The Young Turks - Congressional Cucks

Episode Date: June 28, 2024

IDF Acknowledges That The Man They Tied To Jeep Hood Posed No Threat. Netanyahu Meets Fetterman, and says, “Israel Has Had No Better Friend.” Congress Approves Amendment Suppressing Gaza Death Toll. Supreme Court Blocks Purdue Pharma Settlement, Drawing Mixed Reactions. Supreme Court Overturns Former Mayor’s Bribery Conviction. " HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA 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. Let's go! Begha! Live from the Polymarket Studio Los Angeles. Jake, you're out of Conspirates, the Young Turks. Okay, big day ahead.

Stop it, no, really. Debates tonight, we're gonna find out if Joe Biden's gonna continue in this campaign or not. This is the last stop. So if he makes it through the debate without passing out, he'll probably be fine and they'll probably keep going. But he would like literally have to collapse in the middle of the debate. But I got that at like 60, 40, 60, however depending on it, only a 40% chance that he literally melts on stage. And if he does, we'll have a new candidate. If he doesn't, we won't. So the election might get decided tonight. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna do the normal two hour shows we'll do every day,

you know, and we got these, you know, usual set of gigantic stories, including a couple of really important Supreme Court decisions could affect your life. So then we're gonna do a bonus episode, but for everybody, are we not merciful today? So not behind the pay wall today, not just for members. You're all invited. Come on in, water's warm, like and share the stream, sharing is caring, everybody knows this. And then we're gonna do pre-debate coverage, John and I, then we're gonna do play by I play two different streams going at the same time at t yt.com slash debate.

So if you're going to watch the debate, you got to watch it at t yt.com slash debate. It doesn't make any sense to watch it anywhere else. I promise I'll make funny faces. And then afterwards analysis again right here. So huge coverage tonight. Stay right here. Tell your friends, neighbors, and Randy Gonzalez. So let's get started.

Well, we begin with yet another horrific story involving Israel, the IDF, and an innocent Palestinian. Here it is as it drives past two. ambulances, we've decided to blur the image. His family said he was injured during the raid by Israeli soldiers. The IDF confirmed the incident saying it violated orders, adding that it would be investigated and dealt with accordingly. The UN special rapporteur has accused Israel of using man as a human shield. The idea that Israel will investigate a Palestinian man being strapped onto a searing hot hood of an IDF Jeep is laughable to say the least. But why don't we get to the details about what happened here in this case?

So you will hear from that very Palestinian man who was, in fact, strapped onto the searing hot hood of an IDF Jeep in the West Bank in just a moment. So stay tuned for that. But first, why did the IDF attack this 24-year-old man in the first place? Well, the army had initially said that the individual, Abadi, who is 24 years old, was a suspected militant. His name is Mujahid Abadi, but it didn't take long for them to change their story, Chank. Are you surprised by that?

Oh, it's such a surprising thing. I mean, the idea of putting out a false statement in the beginning. No, no, no, remember, do not trust the Gaza Health Ministry. That's a story we have later in the program. But the idea of so trustworthy, it turns out totally lying, and there's much more lies to come. So later, after they had claimed that he was a suspected militant, they then changed their story and said, okay, fine, we admit that he did not pose any type of danger to Israeli soldiers. But he was caught in the crossfire.

What could we do? He was caught in the crossfire with militants that we were fighting. Okay, I'm not buying that either. By the way, even if that's true. So there's nothing we could do. We had to strap him onto the top of our car. Exactly. What does that have to do with it?

So, I mean, look, we thought he was a militant. So we were obviously using him as a human shield as we always do. Oops. I mean, oh, it was an honest mistake to strap him onto the hood. Right. I mean, it was anti-Semitic to accuse them of strapping them onto the hood, even though we have video of it. I don't know, they'll make up something.

Don't worry, Israel's going to investigate it, just like they investigated the killing of Hind, that little eight-year-old who was trapped in a car and then died. Man, they have prosecuted the bejes out of those folks. Totally. Okay, just so if you understand, if you're not familiar with this, why we're being sarcastic, the military court that the IDF runs. Is a joke.

99% of the cases brought before it, they say, oh, innocent. Again and again and again and again. Well, look at that. All of our soldiers who have maimed, killed, tortured, et cetera, all innocent. Meanwhile, hundreds and sometimes thousands of Palestinians, rounded up by the IDF in those same courts, never get their day in court, never even charged. Never even charged. Huh, look at that, all the Palestinians stuffed into prisons without being charged,

and all the IDF soldiers always innocent. Interesting. Well, I'm sure they'll adjudicate. Now I want to remind you that this is not in Gaza. This is in Janine in the West Bank. And that is where upward of 500 Palestinians have been killed by IDF forces since this war in Gaza began. And so with that in mind, why don't we hear from Mujahid, A body who explains how the IDF shot, beat, and tortured him.

Take a look. I received a phone call yesterday morning that Israeli special forces are in the neighborhood. I was at my uncle's home. My cousins and I stepped out to check and found them a few meters away. As we started to go back home, the Israeli soldiers opened fire on us. My cousins were injured, and I also received a bullet in my arm. I fell behind an Israeli armored vehicle parked outside my uncle's head. house. The Israeli soldiers kept firing, and by the time I fell to the ground, I received

another bullet in my leg. I remained on the ground bleeding for more than two hours. None of the soldiers approached me. Only one drone hovering above me. I kept bleeding. After that, another Israeli armored vehicle approached the one I was lying behind. They tried to run me over. One of the soldiers crampled my head under his boot, kept punching me in the face, kicking my bleeding leg. He twisted my injure arm. My leg and arm bones were broken, totally crushed. So I want you to understand something. The IDF first claims, oh, he was a suspected militant. Then they changed their story and say, no, he wasn't any type of threat to Israeli forces at all. It's just that he got caught in the crossfire. But as you just heard from the victim here,

literally two hours after they had shot him, Israeli forces found him. He says that they struck his head and face and in the areas where he had been shot. How is that getting caught in the crossfire? And then they dragged him by the legs, lifted him up by the hands and feet and threw him onto the hood of the military jeep. And in the next clip, he's going to talk about that. Let's watch.

