Now, the only Republican who voted against the CR in the House ended up being Thomas Massey. And so Mike Johnson clearly had enough votes. And that effectively called Schumer's bluff in the Senate. So he had to pivot. And rather than pivoting to, okay, well, Senate Democrats have some leverage. So why don't we use that leverage to at least get something, some provision that we find beneficial in the CR bill before

helping Republicans pass it. But he didn't do that. Now, right now he's claiming he did, but I'm not buying it for a second. By the way, that wasn't the first time that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had called out Chuck Schumer and threw him under the bus. She did stop short of calling for new leadership to replace Schumer. But last week on Fridays, she did suggest that his move had played into the false choice to either shut down the government or give give Trump and Musk a blank check. And in regard to whether or not she wants him to step down as the Senate minority leader, she's kind of brushed that aside.

She's not committing to that. In fact, she says what happened last week was last week. We're going into the future. But see, I think that's part of the problem. I really do. Because failure to lead should lead to consequences. If you are unable to have a strategy in place, if you are unable to be an effective leader, not just for the Democratic Party, but all the Democratic voters that the Democratic Party is supposed to represent, then you really have no business being the leader of the Democratic caucus in the Senate. And make no mistake about it, Schumer has been a failure in that role for a while now. We're talking about the guy who helped Donald Trump fast track confirmation of his federal judges. These are lifetime.

appointments. He struck a deal with Mitch McConnell during Trump's first term to make that happen. And honestly, I was pretty disappointed in the lack of backlash towards Schumer at that time. But I'm guessing that the frustration among the electorate and the frustration among other Democratic members of Congress has been growing, has been festering. And what happened with the CR bill is probably the straw that broke the camel's back. And let's just be clear, because Democratic voters don't want to move on, as Nancy Pelosi does, especially one constituent in Prince George's County in Maryland. So this is during a Democratic congressman's town hall.

He's a relatively newer congressman. His name is Glenn Ivy. He's holding a town hall. This happened last night. And a constituent was so furious with how calm the Democratic Party has been during this new Trump administration that she just had to speak out. And she did so loudly. I'm going to answer this question. I'm going to answer this question.

So it might have been difficult to hear what she's saying. She's obviously very emotional. She ended up leaving on her own. she wasn't escorted out. But here's what she was saying. You are talking about voting. The house is on fire. An irate woman screamed at one point. You are too calm. Show some fire. Like you're trying to fight for the American people. She called the event BS and left the auditorium. And look, perhaps that constituents rage gave Congressman Ivy the courage to say what you're about to hear him say. We had Hakeem Jeffries lead the fight against the CR to the tune of 213 to 1.

Schumer was on the other side. Hakeem at the moment Schumer did not. And so I respect Chuck Schumer. I think he's had a great longstanding career. He's in a lot of great things. But I'm afraid that it may be time for the Senate Democrats to pick new leadership as we move forward. All right, as we move forward, I mean, that was a very clear statement from a Democratic lawmaker who thinks that Chuck Schumer should step down from his leadership role.

And honestly, I agree with him. I don't think that Schumer is great for that role. However, what I thought was really interesting was how Schumer reacted to a compilation video that Chris Hayes made him watch during an interview on MSNBC last night. So it was a compilation of all these different members of Congress, Democratic members of Congress. who were essentially saying that Chuck Schumer screwed up and did so royally. So let's see how Schumer handled that situation. On myself, don't give away anything for nothing.

And I think that's what happened the other day. They said, okay, he said leverage. I think it was the government. And Nancy Blois said, I myself don't give away anything for nothing. I think that's what happened the only leverage we had. They weren't going to negotiate with us. So there were two choices only. It would be nice if we had a third choice.

We tried to get that third choice with the 30-day extension that Patty Murray tried to get some moderate, more moderate Republicans on the Appropriations Committee go long as they wouldn't. So we were faced only, only the Senate, not the House. They had a little easier because they could vote no against the CR and not cause a shutdown. But in the Senate, the only two choices were these choices, period. I'm not going to take his word for it. I'm just not. There was no indication that he attempted to negotiate with Republicans.

