The Young Turks - Crazy vs. Crazy

Episode Date: October 11, 2021

Steve Scalise is so afraid of Donald Trump that he's promoting the 2020 election was stolen without ever fully saying it. Senator Kyrsten Sinema has reportedly proposed cutting $100 billion in climate provisions from the reconciliation package. Former Trump attorney Lin Wood called Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene a “communist.” Ohio Police launched an investigation after bodycam footage showed a disabled man being pulled from a car by officers. Hosts: John Iadarola, Cenk Uygur Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. I'm all the Young Turks, J.K. Oh, all of you guys. And Anna Casparean, in a way, She is on John's shirt. She is.

I wanted to make sure that she was here, at least in spirit or at least in shirt. This is available shop TYT. How cool is that? How cool is that? Yeah, that's our anti-religion rant there that is memorialized on that shirt, shoptwit.com. Okay, so a big show ahead for you guys. We have one of the most hilarious Q&on cat fights you've ever seen in your life. If you thought QAnon turning on Mike Flynn was good, you were A, correct, and B, just apparently tasting the entree.

Any sentence using the word taste in that context is weird. Nonetheless, the more you say the word taste, where it gets. But an even bigger conservative fight in the insane right-wing circles today, and Trump, of course, joins the fray as well. All right, so lots to get to. John I don't know how's the news. I do have the news, or at least a fraction of it. Let's talk about it. What does Kirsten-Sidema want in the reconciliation bill?

Everyone's still just so excited to find out, and we thought we had gotten a little bit closer to an answer just a few days ago when it was reported that she wanted to cut $100 billion from the reconciliation bill, specifically targeting climate funds, and specifically some climate funds. intended to provide what's called climate resiliency to communities that are going to be more greatly affected by the changing climate. So there, at long last months into this, this is what she wants, or does she? Because within like 48 hours, they pretended that they

didn't. A member of her comms team tweeted, neither Senator Cinema, nor our office have requested or demanded such cuts, nor have we ever heard of any such demands. Once again, the York Times relies on anonymous sources and gets it flat wrong, do better. To his credit, he didn't refer to them as the fake news. But anyway, so Jank, really, we've got a lot of things that we're going to focus on here, but at least it felt like finally she wanted to cut something. We know that if you cut like a trillion, two trillion dollars out of this, that's going to be cut. They're not denying that they want to make those cuts or that climate funds might get caught in the, you know, obstructionist crossfire, they just want to pretend that they're not specifically

calling for this to be cut. But before, like, before we really get into evaluating that, do you even believe what they're saying? Why would we believe what she or a member of her comms team at this point are actually saying about any of the specifics of the negotiations? No, generally with any policy, especially corporate-backed politicians, I don't believe a word they say. In law, there's this thing called a rebuttable presumption.

It's not hard to understand. And in this, in the case of politicians, there's a rebuttable presumption that they're lying. It can be rebutted. But my presumption is they're not telling the truth. On the other hand, have I seen the New York Times get stories wrong? Oh, yeah. Okay, but here's what's important. Somebody's floating this idea.

Somebody leaked it to the New York Times fool while knowing that what was going to happen. It could be her team. It could be other Democrats. But somebody put their toe in the water and go, what have we got $100 billion from climate change? And when they got back was no, right? Certainly from the left and for most Democrats, and that's why you see Cinema's office backpedaling here. Did we put our toe in the water? No, no, no, our foot's hurt.

That's why we went to Arizona. So, again, to me, it doesn't really much matter if it's them or not. The only way that it would, John, is, like, am I shocked and chagrin to find out she might not be fighting climate change? Former Green Party member. Yeah. Of course I'm not surprised by that. No, hence, since my expectations were already at rock bottom, I agree with you. The fact that she put out any proposal would have been good news, not bad news. And when you look at the $100 billion, they were looking to cut. I thought, yeah, they're going to cut some of this stuff, John. They are, right? And so to me, the most damaging of the cuts was the recharging stations. Yeah, I'm going to give us a full rundown of some of what they're, whether they're specific. calling for it to be cut. They're calling for a huge chunk of the money to be cut, and this is what's going to be in that. So again, the fact that they're not specifically

calling for it is not only needlessly secretive, it's also incredibly cowardly because they do want this to be cut, whether they'll admit to it or not. On the New York Times, maybe one reason they have to use, you know, an anonymous source and just one is she's a US senator who refuses to let us know anything of what she's advocating for or against. And I think a nice little example of that is she didn't even rebut their reporting. Someone on her team did. Even this, when they're finally engaging, she can't be a part of that. Probably because, as we'll soon find out, she was busy, you know, on that old dusty trail training for the Boston Marathon.

But let's talk about what could end up getting cut. Before we return to the protests against her, the substance of what she is aiming to do seemingly is cutting things like this. So, Democrats are expected to protect a proposed $150 billion clean electricity program, as well as about $300 billion in tax incentives for wind and solar power and electric vehicles. However, they may slash, and when they say this, they mean they have sources that are telling them that this is being planned. Up to another $200 billion in other climate programs as part of an effort to win over cinema and mansion. And again, you don't have to do that unless that's what they're pushing for, whether they admit to it or not. Now, party leaders have previously promised to safeguard two significant climate change programs costing $450 billion in total.