It was extremely hot that my back was burnt. They drove me back and forth for 20 minutes. I had hoped to be dead before the Israeli soldiers arrived. I had expected them to attend to my wounds, not to beat and batter me while I already had two critical injuries. The Israeli soldiers kept me on the armored vehicle's hood for 20 minutes, driving back and forth. And finally, they drove me on the vehicle to the main road

where the Israeli soldiers were stationed. So what does the United States have to say about this? Well, I turn to Matthew Miller, who is the spokesperson for the U.S. State Department. He says civilians should never be used as human shields. The IDF should swiftly investigate what happened and hold people accountable, Miller said, referring to the Israeli military. Now there is a reporter from The Intercept who has been asking Miller incessantly about updates to the alleged investigation that Israel is doing into the killing of eight-year-old

Hind in Gaza, and he's getting testier and testier every time the Intercept asks him that question. And recently, when he got super testy, he essentially shot back at the Intercept reporter and said, you know, this is a question that you should be asking the Israeli government, to which I say, aren't we asking the Israeli government? Damn. Okay, so because the U.S. not only backs what Israel is saying with these belief in the preposterous investigations that they're doing, the preposterous statements that they put out, that they themselves then withdraw like a couple of days later, a couple of weeks later. This happened hundreds of times. At one point they said they had killed 13,000 members of Hamas

inside Gamaza with the bombings and everything. And then a couple of weeks later, they're like, yeah, 9,000. Four thousand is a big number, right? And it's just making it up. They're just pulling it out. So, I mean, now again, there's some, the U.S. Congress basically owned by APEC today saying that you cannot trust any number that comes out of Gaza. And if you do, we're going to take away all your funding, right? So, but we're to trust the IDF on all of this. It's comical. It's ridiculous. And we fund it.

So obviously, the U.S. and the Israeli government reaction is the same thing in essence at this point. because one is the, you know, vassal state of the other. It's unclear which one is which. Okay, so now, is Israel using human shields? 100% confirmed by the Israelis. So this has been going on for decades to the point where in 2005, the Israeli Supreme Court, which is different than the IDF military court, idea of military court, is a joke of all jokes. dictators run more fair courts, okay?

Well, actually, in this case, they are the dictators of the Palestinians, so it's not surprising. But the Israeli Supreme Court actually adjudicates things inside Israel is relatively fair, okay? So Israeli Supreme Court in 2005 said the military must stop using human shields. Because they were using them so often, so brazenly that even Israel's own Supreme Court was like, guys, I mean, come on, remember our propaganda about how they're using the human shields? Except that's not at all true. I'll come back to that in a second. But you're using literal human shields. We've shown you videos in the past where Israeli soldiers will hold up a child in front of them, okay?

Oftentimes what they were doing, according to the courts, where they would have the Palestinians go walk on land and pick up objects they thought might be bombs. So if it goes off, at least a Palestinian kid is dead instead of that. Oh, I heard terrorists do that. Yeah, no, well, they do. It's called IDF. And so in 2021, they use an Associated Press report. order as a human shield. So don't look at this as like, oh my God, wild aberration.

I can't tell who's right or wrong. Maybe it was a couple of guys who went rogue. No, the IDF has used human shields over and over and over again to the point where their own Supreme Court sanctioned them. Guys, I mean, like, you have to be in denial, okay, to think that the IDF did nothing wrong here. There's a video, we all see it. They strapped a man who's bleeding out after being shot multiple times by the IDF,

to the hood of a searing hot, a jeep, a military jeep. Well, like, who's it, how are you going to make excuses for that? No, I really want to hear it. I really want to hear the excuses for that, Jake. It's so easy. It's so easy. The video is anti-Semitic. Oh, okay.

It doesn't matter. Great point. Yeah, you just fill in the blank anti-Semitic. For a limited time at McDonald's, for a limited time at McDonald's, 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. So now, guys, again, a lot of our audiences outside the United States, so again, you must be confused, why are they bothering to debate this? This is the most obvious thing in the world. Because we have delusional people in our country that run the country, that do the news in this country, who lie to the American people and think that we're all stupid. And they think that insulting our intelligence is going to work, but it's not going to work. And thankfully, we're not funded by the US government.

So I'm going to go ahead and keep reciting the insane death toll in Gaza, okay? I mean, 37,000 people, that number has been the same for a few weeks now. The number is higher than that, okay? Okay, no question. Everybody knows that except, sorry, numbers are anti-Semitic. But because there's people buried in the rubble, thousands to tens of thousands buried in the rubble. So it's way higher than 37,000. So look, I mentioned, so just to finish the thought that I was saying, inside the US is a gas lighting factory.

So this is like one of the few shows that actually say things that are just like, again, brazenly, obviously true, obviously true, right? But the rest of the propagandos, no, it's the, don't believe you're lying eyes. Israel doesn't use human shields. The Palestinians do, that's why we had to bomb and kill so many of them, right? So that's the main justification for killing 37,000 people, 15,000 children murdered. I'm sorry, they were all accidental killings because Hamas is guilty for using them as human shields. So let me break down that argument super quick. So we've talked about the Armenian genocide in the past, right?