And look, if I were in his position, right, I would say, all right, look, I was banking on this CR bill failing to pass in the House because of the House Freedom Caucus and their disagreements with the rest of the Republican caucus in the House. But they passed it. So now I need to pivot to another plan, another strategy. And that strategy is to negotiate for something in that bill that benefits the Democratic Party, something, anything. The reason why I don't believe Schumer is because if Republicans refuse to negotiate, well, then you would use the bully pulpit and you would call out the GOP for what is about to happen. The government is about to shut down. The government's about to shut down. We are trying to work with the Republican Party to get this

CR bill passed, but it's impossible to do so because they refuse to negotiate with us. They refuse to pass a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the government funded. At that point, the ball is in their court. Donald Trump is the president. Republicans have control of Congress. The party that is in power, that is in control, is the party that gets blamed for a government shutdown. But Democrats want to pretend as though that's not the case. And it's partly because they're impotent.

it's partly because they are absolute failures in speaking to the American people and reasoning with them, helping them understand what's happening behind closed doors, what kind of negotiations are happening. But I think it would have been far better for Chuck Schumer to not be a lazy, ineffective leader and at least pivot to a different strategy before passing that CR bill. But he didn't do that and he wants you to believe that he did. Now, Senator Bernie Sanders has been making a lot of really great points about what is wrong with the Democratic Party, why they have been failing, and he's always been consistent on what

is important to voters, to constituents. They want their economic situation improved. They want to see an improvement in their material conditions. He's been touring the country talking about that. And what's really interesting is in this interview, he's asked, you know, is the problem, Chuck Schumer? Like, what's going on here? Well, Senator Sanders says, no, the issue is way deeper than that. Take a look. With the richest country in the history of the world, we can have a government and an economy that works well for all. When it comes to that effort in the Senate, do you think Senator Chuck Schumer is the right person to lead it? It's not, I know. Everyone's beating up on Chuck and I strongly disagree with them.

strongly. No one is in the caucus more critical of Schumer than I am. But it's not Schumer. It's the caucus. It's not the caucus. It's the Democratic Party. In the Democratic Party, you've got a party that is heavily dominated by the billionaire class, run by consultants who are way out of touch with reality. It has, the Democratic Party has virtually no grassroots support. So what we are trying to do is, in one way or another, maybe create a party within the party of bringing millions of young people, working class people, people of color to demand that the Democratic Party starts standing with the working class of this country and take on the very powerful corporate interests that have never had it so good.

And look, I think Bernie is right about that. I think this problem is deeper than one individual within Democratic leadership. Because really think about it. Who do we replace Chuck Schumer with to lead Democrats in the Senate. Honestly, and look, I'm sure there's someone who's better than Schumer. It's a very, very low bar. But I also want to remind you all of what Schumer said during the 2016 election, as it was becoming abundantly clear that the Democrats were losing support among working class voters.

Schumer welcomed it because he believed that for every working class voter, the Democratic Party was losing, they were picking up. votes from moderate Republicans. But it turns out that the group of moderate Republicans consisted of like five people. So now Democrats find themselves in a disastrous situation and they're just kind of banking on the Trump administration, harming the lives of Americans so royally that they will have no choice but to turn around and support the Democrats again. That's not leadership. That's absolutely pathetic. They don't want to give people something to vote for. They want to give people something to vote against. And in this case, it's Trump and the

Republicans. But obviously, that didn't work in the last election cycle. And if they're planning on continuing with this strategy, Republicans will rule this country for decades to come. We need lawmakers in the Democratic Party who actually want to lead, who actually want to improve the lives of Americans. And if we don't have that, if we don't have that leadership, we're going to keep finding ourselves in the same situation over and over again. We've got to take a break. We'll be right back with more news, including what Donald Trump has to say about, you know, following court orders. Is he willing to do it or is he just going to retaliate against judges? We'll give you that more when we come back.