The Clean Electric Program, which incentivizes electric utilities to use wind, solar, and nuclear, and a general climate package of tax incentives meant to encourage the use of clean energy. But there are several other climate-focused programs that could theoretically be cut in order to shrink the bill, things like these provisions aimed at helping poor people adapt to the effects of climate change, as well as a $30 billion green bank that would fund construction of community solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations. I assume that's part of what you were referring to earlier. No, there's another provision that specifically deals with the electric vehicle charging stations. The green bank, I think, is awesome and necessary.

It is one of those things that I think might be able to stand on its own and is almost inevitable at some point. I'm being way too hopeful okay but we guys there's an important part of this which is that we've got to get just past like this rolling fascist coup that the Republicans are doing because we got if we can get that out of the way then we have a battle between us and corporate rule and and that's a battle we are definitely going to win in the long run because the younger voters are so overwhelmingly on our side that they stand almost no chance. So that's why when I see Green Bank, I think, I know everybody's gonna think it's way too optimistic, but that's gonna happen, right? So now, mind you guys, this is all the context

of if you have to cut something, to the point that John is making, well, wait, if cinema and mansion are denying this, or in this case cinema specifically, do you agree? If you agree, The other 48 senators agree, the House agrees, we're going to have a deal right now. So don't tell us you agree when you obviously don't, otherwise we'd have a deal. Should we, is it too much to ask that in America, you could have someone ask a senator, do you want the Green Bank for $30 billion or not? But that is too much. You can't get that.

She doesn't go on TV, so she's not being asked by those reporters. You go up to her in the streets, she won't answer questions, whether you're an activist for different groups. Lauren Windsor is trying to talk to her. You do not get to know whether she supports the Green Bank. At that price, at a smaller price, you don't get to know. Four months. And it might be cut, and it might be because of her, but you don't get to find out if it was because of her. You don't get to find out about any of this.

If it ends up being 2.7 trillion or 2.1 trillion or 1.6 trillion, that is a massive difference. that will change the lives of tens of millions of Americans in a variety of ways, some of which we can describe, others we can't, and you do not get to find out what effects she had over that. Yeah, that's absurd. Yeah, I have at least one more thing to say here, which is that I thought the progressives really had a genius idea here, and it's simple. They said, why don't we not cut anything?

Now you might think, boy, what a genius idea. Why don't we just give you everything? I thought that. No, no, no, no. There's, of course, a second part to it, which is, But we'll make it shorter. Instead of a 10-year window, we'll make the bill a five-year window. Now, that's degrees some, by the way, the number is negotiable.

It could be seven years, et cetera, right? Now, there's some degree of risk there because what if five years later? They say, okay, we're not renewing it. And then you've really cost yourself half of it. My God, you've cost yourself half of all of these proposals. Why is that clever, though? Now, now that's clever because both the progressives and the conservative Democrats all know that once you have these things, you'll like them. So now get a load of the argument that the mansions and the cinemas of the world have to make.

Well, we don't agree to that because if people get this, they'll obviously love it. And so then they'll want another five years and then another 10 years, et cetera. Then maybe in a democracy you should give them the thing that they love and that you know. they love. And by the way, why aren't you doing it in the first place if you know and are positive and are in the middle of negotiations, assisting that it can't be that we give them this stuff because they will love it so much, right? Oh, it's because you have your corporate donors who say, we know Americans will love it and we don't love it. So you are not to serve your voters. And by the way, these have overwhelming majorities support in

in Arizona and in West Virginia, you are to serve us, your donors instead. And that is, that's not hyperbole, that is exactly the conversation happening in Washington right now. Yeah, yeah. And meanwhile, we get to sit here and wonder behind closed doors. You have $30 billion for a civilian climate core. Hey, how about $10 billion to incentivize rural electric cooperatives to switch from coal to wind and solar?

I just want to know where mansion stands on the program that gets. gets someone to turn their back on coal. I wonder, he doesn't have any incentive either way. Yeah, I was just going to say, John. It's absurd that you can own a coal company, and you get to decide, should we use coal or no longer? See, I wonder. See, that's the one that Mention is going to object to the most. Why?

Because it takes away his excuses, because his excuse is, oh, I am worried about coal jobs. But this bill will allow you to keep those jobs and actually have higher. paying solar jobs and the government will finance that transition, that bridge to that, in which case the workers of West Virginia are definitely not hurt. In fact, they are helped. So wait, why does Joe Manchin need an excuse? Because he makes money from coal. So he needs to pretend that he is concerned about jobs when he can't pretend that anymore,

then he's out in the open and he has to admit, which he never will. And there's no reporters that will ask him at the mainstream media. But he would have to admit, oh, I was just kidding. My voters love it. It would bring more jobs to West Virginia. I'm just greedy. And I don't want to do it because it affects my personal interest, both from my donors and because I own a coal company.