So anytime there is a rebel force or terrorist to pick your words, any word you like, okay, that fights an empire or a much stronger country that they're within, right? And the Armenians were occupied by the Ottoman Empire. They don't have military barracks. So did Armenian rebels attack Turkish forces? Yes. Did they sometimes attack Turkish civilians? Yes.

But did that give the Turks the right to wipe out all of those Armenians, the great majority of which, of whom were civilians? No, of course not. But this day and age, they would have said that the Turks had a right to defend themselves and that the Armenians were using human shields. They were hiding within their own civilian population. Well, of course they were. Where else would they be hiding? Were they going to go to a different country?

Were they going to set up a Pentagon? Because they were rebelling against the mighty empire who was occupying them. So this idea, like throughout history, whenever somebody fights an occupation, an empire, etc. They fight with whatever they have and with wherever they are. Just calling all of them human shields so they you have an excuse to slaughter them is not at all persuasive other than to the lunatics that run the US because they're not looking for a rational explanation. They're just looking for a fig leaf excuse so they can take the A-PAC money and all the other money and go, oh yeah, it is all Palestinian fault.

We, poor Israel was forced to use them as human shields and then slaughter them. You see how it is the Palestinians that are the violent ones. So a few other data points here. I had referenced this earlier, but I want to give you exact numbers as reported by the Associated Press. So in the West Bank, not in Gaza, in the West Bank, Israeli forces have carried out near nightly raids, often setting off gun battles with militants, and over 550 Palestinians have been killed. Now they also stand by as Israeli settlers drive Palestinians out there out

of their homes. They stand by as those settlers treat Palestinians violently. All of that happens in the West Bank. It has nothing to do with Hamas. It has everything to do with everything we know already, right? What Miriam Edelson donated $100 million to Donald Trump for. In order to ensure that the US government will not stand in the way as Israel annexes the West Bank. So that's coming. And if you think I'm only being critical with Trump on this issue, let's talk a little bit about what Biden's up to. Because Barack Ravid has just reported that the Biden administration is expected to soon release 500 pound bombs that were part of a weapon shipment to Israel put on hold in April over the US concerns on Israel invading Rafa.

Now, Israel didn't listen to the United States, doesn't care to listen to the United States, because they know that Biden will never use his leverage against the far-right government of Israel. And so they went ahead and invaded Rafa anyway, killed a ton of people already, displaced people in Rafa who had already been displaced from other parts of Gaza. And now quietly, the Biden administration thought, okay, we're going to now allow for these weapons shipments to continue, and hopefully no one will notice. Yeah, and by the way, no one noticed that APEC spent $14.5 million in the Jamal Bowman race and he was defeated.

No one in Congress took note of that, right? No, of course, media, actually with a rare gray piece, I don't mean in terms of media. I mean in terms of rare in mainstream media period, explaining how a bunch of Democratic congressmen off the record because they're scared of APEC, giving them quotes saying, yeah, of course they run the place. You think anybody wants to have $14.5 million spent against them? It's an unbelievable amount of money. It guarantees a loss. So now it's over. They all work for APEC.

And if that offends you, literally reality offends you. But hey, take solace that they also work for big pharma, big oil, big banks. They're just completely and utterly corrupt. And they will work for anyone who gives them campaign checks. So that's why now we have, and this is another story later in the show, watch the whole whole show live, Monday through Friday, 6 o'clock Eastern. Federman goes and does a hostage video with Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham goes. Lindsay Graham is my favorite because he pulled, had the sign that said, like, basically,

more for Israel, literally, more for Israel. It's like a literal hostage video. Like, please take American taxpayer money, send it to Israel. But guys. My family, I'm going to be okay. But guys, listen, it's okay. because all you need to do to protect our democracy is to vote for Joe Biden. Don't you feel great about the democracy we live in right now?

Well, what a wonderful democracy. What a joke. Well, guys, that's why these two choices are a joke. One is like, no, we're not like Trump. Trump is system personally corrupt. And that's true. He's going to the Edelson. He already did it with Sheldon twice.

He's going to Miriam now. What do you need? You need American foreign policy, no problem. Everybody knows New York Times not reporting it for the third time. New York Times. that Donald Trump moved the U.S. embassy risking a giant war in the Middle East because Sheldon Edelson gave him $100 million in both 2016 and 2020 races. I mean, they're just literally buying US foreign policy with Trump.

So when Biden points that out, that's true. But his side is, no, we're not personally corrupt like that, meaningy Donald Trump. We're systemically corrupt. We take donations from all the big donors and serve all their interests. So we're not just screwing you for our personal interest, we're screwing you institutionally, like a goddamn machine running over you over and over again. But don't worry, mainstream media and morning Joe will tell you we're the good guys. So boo Trump, but no, by angel, angel.

What a decent man. Yeah, and you know why Joe Biden is sending, has helped the US government send over $300 billion to Israel? because he has such a special relationship with Israel. Right. It's not the $11.2 million he's taken from APEC. No, that didn't make the way. I swear to God if you live outside of America, American media, universally, all of them say that $11 million

has never affected Joe Biden. It's just that he has a soft spot in his heart for Israel. Can anyone really be that unintelligent? It's the entire American media press court. That's unbelievable. So that's why, yeah, it's an obvious human shield. It's what Israel does all the time. They humiliate the Palestinians daily.

The occupation has been brutal, oppressive. It's destroying the identity of Israel, let alone the Palestinians. Netanyahu has said that he's in the middle of doing from the river to the sea. He literally said it. And American media and politicians go around kissing his ass and saying, no, nope, if you point out things that are true, We have one word for you, and it's the magic cure-all that fixes everything. Anti-Semitic, we win. Do you?