What's up, everyone, welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we should check in with Donald Trump to see how close we are to a potential constitutional crisis. This is leading people to wonder whether there are court orders that you will defy because you believe that the judge has no jurisdiction or their political questions and not justiciable at all? And what would you say to that? Are there circumstances when you would defy a court order? Now before we get to the answer that President Donald Trump gave to Laura Ingram during their interview last night, we should probably get to know why anyone

would even be concerned about Trump not following court orders, essentially causing a potential constitutional crisis. What's bringing this up? Well, we're going to get to Trump's answer. Wait for that. But first, the Trump administration recently deported, as we had shared with you guys, more than 200 immigrants. And they cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 as justification for doing so for many of them. Now, that is an obscure statute that essentially allows the president to do certain things during wartime in response to what the president considers to be national security threats. Now, a federal judge is attempting to adjudicate whether or not that statutes applies to this particular situation. But in order to do so, he wanted to block Trump's deportation of these individuals and gave an oral order to do so.

Later, he also, you know, solidified that in a written order. Now, the immigrants were deported anyway, but press secretary Caroline Leavitt stated that they, you know, they ignored the verbal order. They don't think the verbal order mattered, but that they didn't, you know, ignore the written order. So in a court filing early Monday, lawyers for some of the deported Venezuelans noted that the White House had claimed that Judge Bozberg's order was published in written form at 7.26 p.m. on Saturday, ignoring that he had issued an oral version of the same decision around 6.45 p.m., which unambiguously directed the government to turn around any planes carrying individuals being removed. But here's the issue. There was a slight difference between the oral order and the

written order, and I really wish the judge was a little more careful here. The written and verbal versions of the order contain a significant difference. The written version did not include the instruction to turn back any planes. Trump officials say they recognize the written order as the definitive decision in the case. So the argument that they're making is, I don't know, we listen to the written order and the written order didn't say anything about turning the planes around. So that's what they're saying to essentially provide cover for the fact that these people were deported anyway. And I should note, there are a few things happening here. So number one, the judge needs to decide, make a decision in regard to whether or not that

statute applies to this case. Because of the fact that we're talking about Venezuelan immigrants who were sent to El Salvador, they weren't sent to their country of origin. Now, that is an important element to the story, to this situation, because the judge needs to figure out whether or not the president has the right to deport immigrants to a country that they are not from. And by the way, the U.S. government is paying El Salvador $6 million in order to detain these immigrants on our behalf. And the reason why the Trump administration is doing that is because Venezuela is apparently rejecting any intake of Venezuelan immigrants who are being deported by the United States. And so in an effort to deport them someplace, the Trump administration

has made a deal with El Salvador. So that's the issue at hand that has led to concerns of a potential constitutional crisis, because what happens if the Trump administration decides that they're going to just ignore court orders, ignore what federal judges have to say about these matters? So the Trump administration states that the planes carrying the migrants had left U.S. soil by the time the judge's written order was published anyway, although they've been incredibly evasive in regard to the timeline. And we reported yesterday that Trump called for that judge to be impeached. In response to that, Chief Justice John Roberts, who does not like to issue

public statements or weigh in on political matters, issued a rebuke of the president. He called, you know, that also led to conservatives, of course, attacking Chief Justice John Roberts, because, of course, even though he's a conservative justice. Now, the most dramatic reaction came from Greg Gutfeld, who argued that Trump does not have the luxury of following the law? Let's take a look at that. It is really a surprise to me that Trump doesn't follow the appropriate protocol when there are rapists and murderers invading our country. Maybe a guy in a robe in D.C. can follow all the protocols, but Trump is the effing president of the United States who protects 300 million

plus people. He is a leader who does not have the luxury of opening up his little books to read, oh my God, maybe he didn't do it the right way. Roberts, shut the F up. This is something that a president has to do. He has to do this. It blows my mind how wrong I was in 2016 or 2015 when Trump came down the escalator. And we were, I was like, I can't believe he said these things. everything he said was right. They're sending bad people. What did he say? They're sending killers and rapists. Do you remember this? Some of them were good people. Some of them were good people. He said this. And now he's sending them back. So first of all, Donald Trump isn't a king. And I would venture to say that if the roles were reversed and we had a Democratic president

ignoring federal courts when they pass down decisions that go against what the president is doing, Greg Gutfeld would lose his mind. But the notion that the president is above the law can essentially violate people's rights. And by the way, I mean, was there any due process? Who has adjudicated whether or not these immigrants, these Venezuelans who were sent to El Salvador, were actually gang members who posed a threat to national security? Who determines that? How was that determined? Was it just unilaterally determined by Donald Trump?