Okay, then I have a controversial idea. I'd like to propose $1 billion. Half of it, $500 million will go to setting up a massive company to produce solar panels and wind turbines and stuff, and we give it to Joe Mansion. Another $500 million will be set up to buy a massive amount of land in Napa Valley and we'll give it to Kirsten

Cinema and she'll get to like stomp on grapes all day long. If it's one billion to get the trillions we need, they get all the money they can ever imagine. That's basically what we're doing here. It is about their financial interests. Why not just make it more explicit?

Buy him a solar plant and let him break in the cash and let her live out her dream of being a wine empress. Yeah, I mean honestly the bribery is so brazen now. If the government itself did it, it might be more efficient. Obviously, we wouldn't be. Yeah, why have the middle then? As a principal, right? But by the way, I'm not akin around. Like, at some point a progressive's

going to come around who's wealthy and say, you know what, I'm just going to spend my money. And so, hey, cinema mansion, you guys are servants, right? So instead of serving coal interests and Exxon Mobil, et cetera, here, I'll pay you more. Now you serve me. I wish. And they would do that deal in second. And you serve, man, my wishes are the bushes of the American people. Now go to renewable energy. Yeah. I swear to you, they would do it in a flat second.

And bribery is legal in America. So, hey, if there's wealthy progressives out there, you should go actively legally bribe them. I'm not kidding. That would be great. They say they're for sale. They go and cut checks after every vote. And they're like, $2,800, give me, give me, precious. You have any idea how easily you could buy them?

Just do it and be done with it. And by the way, people complain and go, oh my God, that's outrageous, money in politics. Exactly, good. Then pass an amendment to get money out of politics. Oh, you don't want to? They shut up. Yeah, that's a great one. Okay, well, we don't have those billionaires.

So this is what we do have. Activists had been hounding Kirsten cinema everywhere she goes. And I wish that the only place they had to hound her would be D.C. if that was the only place she was going, but instead she's everywhere. She's doing different jobs. She has hobbies. Apparently her medical procedure for her foot went really well, because I swear to God, apparently earlier today she ran a marathon. And so a group of 15 different national organizations, the Green New Deal Network, announced earlier that they were going to follow her to the Boston Marathon, and they were going to hold up signs like Senator's Cinema, pass the full deal.

Senator Cinema, stop running, start listening. Senator Cinema, those feet work pretty well, don't they? I made up that last one. And they have apparently done that. You can see a photo in this tweet from the Arizona Working Families Party. I found spreading this, but I don't know if we have access to it. I hope that we do, but they were waiting along the side of the route to hold up signs for her. I'm sure that she didn't engage with them.

I hope that at least she saw them. But yeah, it just left me wondering, like, she's got this job teaching courses. She's taking an internship at a winery. She's running a marathon. I always thought that she had her mind towards when she got to retire. I feel like she has retired. She's just living her best life. Damn, the whole Senate thing.

Yeah, it must be nice to have several different jobs. Do whatever you want. You know, we're like, oh, the people's representative. That's a good one. An internship at a winery? Why does she want to meet Pete Buttigieg? That's just fun. Like what, like what's going?

That's insane. She's a United States senator. Okay. So, but if you put it in a B-rate movie that her excuse for going home to Arizona, which was, of course, as we explained you, there was a giant fundraiser for her. So she was going to collect donor checks. But she made the excuse that she had a foot problem. And then she turns around days later, and you put it in a movie, that she runs a marathon.

Everyone who read that script would say, come on, that's over the top. Yeah. That's kind of me, that's ridiculous. No one would believe it. This is, even if it's a comedy, it's too much to say, so she's like, oh, no, it's not the donors. I got to go, oh, my phone, oh, my phone, let's run a marathon. Come on, it's absurd. And mainstream media is still calling her an accountant.

She lays her like focus on the spreadsheets. she cares so much about getting it right and she's so meticulous with the math I mean she probably doing math while she was running the marathon she's like gonna carry the seven right and when they were doing the bird I thought they were when they said

they were going to bird dog her for the marathon I was like this is next level bird dogging okay this is a known political phenomenon if you don't know the term just means to follow someone around and ask them questions okay and so I was like are they going to run next to her and they're going to take shifts

like I was like as kind of It's kind of badass, right? It's a bit much, but it's like, wow, that's dedication, right? Yeah. And you'd get, you know, a bunch of hours with her by the time. But no, they were just holding up signs. And so part of the reason I thought that they were going to run with her the whole time was because conservatives started flipping out.