Do you? Yeah, well, that smear doesn't work. It has lost its power. And that's a damn shame because when actual anti-Semitism emerges, people are going to question the merit behind that argument. Of course they are. So congratulations. There's never been a larger boy who cried wolf than not regular citizens, okay?

regular citizens, Jewish Americans are actually scared because they're also the victims of that propaganda. So they believe it. They think that pogroms are around the corner. But there's never been a bigger lie than the American politicians and the American media talking about how everybody else is anti-Semitic. It is a giant lie. It is the biggest boy who cried Wolf ever in history. So I'm actually worried about our Jewish brothers and sisters. When real trouble comes, No one is going to believe it because the word anti-Semitic doesn't mean anything anymore. When we come back from the break, we'll show you some of those hostage videos, including Fetterman meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu. All right, back on TYT, Jank and Anna and Vanishing Dragon with you guys.

Here one second, gone the next, vanishing. They hit the join button below and box gift to the membership. You guys are awesome. Casper. You want to see what a hostage video looks like? Here it is. Senator, welcome to Israel. I want to thank you for your courageous statements.

That was Senator John Fetterman, who ran as a progressive and then immediately decided to suck up to the far right prime minister of a foreign country, Israel, and he decided to visit Israel recently. It was his first time visiting the country. And if you think Federman looks pathetic, don't worry. We have another Democratic lawmaker who's competing with him for the seat of who's the most pathetic in the Democratic Party and sucking up to Benjamin Netanyahu. But before we get to that, and you want to stick around for it, let's watch some more of Federman's meeting with Netanyahu. We've been through a dire times in these months of anguish war.

And during that time, I can say that Israel has had no better friend than Senator John Federman. Senator, welcome to Israel. I want to thank you for your courageous statements that show moral clarity and moral courage. And you just say it the way it is. And we appreciate this friendship at all times, but especially at these times. So welcome, friend, welcome. Well, we stand with Israel through this, and I'm so sorry for what's been done to this nation, but I'm just an honor to be here today. Thank you. And I look forward to visiting you in Washington. Thank you. That handshake at the end was a little strange, no? Yeah, I mean, look, it's impossible to know, because he had a stroke, so it might have

awkward because of that. But I mean, if he didn't have the stroke, I would say, Compromat? I mean, that was like deep humiliation, right? And you could kind of sense it from Fetterman at the end when he's like, oh, I got to shake this guy's hand. God damn Epstein. I don't know. I'm kidding about Epstein. But like, what was that? I mean, you know what it reminded me of? It reminded me of Trump in front of Putin when he was like, I believe him instead of my own guys, please, right? And so I don't know if, you know, that relationship is complicated, but I hear the Russians interfering with our elections is terrible. It should be deeply investigated.

But Israel's not interfering with our elections at all, right? That's why these senators are going both Republicans and Democrats and go, yes, sir, of course, sir. We're very proud to serve you, sir. And what happened to Israel is terrible. But what Israel did killing 30 times as many civilians, not terrible. Perfectly fine. That's why we just sent you $20 billion. It's so embarrassing.

Now, if you can recall, back in December of last year in 2023, Federman stated that he believes that there should be absolutely no conditions to aid that the United States sends to Israel. And that's aid, of course, paid for by us, the United States taxpayers. Take a look. Many Democrats are calling for the United States to place conditions on further military aid to Israel. You however disagree with that.

Why? Well, I think it's really primarily. only because I believe that Israel has the right, but I also think it has the imperative to destroy Hamas. Because I think everybody here would agree that we should want to have peace and we should have an effective two-state solution. And I don't think that can really occur as long as Hamas is allowed to opera in there. And so to give the kind of flexibility, that's why I don't believe that there should any conditions. There should be no conditions to aid to Israel, the aid that is funded by American taxpayers.

Now remember, when you say no conditions, that means American taxpayers, shut up. You're not allowed to complain about anything Israel does. Shut up and pay up. Give your goddamn money already. Hurry up, let's go, okay? I got to go make a hostage video with Netanyahu. So let's go, let's go. In Lindsey Graham's version of the video, he's the Republican Senator, it said more for Israel.

English and then in Hebrew. Like, I mean, he's holding up signs like a hostage and saying literally send more American tax dollar money for Israel. Never mentioning, they've killed 30 times the number of civilians as Hamas has. Hamas is terrible. We all agree Hamas is terrible. What does that make the IDF? Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. I'm hearing that they accidentally killed that many civilians. One giant accident. Now Fetterman's pretty bad, right? Especially since he ran as a progressive and then immediately switched gears and became one of the worst, you know, lovers of a far right government in a foreign country. But let's get to Jared Moskowitz, who's also a Democratic lawmaker in the House in this case. And he proposed a bill that would essentially amend the law to

ensure that State Department funding would not go to any entity that is citing the death toll number from the Gaza Health Ministry. The argument is, well, the Gaza Health Ministry is in Gaza. Gaza is run by Hamas, and so we just can't trust the numbers. The State Department historically has trusted the numbers. The Israeli government historically has cited those same numbers. But here's the thing, The death toll is really high this time. Super awkward. Super high. It makes Israel look really bad.