And are we okay with setting that type of precedent? Clearly, Greg Gutfeld is because he's a short-sighted moron who doesn't understand that if you create a precedent like that under a president you like who's doing things that you like, well, then who's to say that a president you don't like is it going to do the same thing, thus creating an authoritarian situation in the executive branch. We don't want that. You shouldn't be so short-sighted that you think, no, this is great. We're going to loosen up certain laws pertaining to the limitations of the executive branch

because we like the guy who's in charge right now. But in the next election cycle, if the Democratic president wins, what is Greg Gutfeld and the rest of the Republican Party going to say? if that president decides, I'm not going to listen to court orders. I'm protecting 300 million Americans. I don't have time to read these little books and understand these laws. It's just so utterly dumb. It's utterly dumb.

So that brings us back to Trump's interview with Laura Ingram. So she asked him about Chief Justice Roberts' comments, and Trump tried to deflect by pointing out that technically, The Chief Justice didn't mention him by name? Let's take a look. What's your reaction to the courts stepping in to make a statement here? They didn't make a statement when Joe Biden decided to forgive all those student loans. Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly.

He didn't mention my name. But many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left. He was Obama appointed. And he actually said we shouldn't be able to take. criminals, killers, murderers, horrible, the worst people, gang members, gang leaders, that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country. Well, that's a presidential job.

That's not for a local judge to be making that determination. And I thought it was terrible. In fact, he said when they were well on their way, there was an order issue, as I understand it, to bring them back or to not let him go or something. And this is not something that the country would stand for. We're talking about a federal judge, that's Judge Boasberg that he's referring to as a local judge. We're also talking about Chief Justice John Roberts, who put out a statement immediately after Donald Trump called for the impeachment of said federal judge, Judge Bozberg. So, I mean, really, you're going to pretend like Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't talking about you because he didn't specifically mention your name?

come on. Come on. It's just. And as we showed you the beginning of this story, Ingram also asked Trump if he would knowingly and intentionally violate a court's ruling. And here's how that interaction went down. Well, I think that number one, nobody's been through more courts than I have. I think nobody knows the courts any better than I have. I would say the chief judge does, but nobody knows them better than I have. And what what they've done to me, I've had the worst judges. I've had crooked judges. I have judges that valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 million because that benefited his case, because he wanted to see me convicted of something.

I have judges that were, had relatives making millions and millions of dollars on the election, ruling on the election. But going forward, I had judges that were so corrupt. We all know that, and that was out- No, I never did defy a court order. And you wouldn't in the future. No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges.

Donald Trump, who grew up in the lap of luxury because of his father, who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars because of his father, who has lived a charmed life, who has been one of the most lucky men on the planet after committing crimes and somehow weaseling his way out of any type of responsibility or consequence. He's always a special victim, always, always a special victim, always. It really blows my mind. But he says, I'm going to listen to the court orders.

You have to. You have to. All right, we'll see. We'll see. But honestly, his behavior does not inspire much confidence. And what's so frustrating about this is it's likely that if this case involving those immigrants went through the proper channels, went through the proper procedure, It's likely that the court system would allow for their deportation. Remember, the judge didn't even rule on whether or not that statute had applied.

He wanted to block the deportation in order to have the time to weigh in on that matter. But the Trump administration has got to have its way, and they did what they did. And again, if you don't think this matters for, you know, the erosion, of the rights that Americans enjoy, you are definitely mistaken. You can't create a precedent like this. And it's not just about Donald Trump. I want to reiterate, it's about any president in the future being able to point back to the precedent that's been set during the Trump administration and essentially abuse their power. I don't want to see Democrats do it. I don't want to see Republicans do it. I value our rights, I value our Constitution, and we should value the rule of law.

I have no problem with undocumented immigrants getting deported if they've committed crimes other than being here in the country illegally. I have no problem with it. Coming at me if you think that's very upsetting. But we have to do it the right way to ensure that people's rights are not being violated and that we're not setting a precedent that will come back and bite us in the ass later. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we have a pretty terrifying story involving a French scientist. who was retaliated against for not being friendly toward Donald Trump. We'll be right back.

Welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian. And I want to get to a story that broke just before. the show, it's developing as we speak. So bear with me, it's likely going to develop further after we cover it and we'll obviously look for those updates. But this is definitely concerning because it shows the level of retaliatory acts that the administration is willing to take against anyone who dare criticize Trump. And that's not a good sign. So let's talk about it. of higher education and research is claiming that a French scientist was denied entry into the United States because of his opinions about the Trump administration. So this is a story

that just broke. It is developing as we speak. And usually I wouldn't want to jump on a story like this, but it is really garnering a lot of attention. And so as it develops, we will update you on it. Here's what we know right now. And it's based on the exact statement that's been issued by France's Minister of Higher Education and Research. He says, I was told with concern that a French researcher who was going to a conference near Houston was banned from entering the U.S. before being expelled. The researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friendly relations in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy.

So according to a French newspaper, the incident took place on March 9th. The researcher was randomly stopped in Houston, Texas. They were in the United States specifically to attend this conference. So when the researcher was stopped by Customs and Border Patrol, the CBP found messages they didn't like on his phone. This is insane. According to one source cited by the French press, CBP said that the French researcher expressed hate and conspiracy messages prompting an FBI investigation only for the charges to be dropped later. Okay, so let's pause right there. The charges were dropped, which means those messages didn't contain like plans to carry out some sort of like terror attack or something in the United States or some kind of violent attack. against Donald Trump, right?

Now, if there were messages indicating that, then obviously this individual would be facing some serious consequences, some serious charges, you know, in addition to not being allowed to enter the United States, but obviously those messages didn't contain any type of threat or risk to anyone in the Trump administration. Now, another source said the scientist was banned

due to messages that can be described as terrorism. So we should know more details about what those messages contained. I am not going to take anyone's word for it. I want to know what the message is actually said, because let's keep it real. If there was any indication that this researcher was here to cause harm, then obviously our government is in the right or has the right to deny entry. However, I'm not going to take anyone's word for it. I want to know what those messages said.

The researchers' phone and computer were taken from him, and he was sent back to Europe the following day. And that's all we know about the story so far. So as it develops, we'll give you updates. But for now, this does not look good. Because if someone, if a French researcher, if any researcher, is coming to the United States specifically for a conference and they're denied entry simply because they are critical of the Trump administration, that is some authoritarian BS. we should foster the kind of environment where criticism of any elected official, any office holder is acceptable. Like the vice president of the United States in a speech that honestly I gave him credit

for, you know, before Europeans at the Munich Security Conference, absolutely skewered European countries for violating the freedom of speech and expression of their people. And then we're going to turn around and we're going to punish French researchers for not being adequately friendly or adequately positive toward the Trump administration. That's insane. That's absolutely insane. But again, I mean, we don't know what those messages said. So we should be able to see them. We should get more information about it because if the Trump administration of Border Patrol was correct in denying this individual entry because of nefarious. various things that were contained in that individual's phone, okay, well, then let us see it. So people aren't freaked out about now being governed by some authoritarian regime that can't handle any criticism.

So we'll see. We'll see if those messages are ever released. Man, if the Trump administration can't handle criticism and they're literally willing to punish researchers for not liking them enough, not only does that make them. look pathetic and weak, it really says something terrible about our federal government and the direction that we're headed in. But again, that's all we know for now. We'll update you as that story develops. For now, let's move on to Larry Fink, who is a bad person. And I'll tell you why. Larry Fink, the CEO of multi-trillion dollar investment firm, Black Rock, a private equity

firm recently stated that our country's social security system shouldn't be privatized entirely. No, he would never want that. It should just be partially privatized. Uber wealthy CEOs like him love that idea, but you know, the American people have consistently opposed it and will explain why in just a minute. But first, Moran Fink, who actually spoke to Semaphore's Liz Hoffman at the Black Rock 2025. retirement summit when he weighed in specifically on Social Security. Here's what he had to say. We have a plan called Social Security that doesn't grow with the economy. You're detached from the economy and you don't feel like you're winning. Yeah, genius. That's that's by design.