They're like, how dare they do this to this beloved Democratic senator? Wait, what? Like, because she's a Republican. She serves corporate donors just like 100% of the Republican. percent of the Republican Party. So now Republicans are rushing to her defense, not just politicians. Like conservative media is like, they better leave our cinema alone. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and this makes sense for her strategy. All of these Republicans like her now, and so in the future they'll probably support her. No, they don't care. They're still going to

choose a Republican over you, you dummy. But anyway, you are right that they are sticking up for her. I think actually we have Laura Ingram on this. sleeps. That's the focus of tonight's angle. The fact is, there is no satisfying the insane left that today's Democrat Party spawned and projects. There's no point in anyone trying to placate them or even paying attention to them, because there will always come a day when you'll fall short of their constantly moving woke gold posts. Now, Christian Cinema should know this by now. It doesn't matter that she's at first, that she wears fun outfits or or that she voted to impeach Trump twice.

That's not enough. Now that she's standing in the way of Democrats passing their multi-trillion dollar plan to fundamentally remake of this country, well, she's leftist enemy number one. She was shocked to find out that it wasn't enough that she wears fun outfits. Yeah, no, it's not enough.

I don't think we ever said it would be enough, actually. Why would that, why would that be enough? No, but the right wing is hilarious. The only problem is that people don't realize that their viewers don't realize they're hilarious, that they're watching a comedy, they really believe it. And now you can't even satisfy the left with fun outfits. Well, what are we gonna try next? Now you're gonna make it straight Starbucks every day.

They believe it is crazy, crazy stuff. All right, look, but my favorite part of that is the mob never sleeps. So let me get this right. Activists who are going to have policy discussions with her. You've seen the videos, we showed some of the videos. On the airport, in the airplane they're talking about immigration and pathway to citizenship and very specific policy discussions at the airport they're asking about the infrastructure bill.

That's apparently a mob. People breaking in to any building, let alone the Capitol, smashing the doors, the windows, hurting, and by the way, killing cops on their way in while they're chanting about executing people is not a mob. Tourists. Those are just tourists slash Antifa. Right? Slash patriots now, right? Depending on it. Slash patriots. But a mob of people worried about policy, we can't have it.

They've got to go to sleep. We already have fun outfits. These people will not be appeased. Yeah, yeah. Does anyone figure out exactly why Ashley Babb, a great patriot, was hanging out with so much Antifa? Nobody's been able to explain that yet. But anyway, and we'll be talking about that more later. Yeah, and also, look, a lot of what she said was totally nonsensical. the idea that we have these ever-changing goalposts. This is like they did COVID aid and then this.

This is all we've had. What are the goalposts changing? We've cut the figure we're asking for so much. The goalpost has been moving, but in the wrong direction. But beyond just that, the propaganda, I guess it is just more propaganda, but she can't even fundamentally understand what's happening politically. She said the Democratic Party spawned this far left.

They hate every bit of this left. How could she not see that? Like, we understand, like, Mitch McConnell sucks, and the QAnon mob sucks. I don't think that Mitch McConnell spawned it. He may occasionally try to harness it, but we get that these are different things. Like, how can you fundamentally look out, look out at the country, the 2020 primary, the 2016 Democratic Democratic Democratic, primary and not understand how oppositional these leftists and democratic leadership are. Yeah, see, number one, we're not either as dense as Laura Ingraham or as deceptive as her.

Because she, like, for example, we understand that the Trump supporters are not at all like Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell is a corporate Republican. He serves as corporate donors. The populist Republicans that look up to Trump don't even like big business. they have different problems. And we oppose both of them, but for different reasons. Because one is like, oh, the brown people are the real problem. Oye, right? And the other one's like, no, you're the real problem.

Corporations are the answer. They also attack immigrants a lot, too, but I don't think they mean it as much. No, they don't mean it at all. They love the low-wage immigrant workers, the Mitch McConnell's and the corporations of the world. And we understand that there are corporate Democrats and then the real left. And these are not hard concepts. So does Laura Ingram not understand that in which case she's like painfully ignorant about anything happening in politics or does she know that, but she actively lies to you anyway. Yeah, why not both?

Anyway, Curse's Cinema, you have at least one defender. Oh, also Bill Maher, so she's doing a good job. Anyway, that's gonna be the first segment for us. When we come back, the big lies still alive, stay tuned to find out who's pushing it after this. Oh, excuse me, I was drinking my too strong coffee there. All right, it's actually water. All right, Jake and John with you guys, back on TYT, a lot more news. Okay, let's do it.

There was a time when Chris Wallace said he would not put people on his show who supported the big lie, who would not accept that the election had not been stolen. He recently announced that considering that basically all of Republican leadership is still perpetuating that lie, he would have to modify that rule a bit. But he said, I'll bring him on, but I am going to press them hard. And so we have the first test of that. Steve Scalise, House Minority Whip, was on Fox News on Sunday, asked about the 2020 election. Let's see how it went.

Specifically making this charge that the election was stolen, do you think that that hurts, undermines American democracy? Well, Chris, I've been very clear from the beginning. If you look at a number of states, they didn't follow their state-passed laws that governed the election for president. That is what the United States Constitution says. They don't say that the states determine what the rules are. They say the state legislatures determine the rules. But the state's all certified. They didn't follow those state legislative rules.