So why don't we try to hide that and try to throw cold water on the death toll number and make people think that it's not something that we can trust? So the provision specifically states that funding will not be made available for the State Department to cite statistics obtained from the Gaza Health Ministry. Okay, that is what the legislation was. And guess what? The House passed the amendment easily, easily. Let's take a look at Ida Chavez's post on X. She wrote after the vote, the House just voted 269 to 144 on an amendment trying to erase the Gaza death toll. And that's really what this is. And then she states that Representative

Rashida Talib, who is a Palestinian American, called it genocide denial. Over 60 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting it. Now, since she referenced Rishita Talib, I want to go to a video featuring her statements. Let's take a look. There is so much anti-Palestinian racism in this chamber that my colleagues don't even want to acknowledge that Palestinians exist at all. Not when they're alive and now, not even when they're dead. It's absolutely disgusting. This is genocide denial. Mr. Suki, I know the majority of this chamber doesn't believe Palestinians should live or exist. But I won't remain silent as the only Palestinian American serving in Congress while folks attempt to

ever even erase those who were killed with our own weapons. So if I may later at the appropriate time I will submit for the inclusion into the congressional record, the list of the Palestinians killed in Gaza. And Mr. Speaker, it is important to note this to everyone here. The list is too long that I can't even submit it because of the text limit. And I just want to know, man, I can't imagine what it must be like to be Rashida Talib in this disgusting government right now. But nonetheless, I just want to note, independent bodies like the World Health Organization

have said the numbers are reliable, independent bodies like the World Health Organization have said this, okay? World Health Organization is not run by Hamas. Israel, which has not provided its own estimate of the death toll in Gaza, I think for obvious reasons, reportedly relies on the numbers provided by the health ministry. Yep. Okay. Every human rights organization, every press organization in the world acknowledges those numbers.

They've been stunningly accurate through not just this conflict, but many conflicts that Israel and Hamas has had. So this is basically saying numbers have a well-known anti-Semitic bias. And so numbers and facts are all anti-Semites, and that's why they should be banned. I don't blame Israel. I mean, I would be deeply embarrassed and ashamed, and I would be concerned about how I appear as a country, as a government on the international stage, as tens of thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered by the country's military. Yeah.

Right? So they want to hide it. But guess what? We don't receive funding from the State Department. So we're going to go ahead and continue citing the numbers coming from the Gaza Health ministry. That brings me just like the U.S. State Department does and just like the Israeli government does. Yeah. That brings me to my second point, which is so now we're cutting funding to our State Department. Which is actually kind of a good thing. No, it's, well, I hear you, but all because all

they ever do is support Israel. But here, they made the great grave crime of putting down accurate numbers. Right. Right. So Orwell is super bad. Okay, of course, Orwell explained what would happen And so it's Big Brother that's apparently very mad. And I'll tell you who Big Brother is in a second. But so they say, we're gonna cut the funding to the United States State Department. But we're not gonna cut funding to Israel for the actual number of people killed. For the actual genocide, that's, in fact, we're gonna send them 20 billion. Maybe they'll take money from the American government functions and just send it straight to Israel.

Because I mean, we've sent them 300 billion so far, 20 billion during the course of this conflict. So it makes sense, we're running out of money for us. So okay, and state department, grave crime, facts are anti-Semitic, everybody knows that, let's cut their funding. And maybe they can do it so that, hey, you know what, if the state department or any function of the United States government ever tells the truth about Israel, we stripped them of all their funding and send it immediately to Israel. Okay, so that is actually literally what's happening.

So you want to get offended by that, you can go cry, I don't care. So who's big brother in this case? Well, if you think, oh, Donald Trump is anti-war and the republic is no better than Democrats with the establishment. Well, there's some truth to that. Over 60 Democrats voted here in favor of this, led by Jared Moskowitz, who is now literally a genocide denier saying, shush, I mean, that statement by Rashida Talib was so powerful. When she said, now they won't even acknowledge this when we die.

And so, and every government that denies the genocide does this. The Turkish government does it with the Armenian genocide. They didn't die. The Japanese government did with the rape of Nanking. They didn't die, I don't know what you're talking about. The numbers are lies, all the, everything is lies. We deny everything, right? So that's what now the US government is forced to do because of-

This is what they want to do. Well, forced to do through A-PAC, etc. I do whoever, I don't know if they genuinely hate numbers and believe this, not says, what are we kidding? It's all A-PAC, right? because they're scared to death after Apex spends $100 million per election cycle, 14 and a half million in one house race alone, et cetera. So, but the overwhelming number of people who voted to pass this were Republicans.

Almost all of the Republicans, over 200 of them voted yes. So by the way, Muscoitz and the other Democrats, what happened to party unity? I thought you, whenever you wanted to beat up a progressive, oh, they're not loyal to the Democratic Party, okay? they wouldn't bow their head to corporate rule. My beloved donors and big pharma and the oil companies and the big, they would have been to progressives wouldn't bow their heads to them. Lack of unity.

Now most of the Democrats voted no, which give them credit for this. But Muscoitz and the corporate Democrats, the lobbyist Democrats, they'll take any money and serve anybody that pays them, but they're like, no, I hate the Democratic Party. I love my Republican friends, you're right, numbers are liars. Let's deny elections, this deny numbers. Let's deny reality, yay! So that's that conservative corporate wing of the Democratic Party. And the entire, almost the entirety of the Republican Party, they can't wait to kiss Netanyahu's ass and cash those eight-pack checks.

So when the dust settles and they clear the rubble and they discover the tens of thousands of people and corpses that were trapped under the rubble and that death toll inevitably rises significantly, what kind of games is the Israeli government with the help of the United States government, which is basically the same at this point, gonna play in order to hide those numbers from the American people. Do they think that they're gonna be able to do that? I mean, come on. They don't do anything, remember the House earlier passed the bill saying that since anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, total nonsense, and Zionism means really the creation of Israel. Basically, if you criticize Israel, it'll now be illegal in America.