Okay, so his whole thing is the Social Security system should be invested in the stock market. In other words, the risk associated with the stock market should now be tied to our social security system. The great thing about social security is that it is supposed to serve as a supplement to people's retirement and to help avoid the prevalence of elderly Americans ending up homeless, ending up destitute. there's a reason why social security is not tied to the risks associated with the stock market. But Larry Fink thinks that's a bad thing. That's a bad thing. He says, I think more Americans can be a little more hopeful today with their retirement savings than just getting that bond payment. So I just want to note that when it comes to social security in 2025, the maximum monthly social security benefit for someone retiring at full. retirement age is about $4,018. But the true maximum of $5,108 is also attainable by lifelong high earners. So the way Social Security works is your monthly payment at retirement

depends on two things. How much you contributed to the system during your working years and which age you decided to start collecting Social Security benefits. So if you wait until the age of 70, obviously your monthly payments are going to be higher. But if you retire during normal retirement age, which is of course a few years prior to the age of 70, you get a little less. But even if you are a low earner and you've been a low income earner your entire life, the monthly payment is $886. And the fact that it's not associated or tied to the risk of the stock market means that you can rely on that money. You don't have to worry about a crash that's going to affect this, you know, money that you're expecting because you paid into a system

and you're expecting certain, you know, resources to come back to you when you're ready to retire. And I am not in any way interested in hearing anyone in the private equity industry talk about solutions for our social security system. Now, he pointed to Australia's model as an example of what he would support as a supplement to, not a replacement for social security. He says Australia's system uses individual savings accounts funded by employer and employee contributions and is invested in the market. These accounts travel with the employee. Australia also has an age pension for those age 67 and older who fall under certain economic

thresholds. Now, Fink was asked, you know, how that sort of system could work in the United States. Well, what did you have to say? He mentioned the federal thrift savings plan as an example. Oh, wow, Black Rock manages a majority of TSP assets. I'm sure that Fink is not interested in pushing for changes to the social security system that would benefit himself or the private equity firm he represents. I'm sure that he's saying everything he's saying because he really genuinely cares about the American people. He wants to make sure that you have adequate resources when you're ready to retire. Obviously, that's BS. Now, the TSP functions in essentially the same way as a 401k. It's open to federal employees and uniform service members. But let's get back to the topic of Social Security. So the Social Security Administration invests in special treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the United States government. Let's take a look at this graph. And as you can see, those bonds have not offered as high a rate of return as the S&P 500. But again, I want to reiterate, the social security system is not supposed to operate

the way a 401k or an IRA functions. Those are retirement accounts where you are invested in stocks, in bonds, whatever portfolio you've decided is best for your retirement. Social Security is supposed to be a reliable sum of money to supplement your retirement so you don't end up on the streets. And so you don't have to worry about a market crash impacting that. It's not about, ooh, I want social security to grow with the market. It's more about I want something stable and something reliable that will supplement the retirement of elderly people in this country.

And obviously, Social Security also benefits individuals who have legitimate disability claims. So, but as you're surely aware, the market doesn't always. always go up. So Social Security's great strength is that it guarantees a lifelong benefit regardless of market conditions. A safety net that privatization could weaken, Representative John Larson has said. So he says, he's a vocal defender of the program. He notes that during the 2008 financial crisis, many 401K accounts plunged in value, yet Social Security never missed a payment. Look, you can't really time the market. So the worst case scenario is you're about

to retire and there's an economic crash. And now your retirement fund is half the value it was prior to the crash. Now, that would be less painful if you have your 401k or your IRA. And in addition to that, you have reliable, stable payments coming from the social security system, which is not tied to the stock market. I think someone like Larry Fink knows that, but he's going to try this to see if he can, you know, increase the business opportunities for his private equity firm. It's pretty gross.

But just understand what they're attempting to do here and what this messaging actually is trying to get across to the American people. He's not looking to increase the value of your social security, benefits. If he was actually looking to do that, he would be advocating for lifting the social security tax cap, where after a certain amount of income, people stop getting tax for social security. You could lift that threshold significantly, lift that cap and further fund the social security system to the point where it's not only fully funded and something that is reliable for decades to come, but obviously has better benefits for Americans who are about.

to retire or Americans who are suffering from disabilities and are unable to work. So that's what's happening with Larry Fink. Those are his thoughts. You shouldn't trust anything that comes out of his mouth when it comes to the social safety net that Americans have been fighting so hard to maintain. And that's that's all it is. All right, we got to take a break when we come back. John Iderola joins us for the second hour. Don't miss it. I don't know. I don't know.