The state's all certified. But they didn't follow those legislative rules. Right. But at the end of the day, are we going to follow what the Constitution says or not? I hope we get back to what the Constitution says. But clearly in a number of states, they didn't follow those legislatively. So you think deal- Okay, so this morning I was very confused about this, that he kept switching between talking about state rules that were allegedly not followed,

even though Chris Wallace points out the state certified it according to their rules. So that's state rules. And when are we going to get back to following the Constitution, which of course is wholly separate from the state rules? So, Jank, I'm honestly not sure exactly what he's saying. I'm not sure that he knows what he's saying. He just knows that he has to project the idea that the election was stolen without saying it explicitly, because that might look bad to some Republicans, but he has to reassure the base. Yeah, so look, we can break down his silly excuses, but you guys have heard it a thousand times

before this whole, they lost 60 cases in a row, they have no evidence at all that the election was stolen, but they don't want to tell their voters that because their voters are are brainwashed and on the edge of insanity at this point. So let's break down instead the dynamic of that statement. So number one, he wants to be able to preserve his ability to say later, no, I didn't say it was stolen. I never said it on TV, okay? And I never officially said it.

I never said the sentence the election was stolen because he's a politician. So he wants to say, well, I don't know which way it's going to go. And if Trump is run out of the Republican Party or national politics later, and then it becomes like a bad thing to have supported an insurrection against our democracy. And by the way, insurrection, people say about January 6th, sure, but much more so, Trump in the White House talking about martial law and using the military and using the Justice Department and everyone's threatening to quit because that would be a political or military coup. That was an actual insurrection. So he wants plausible deniability on supporting that. But he cannot say that it didn't happen because he would be ripped as shreds in a primary in the Republican Party if he said that Joe Biden won. Acknowledging reality in a major political party in America now, the most powerful nation on Earth, just acknowledging reality will get you driven from the party.

And tart and feathered, they'll chase you with sometimes literal tiki torches. Okay, and so he that's why you see that politician weasel there like try to get out of that tight spot with state rights, constitution, word salad, okay, and let me give it some sort of plausible deniability on both sides, but there's one last element of it. That's why Trump is popular because that's how politicians talk, the way Steve Scalise did, you know, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and I'm not going to answer your question and did I please both sides, right? Whereas Trump goes in and goes, yeah, they stole the election, they're robbers. I'm the cop who's going to stop it. Me good, they're evil, they bad, they're Satan, right? People go, oh, I like that. Especially Republican voters. They're like, that is really simple.

My simple mind understands that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But kidding aside and insults aside, they get the sense that it's authentic. It isn't actually, he's authentically stupid, Trump is, but he's not saying things that are true. but it rings authentic because he's not saying it like a political weasel. Whereas when they hear Scalise, they go, I don't know what side he's on. He sounds like a weasel. Yeah.

And that's true. Yeah, most of them have become very good at not saying something the base will hate, whether it's on the election or on vaccines. You have Scalise with the election. You have Tucker Carlson, never saying the vaccine will kill you, don't take the vaccine, but trying to reassure his base continually that they shouldn't. that there's something suspicious about it. And so they like that because it's trying not to offend them.

But I agree they're going to like the one who just goes full crazy and tells them exactly what it is that they want to hear. Well, I think what would work, John, is if somebody tried being authentic without lying. Yeah. Wouldn't that be amazing? Yeah. Well, if they were like, hey, you know what? Actually, you should get health care.

Every other developed nation has it. We don't. And sometimes your family members die because of it. I feel like there's a candidate that did that. Yeah, there was actually two candidates. One ran for Congress. Yeah. And the other one, the right for president.

They kind of worked together. And people loved them until the mainstream media came in and said they were going to execute people in Central Park. Oh my God. And it was going to cost so much money that we couldn't afford wars anymore. Yeah, yeah. If you don't like brown shirts, wait until you see the digital brown shirts. Anyway, we have a little bit more of Steve Scalise.

Let's see if Chris Wallace can get any. like a definitive statement out of him? So you think the election was stolen? What I said is there are states that didn't follow their legislatively set rules. That's what the United States Constitution says. And I think there are a lot of people that want us to get back to what the Constitution says. We should be doing, not just with elections, with a lot of other things too. And then there are some people that want to just ignore what the Constitution says and do their own thing.

You know, that's been a debate that's been going on in this country for a long time. Why don't we just get back to the Constitution? You wouldn't have that problem. And there certainly can happen, but there are people out there. There was a rally for President Trump yesterday, and a number of people said, Joe Biden is not my president. Donald Trump is my president. I guess the question is, do you think the election, last time, I promise,

do you think the election was stolen or not? I understand you think there were irregularities and things that need to be fixed. Do you think the election was stolen? And it's not just irregular. It's states that did not follow the law. laws set which the Constitution says they're supposed to follow. When you see states like Georgia cleaning up some of the mess and people calling that Jim Crow law, that's a flat out lie.