You can criticize America all you want. You can criticize any other country in the world, all you want. But if you criticize Israel, it's illegal. And if you cite numbers that are true, now also a problem with the law, and you'll get your funding cut because you dare to defy leadership from Israel. Go cry about it. That's an actual fact. We've got some Supreme Corn, Supreme Corn, Supreme Corn sounds pretty good. We have some Supreme Court decisions when we come back from the break. A questionable one.

I don't know how I feel about the one having to do with Purdue Parma, but a definitely bad one when it comes to corruption. So stay tuned for that and more when we come back. Back on TYTJK&A with you guys forward. Let's talk about the Supreme Court and some of the decisions, some of the rulings they've passed down recently. Big Pharma is not popular, and people want the opportunity to be able to sue Big Pharma. And the Biden administration said, look, we don't want to cut it off at any particular point. The Supreme Court has made a ruling that impacts the Sackler family, Purdue Pharma, and the victims of the opioid epidemic. And to be quite frank with you all, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this decision.

So let's get into the nitty gritty. What is this all about? Well, the Supreme Court decided to block Purdue Pharma's opioid settlement over issues involving the Sackler family's ability to evade future lawsuits as part of that settlement. Now, the deal allowed the Sacklers, which owned Purdue Pharma, but are no longer involved with Purdue Pharma at all, to pay $6 billion total that could be used to settle opioid related claims. Now some portion of that, about $2 billion was meant to fund treatment programs. The rest was supposed to go to the victims of the opioid epidemic, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future lawsuits. No Sacklers, again, are currently involved with the company and haven't been since 2019. Now the settlement was approved last year by the New York-based Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,

But the Justice Department, under the Biden administration, did not like this settlement because they did not feel that it was okay for the Sackler family to be able to evade future lawsuits from other victims of the opioid crisis. So the Justice Department was against the settlement, so they pursued efforts to do away with the settlement. And so was William Harrington, who is the U.S. government trustee monitoring Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy. So this SCOTUS decision is a win for the Biden administration. With that in mind, let's actually hear more about how this is a win and what this means as it pertains to the victims of the opioid crisis and the end of this settlement. They also entered into bankruptcy. And as part of a bankruptcy agreement, Purdue Pharma agreed to give up $4.something billion to go to treatment. But they also got a benefit in that agreement, which is that future claims, future lawsuits against them were exterminated, were extinguished in advance.

And part of the agreement that the bankruptcy court agreed to is, okay, you're going to give up all this money, but future people cannot sue you for this. And the Biden administration challenged that. And the Supreme Court has now agreed with the Biden administration. The Supreme Court has said, you cannot exterminate, extinguish future lawsuits. Now, when you look at the majority opinion here, it's a little surprising. You have obviously a lot of Supreme Court justices who are conservative, but you also have Katanji Brown Jackson joining in the majority opinion here. So Gorsuch, Thomas Alito, Barrett, along with Jackson, the one liberal justice in the majority decision have decided, no, the settlement isn't right, we don't agree with it, and we don't

think that the Sackler family should be able to. evade future lawsuits. And honestly, I personally do find it problematic that the Sackler family as part of that settlement, which has now been struck down, would be able to evade future settlements. However, now that this settlement has basically been dismantled by the Supreme Court, the victims of the opioid crisis that we're going to get some money as part of this settlement have to go back to the drawing board. Yeah, this one is really complicated, guys. It's not an easy case at all. That's why this is a very rare one that didn't go just on political ideology lines.

So the two other liberal justices ruled with two conservative justices including Kavanaugh. And Kavanaugh said, look, now these people who are going to get a lot of money aren't going to get it. And that's a real injustice for them. And there's validity to that too. So I'll tell you where I come out on in a second, but I want you to understand both sides. because Kavanaugh and the other two liberal justs and the conservative, they are saying, look, guys, now the number is going to be lower because the number was higher because they were getting rid of all of the claims against them. Now if they're not getting rid of all the

claims, they're going to save some of the money for future claims. And they're going to say this is a lower number of people that is going to get adjudicated over the long run. So very likely, they're going to get a lower number than they would have gotten before, okay? So for the people who are in that case, if, you know, if they want to bankrupt the Sackler's more, and that's their real concern, then they're happy about this decision. But if their real concern was getting more in this particular case, then they're not happy with this decision, okay? But at the same time, it's unfair for those who are pursuing future lawsuits against the

Sackler family, assuming that those lawsuits are with merit. Yeah, so that's what I'm getting to, Anna. So the other side of it is, now, wait a minute, how can you cut off their ability of other people to sue? How is that fair, right? And the reason that the Sackler family agreed to this and why they're bummed that it's being, this settlement is being taken away, even though they were going to give $6.6 billion, is because they have a lot more.

And so if you go through a bankruptcy proceeding, which is the alternative, they're going to They're going, all of their assets are going to be picked to the bone, right? And they've been hiding, stuffing money abroad this entire time, right? So they've, I'm sure they've already hidden away a gigantic number, right? But even for the stuff they haven't been able to hide away, they're worried that the bankruptcy courts are going to take that and distribute it to all of the people who have been hurt. Are you scared that the courts are going to take away your ill-gotten gains? Yeah.

And guys, think about it. If you do this kind of scam, well over 100,000 Americans are dead. But, you know, if the, even if the government got six billion back and you had made what, pick a number, eight billion to keep it low, I think it's way, way, way more than that. But even if you kept it, it's super low at eight, so you got away with two billion dollars. That's more than anybody needs. They could spend their whole family, three generations of their family can live like, and princesses for the rest of their lives, right?

So, you know, if you're the part of the criminal family that did this, you're thinking, yeah, I want to get away with this crime, who cares? Like, what if I'd done this crime and nobody ever caught me and I made $2 billion? That would be amazing, right? So that's why they like this settlement. So, but the bottom line for me is which way would I have ruled? I would have ruled with the, with the majority. I agree.