I think most people need to stand up against that sort of thing. All right. Again, what specific state laws does the Constitution mandate for state level control of the elections? I don't know because he won't say. And while Chris Wallace ostensibly is grilling a member of Republican leadership, He's doing so in like the softest hands way. He's saying, do you believe, rather than we're nine months into Biden's term.

You guys have had dozens of court cases. You've had audits. None of it has shown anything of what you're saying. Why do you persist in trying to make people suspicious of the outcome? It should not all be about whether he believes. You already know what he's going to say. And he keeps appealing to the Constitution. We should get back to the Constitution.

Chris Wallace never says what specifically in the Constitution. Constitution ain't long. It's not Atlas shrugged. Point to it. What in the Constitution specifically are we supposed to be doing? But he lets him just wriggle like an eel and not say anything. And so it seems like he's being hard on him. But Steve Scalice never felt any real pressure there.

No. Although the conservative viewers will probably see that and go, he didn't say that it was stolen. I hate him. So, so there's a little bit of silver lining there. But the last thing on this is, you know, he said constitution repeatedly, because that's his talking point. As John explained, he never clarified what in the Constitution he's talking about, because

this is a talking point. But we talk about upholding the Constitution all the time. So if you're a neutral observative American politics, you might say, well, the right wing says they are in favor of the Constitution, left wing says they're in favor of it. How am I supposed to tell? Well, here's one way you could tell, you could read it. And so facts matter, and there is a right and wrong. So the right wing thought, led by Donald Trump, that Mike Pence, the vice president,

could come during a fish, like a ceremonial declaration, a reading of what the states have already decided based on their votes, and he could just not read it and declare Trump the president. The vice president has unilateral authority to wipe away the entire election. Okay, well, you look in the constitution and you tell me if that exists anywhere in there. I can tell you ahead of time, it doesn't. So I say they're goddamn liars. They say, ah, Constitution, Constitution, I'm not going to tell you where it is.

But Constitution, the vice president has gone like authority. Okay, well, somebody's right and somebody's wrong. You don't have to trust us. You can just read the Constitution. Find it for me, anyone, anyone at all, right? But they say this, I mean, and that's why on January 6th, the people who broke into the Capitol were chanting, hang Mike Pence. because he would not say that Trump

became magically president. By the way, you all know I'm right because no right winger would tell you right now, oh, that's okay, we don't have to have 20-24 election. Kamala Harris decides who the next president is. She's the vice president. So it's over.

She could just make a unilateral decision either way. We have to get some Republicans on that have tried to make that case and you have to put that to them because no reporter is going to do that. But you have to throw it in the face. By the way, look at what John said, and you all know it's true.

If whether you're right wing or left wing or anywhere in the middle, Isn't it so sad that we don't have a single national reporter who would ask the most obvious question? If Pence can overturn the election, can Kamala Harris? They're both vice president. You guys say it's in the Constitution. Tell us where it is in the Constitution. Then great.

Kamala Harris has way more power than we imagine. It's a simple question. Yeah. Well, by the way, it would offend Republicans. It would affect, who cares you're a reporter? Nope. A reporter means just having access to power and their serving power. That's true.

Yeah, and by the way, that's like the most crystallized specific example. But, you know, if you are a Republican electorate that in a state votes for the Republican candidate in 2024, you better hope that there's not a Democratic governor or Democratic legislature because they can just send whoever they want. They don't have to send the actual electors that were voted for. Apparently, that's what we're finding out. Nobody actually believes this. Yeah. All you have to do is declare that there was fraud.

Go to court 60 times and lose every case. Lose every case. It doesn't matter. You just say, Kamala Harris, governor, Democratic governor, we just declare our. ourselves kings. That's what Trump wanted to do, and these guys are dare to talk about the Constitution, which they actually, Scalise has read the Constitution, and he despises it. He wants to turn this into a tyrannical authoritarian government so that the democracy we actually are. Yeah, no, I can't wait. If somehow Tucker Carlson beats Bernie Sanders in 2024,

we're just going to throw it back to Bernie. That's what we get to do. Anyway, I'm just joking. Anyway, we're going to take a break. We come back. We have a duel of Titans. Wood, Marjorie Greene, who is going to be King Clown? We'll find out after this. All right, back on TYT, Jank and John with you guys. We got more crazy news. Oh, oh, it's crazy. Okay, let's jump into some crazy. Marjorie Green and Lynn Wood have two things in common. They both love Trump and they both love grift. And that means that at some point, they're going to have to duel each other for who is more supportive of this whole Trumpian thing. I want to show you a video. This is Lynn Wood attacking Marjorie Green for, I kid you not, being a communist.

In my opinion, Marjorie Taylor Green is a communist. If Marjorie Taylor Green running around saying impeach Biden, that says that Biden won. He didn't. And you would never impeach him with a communist Congress. It's a waste of time. It's all show. come at you as a patriot. Be careful. That's a good warning, but it seemingly applies as much to him as to her. His audience probably won't pick up on that. But anyway, he, look, he's out there. He's trying to get people to give him money. He's trying to find right-wing causes to attach himself to. She is a massive supporter of President Trump. Linwood would say that he is too. So why wouldn't they fight eventually? She, in trying to remove Biden,

from office is proving that she's a traitor to Trump. Also, she's a communist, although he never explains in that video exactly why that is. They never bother explaining. I mean, later we're gonna show you Charlie Kirk saying that Chuck Schumer and corporate Democrats are trying to take away private property. They have so much of it. How? Why? Like, they're the defenders of wealth in this country. That is a correct criticism.

criticism saying they're trying to take away private property. Marjor and Taylor Green is Wackadoodle and there's a thousand critiques you're going to have of her. Being communist ain't one of them. Partly because she doesn't even understand it. We've shared you other clips where she's no idea what socialism is, communism is, she has no idea where capitalism is. And so maybe he could have put together some convoluted logic like she thinks the government helping people is a good thing. And she calls that capitalism when actually socialist, right? And you could have gone in that direction, but he's like, no, if you want to impeach Biden, that means you're a communist. What? Okay, they're not even trying to make sense anymore because

they don't have to. Their audience has given them carte blanche. Logic not required. Facts not required. You never showed one piece of evidence of the election was stolen. We all believed you anyway. Yeah. I mean, Lynn Wood sometimes refers to himself as Jesus, Moses, et cetera. Did they require proof of that? No. I assure you they didn't. Okay. So, but I love this fight. So Marjorie Day Taylor Green is going to join the fight here. Yes, it goes back and forth in some weird ways. So what is his actual beef with her? Well, acknowledging that Biden won, even though she totally doesn't do that. But also, for weeks, Lynn Wood, who has over 8,000, thousand followers on his telegram channel, Jesus, has been complaining about what he perceives

as Green's lack of effort to force a forensic audit in Georgia, similar to the one that has just concluded in Arizona. So he wants an audit like they had with the Cyber Ninjas or whatever. So there's a few issues with that. One, it showed that the election hadn't been stolen, but of course they're not going to acknowledge that. Two, what part would Marjorie Green have in getting the Georgia state government to do a forensic audit of the results? She's a congresswoman with the federal government. She has nothing to do with that. And third, she was elected in that election.

Now maybe now he would do the thing I'm about to say, but no one on their side who says that the Georgia elections stole the result for Biden. It was not a reliable election, it was stolen. None of them say, thus she's not a real congresswoman, even though she was elected in the same election. So even just pragmatically, Why would she audit the results of an election that gave her the position in your mind to audit the results, even though she can't because she is not a, she's not serving in Georgia state government?

None of it makes any sense. Yeah. But it's enough to label her a communist, of course. But so let me tell you why they're doing it, and then we'll get to her attacks on him, because this is a super fun cat fight. So it's a cycle of regrifting. So it happens on almost every first. front because the ultimate grifter has to prove to everyone that they are the only one who's looking out for them.

So that means they not only have to attack the other side, but eventually they, by the nature of their grift, they must attack their own. To grow. Well, one to grow because, hey, you gotta pick a fight with someone bigger or more powerful to get attention, and if you're online, because the algorithm forces you to, because you want to get into their trauma and all that, you use the titles, thumbnails. If they're doing videos, it gets into their videos, et cetera. In this case, it's mainly the titles and thumbnails, etc. And it probably applies to the telegram algorithm and the Twitter algorithm and

et cetera, as much as it does to the YouTube and Facebooks. So there's like the mechanics of why they do it. And then there's the overall idea. But then what other part of it that's important is they have to convince everyone, they are the only true fill in the blank. The only true conservative, the only true Trump supporter, the only true steal the election or whatever the hell of the thing is. Pro-Trump fascist. Right, exactly. And then on the left, of course, is a guy who does that, right?

I'm the only true progressive, and that's how I prove it by attacking all other progressives. Right. Klippenstein. Yeah. Yeah, it's definitely kidding. That guy's an ass. Yeah. So, or Bernie Sanders, either way.

Mm-hmm. So, and because it's the nature of the grift, because if you are giving to his, you are giving to Amy Goodman, well, then you're not giving to Jimmy Door. Oh, did I say, I didn't anybody, it could have been anyone. I do think it's Canton, but whatever. Okay, and so that's why you'll say Amy Goodman's CIA. I mean, I didn't even know that was the thing. Okay, I forget if she's a CIA.

I think she's 004, actually. Yeah, it could be. It's an MI thing, yeah. She's CIA adjacent. She's just doing CIA talking points. Amy Goodman? Okay. No.

Okay, all right. That's my point. It's insanity. It's to get the folks who are most angry and most detached from logic and facts. In this case, on the right wing, you have a target-rich environment. On the left, it's a sliver. On the right way, it is the majority of the party, right? So they're trying to say, don't give money to Marjorie Taylor Green.

Don't support her. She's raised more money than anyone in Congress, right? Yes, yeah. Lynn Wood is saying, give me the money. And that's why they get money next. That's true. Right? And you'll see how that plays out.