This is, the problem here is not mainly, hey, who should get what in terms of what is fair and just and how much should we take from the Sacklers? The answer to that is everything they have for what's happened, right? But the main thing is legally, you're taking away the rights of other people. You have no right to take the rights of. Agreed, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And I agreed that this was a difficult case, which is why it's, it's difficult. It's difficult to side one way or another, but I think ultimately the court's ruling here was the correct decision. I do not feel comfortable with the Sackler family being able to evade future lawsuits for the horrible, horrible acts that they committed, which destroyed entire cities, destroyed families, absolute disaster. Now, when it comes to the next case we're going to talk about, I feel very differently, and I am not in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling here.

So let's discuss. Everything you want to know about the Supreme Court can be learned from the decision they did release today and later from the decision they accidentally released today. You see, for a brief moment today, the court posted a copy of a decision. that appears set to allow emergency room doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in certain situations. They quickly took it down, and we're going to have more on that later. But the first decision, the one they actually meant to actually put up, and they read, the one they released on purpose. Well, how can I put this? It effectively legalized blatant public corruption again.

Chris Hayes is 100% correct in his interpretation of a recent Supreme Court ruling. that further weakens laws on government corruption and bribery. And it involves a case with a former mayor of a small town in Indiana who appeared to be engaging in a corruption scheme and was actually federally convicted of doing so. Now before I get to those details and before we get to some insane video on this, Jank, this is what the Supreme Court has been doing for decades, weakening corruption laws. They've done it in countless instances, not only just Citizens United, before that, and I wrote about this in Justices coming in Baladi and in Buckley v. Vallejo. So they just keep taking away more and more restrictions. So yeah, just go out, spend the money, spend the money, billions of dollars, who cares, right?

And there's the legalized corruption, which is campaign donations. And then there is this now, out and out bribery. In the latest set of cases, Governor McDonald and Virginia, the Enron case, this case, the Supreme Court saying, No, you could actually bribe them. You could actually just give them money and gifts. And depending on when you give it, we'll say that no, it was before, no, it was after, no, it was during. Nothing's ever corruption. So this is brazen.

This is just cash for a contract. But the timing, they're so concerned about the timing, Anna. So let's get to those details because I can't even believe that they passed down this ruling with a straight face. But at the center of that case was a former mayor of Portage. Indiana. His name is James Snyder. And as I mentioned earlier, a federal jury actually found him guilty of breaking federal bribery laws. Now Snyder was charged under a federal bribery law that makes it a crime for state and local officials to corruptly solicit or accept anything of value from any person intending to be influenced or rewarded for an official act. So federal

officials argued that the statute also applies to what's referred to as gratuities. And that's when the money is exchanged after the political favor is done, okay? Oh, that makes us so much better. All right. So here's Chris Hayes explaining the context of Snyder v. the United States. Case was called Snyder the United States and involves this man, James Snyder, the former Republican mayor of Portage, Indiana. As the Chicago Tribune reports, it was Christmastime, 2013 and James Snyder was in trouble. His mortgage business had tanked. The IRS was after him for a significant tax debt and on top of that he had holiday spending to account for. So Snyder

showed up unannounced to Great Lakes, Peterbilt, the local truck dealership he'd helped to win two lucrative city contracts. I need money. That's what I'm here for, the mayor told the owners. Days later, the dealership cut Snyder a check for $13,000 saying it was for consulting that was never fully performed. Snyder was indicted on federal corruption charges back in 2016, and after a lengthy back and forth and multiple trials, he was found guilty in 2021. He argues that $13,000 was just a fee for his consulting work, though what that consulting work is is a little unclear. What's more, it couldn't possibly be a bribe, and this is important, this is what he argued for the Supreme Court of the United States. It couldn't be a bribe, you see, because he received the money

after the contracts were allocated. Wow. Okay, so I mean, you know what this does, right? This further opens the floodgates for corruption among elected lawmakers, because who's to say that a lawmaker or a candidate running for office? You hit up, you know, a company that you want to get money from after the fact, hey, you know, if I win, no bid contract for your company, and, you know, I'm expecting on some funds after the fact and that's not breaking any laws because now the Supreme Court has set a precedent

indicating that if the bribe comes after, then it's okay. Totally okay. So guys, they don't even have to have the conversation ahead of time because once the Supreme Court makes this legal, which they now have, everybody's just gonna start doing it and it'll become a de facto way of bribing our officials. Right. Because it's now literally legal. So what'll happen is, and remember I remember why I tell you there's so many old politicians because they get good return on investment on them, the donors give them money and they know, oh, these guys deliver, they always deliver for us, and they always screw over the voters, and that's why they keep giving them money. So now they'll start giving them money after they're out of office, or maybe

right after they made the decision, it doesn't matter. They'll just say, oh, they're a consultant. And so they'll give them in the beginning, tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of dollars, right? And it'll become a thing, like, oh, once you, after the vote, they go collect their money, right? And so then the politicians know, when you rule for X, Y, or Z, you're going to get paid. So no one has to say a word. Okay, and by the way, there's already a version of this that exists, and that's why the Supreme Court ruled this way. It's for all the ex-politicians and the ex-generals.

That's super interesting. Get to that in a second. But also remember, guys, there's super rich donors that are paying for all the vacations, the homes, and all the gratuities for the Supreme Court justices. I'm sure that Supreme Court justices like Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, I mean, those two have been in the news recently for accepting lucrative gifts, luxurious gifts. 30,000 is a joke to them. I mean, especially for Thomas, right?

So remember, all of the Supreme Court justices who are conservative ruled in favor of tossing out this federal conviction for Snyder. Only the three liberal justices voted against tossing out the conservative. So what's amazing is that I actually believe the MAGA voters and the Republican voters that they hate corruption. I do believe them for a number of reasons. But their politicians and their Supreme Court justices are the worst of the worst. So that is, it's been this conservative Supreme Court that in every single instance has said, bribery is awesome. I mean, in this case, guys, you saw it with your own eyes there.

The guy comes in and says, give me the money. What part of that is going? I mean, he's like, I need money. I need money, give me the money. I mean, it's like, at this point, Cuba Gooding Jr. can walk into a politician's office or walk into a business office if he was a politician and go, show me the money. And the Supreme Court would be like, I don't see it. Nope, not a bribe.

What corruption? What corruption? So let's go to Chris Hayes explaining Brett Kavanaugh's reasoning here. He wrote the majority opinion. And then we're going to get to Kataji Brown Jackson, who wrote the dissenting opinion. Let's go. Let's watch. Today, they threw out Snyder's conviction.

Here's how Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it in his opinion. The question in this case is whether the law also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities. For example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos, or the like that may be given as a token appreciation after the official act. The answer is no. Thomas loves gratuities. Big fan of those gratuities. Big fan of those gratuities. He's such a funny guy.

Remember he used to say like, oh, I'm the kind of camper guide and good, you know, parks in the Walmart parking lot. Oh yeah. Loves to live in our, RVs in Walmart parking lots. That's his favorite thing to do. Totally.

Then we found out he's staying at the highest end resorts on the planet over and over and over again. I mean, how could Clarence Thomas and Alito say, oh, these are unacceptable gratuities, but when we take 10 times as much, 20 times as much, in the same exact way, it's not illegal.

So since they themselves take endless bribes, they have to say bribery is legal. Otherwise, they'd be criminals. True, at least they're not hypocrites. Yeah, but so that's a good spit on it, right? But guys, think about it. It's over. Like bribery's totally, utterly legal now,

not just campaign donations, but directly into their pockets because we have a criminal Supreme Court. But again, it reminds me of, you know, better call Saul, when you don't, when you don't need a criminal Supreme Court justice, but a criminal, you get it, right? Yep. So these guys are the problem and they do take bribes themselves. So one of the positive things that Biden managed to do in his otherwise embarrassing

presidency was nominated Supreme Court Justice, and that's, of course, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. And she wrote the dissenting opinion here. The two other liberal justices joined her in that dissenting opinion. And so you're about to hear how much she is disagreeing with this decision. Let's watch. Snyder's absurd and a textual reading of the statute is one only today's court could love, ignoring the plain text of Section 6.6. which, again, expressly targets officials who corruptly solicit, accept, or agree to accept payments, intending to be influenced or rewarded. The court concludes that the statute does not criminalize gratuities at all.

She then goes on to say, The court's reasoning elevates non-existent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog. The tail wagging the dog. I mean, like, at this point, when it comes to issues involving corruption among our elected lawmakers, what more can you do than laugh at the Supreme Court? Like, the Supreme Court historically, as we talked about in the very beginning of the story, has consistently ruled in favor of corruption.

And it's hilarious to me because we talk about this wonderful, democracy we live in, but what kind of democracy are we living in when corruption is literally baked into our system thanks to our Supreme Court? Yeah, and so look, in my book, and you can get it at t.t.com, slash justice, we'll put the link in the description box below. I explain how the Chamber of Commerce plotted to take over the Supreme Court. They did, how the Supreme Court then legalized bribery so that the Chamber of Commerce could bribe all the politicians and swing the country in favor of corporate rule.

So it's all laid out in Supreme Court cases in a memo where they explained what their plan was, and then they executed the plan. And once the Supreme Court made the campaign contributions infinite and allowed for dark money and all those things, then the corruption set it massively. So the reason they ruled this way is because almost all the politicians, and by the way, almost all the generals, after they're done working in office, will then go get paid by the people they were supposed to regulate. So like Eric Cantor, you to be a major Republican leader, and he was an enormous advocate of deregulating the banks and giving them tax cuts. And as soon as his term was over and he lost an election,

he went to Wall Street and got a giant check, millions of millions of dollars from the banks, who he had just helped with massive legislation. That's why the Supreme Court's like, oh, there's 13,000 for this knucklehead. That's nothing compared to what all of our friends are doing in Washington, nonstop, and it's both Republicans and Democrats, the minute they're done, they go and get cash in, all the bribes that they got from the industry. Remember Dick Cheney, you got a $34 million golden parachute from Halliburton, starts the war in Iraq, and then all of a sudden, Halliburton gets no bid contracts. What part of that is free market?

That's the exact opposite of a free market, and he shovels billions of dollars for a job well done, he's rich, they're rich, we all get screwed. And finally, the generals. that 80% of the four star generals, after they retire from the defense department to Pentagon, the military, go and work for defense contractors and cash in for millions of dollars? Gratuity is not gratuitous. 80%. You think they don't know that when they're shoveling taxpayer money in a completely unaccountable way to their future employers who are going to give them millions of dollars? Just the tip. That's all it is.

gratuities. That's all, yeah. And by the way, when workers actually ask for higher minimum wage for people who normally get gratuities, they go, no, you guys are getting paid too much and you're driving up inflation. We won't allow it. And then they go get checks from the National Restaurant Association. Washington is a joke. Almost everyone there is completely and utterly corrupt.

When we come back from the break, we'll talk about a huge story out of Oakland. their mayor was raided. Now, is she a victim of wealthy billionaires who are targeting her or is she shady as hell? You're gonna have to come back to find out. We'll be right back.