Come be my supporter, give me money, follow me on telegram, et cetera. That's why he has to attack Marjorie Taylor Green and she has to attack back. Yeah, he says you can't trust her with your money. She says the same. I find both of them very persuasive. Anyway, so she has a multi-prong attack. So she says this first. She tweeted, he lifts up his Bible high and lies and lies and lies.

He's not one of us. And he used a child being attacked by Marxist BLM. Read all the way to the end. So it's a thing about how he used Kyle Rittenhouse. So she's referring to him as a child. He's a multi-murderer, but I guess he's a child. In this particular case, here's the thing. she's totally right. He did use Kyle Rittenhouse, but that, like, you're using it too.

You're using it as a sign of how pure you are that you want to defend him against Marxist BLM or whatever. And she also tied it in with January 6th. She said, and you have to ask yourself, if Lynn Wood has fought so hard against the election like he claims, even encouraging people to go to the Capitol on J6, why isn't he a target of the J6 witch hunt? The J6 committee is only focused on Trump's biggest defenders. not Lynn Wood. And I love that because look, the takeaway for a Trump fan from that is Lynn Wood isn't supportive enough

of Trump who secretly won the election. But look at what she has to do inside of it. For someone as dim as her, it's actually pretty sophisticated. She says Lynn Wood even encouraged people to go to the Capitol, something she will never

say that she did because she doesn't want to be implicated in January 6th. but she definitely wants all the people who support it to still like her. So she says they hate me more than him, even though I totally wasn't involved. Totally wasn't involved, but like if you were involved, you should like me because they hate me, the people that are against January 6, which I didn't support, but I'm also the biggest supporter of. It's a very nuanced thing for people without much natural mental ability to try to thread that needle. I don't, I'm not saying anything specific, but you should like to do.

like me if you like that thing that I did not support. Okay, so there's two things that I love here. One is the, there's like two movies that they're accidentally referencing. One is Inception. It's a conspiracy theory inside a conspiracy theory, right? Oh, how come Lynn Wood is not being investigated by the J6 committees? Now, he says he was in favor of January 6th, but yet he's not being investigated. What if he was there?

So which leads to the second movie, Princess Bride. Or what if it's the cup in front of you? This is the conversation they're having the right way. Now, the serious part, they are literally having a debate over who supports the racist murderer more. That's what the GOP has evolved into. Kyle Rittenhouse went to Black Lives Matter with a weapon to a Black Lives Matter protest looking for trouble. He found the trouble, and he shot and killed two people, and he's up on murder charges. And so here's a guy who went because of racial animus, and then killed two people.

And these are two leaders in the Republican Party. He got a decent chunk of the vote in South Carolina when he ran for a GOP chair in South Carolina, a big chunk. She's a United States congresswoman, and she raised the most money because people love her in right-wing circles. So two leaders in the Republican Party arguing, no, I like the racist murderer more than you like the racist murderer. And then they're having a fight over that. That's today's Republican Party. Yeah. By the way, Jane, I really liked your idea about the inception thing.

If this was a movie, do you know how it would end then? Okay, so you see Marjorie Green, the camera zooms into her skull, and you see a mouse on a wheel, and the wheel's spinning, it's spinning, it looks like it might stop, and the screen goes black. You never find out if the wheel stops spinning. Think about it. Think about it. Anyway, we got one more story. It's going to be a little bit of a weird transition. from that to this, but we've got something very serious that we have to make sure that we get to.

So we, do you want to give the warning first or should we go right into it? Well, look, it's graphic, do you get it? Sure, it's graphic. So we're gonna play you a video in just a second, but understand it is graphic in nature as we roll this. All right, call. I'm not getting out. I've just told you, I'm a paraplegic, I cannot get out. I do not.

Can you call your white shirt please? I will. If you pull me out of here, you better expect you better. So here's the thing. I'm going to pull you out and then I'll call a white shirt because you're getting out of the car. That's not an option. You're getting out of this car. So you can cooperate and get out of the car or I will drag you out of the car.

Do you see your two options here? I know I got right. I would like for you to call your white shirt. I will when I'm done. Get out of the car. Come on. Go out of car. Go out of car.

Go out of car. Get out of the car. I know, paraplegal. You can hurt me. You can hurt me. You can hurt me, bro. What are you all the car. What are you doing?

Dude, you're making this work. I'm a paraplegia, bro. I'm trying to tell you that I got help getting in the car. Y'all can hurt me. They can hurt me. Yeah, I'm a car. Get out of a car. You had to ask you.

Get out of car. Oh, oh. Somebody help. Somebody help. Somebody help. Somebody help. Somebody help. Stop.

Stop. Stop. Stop. Stop. Are y'all recording this? Stop. Somebody help. I'm a paraplegian.

Stop. good thing to me. Somebody please help me. Stop. I gave y'all everything your hand for. Co-operate. Can you call the night shirt? You call whoever you want. Can y'all call the real police, please? You're about you get crazy. I ain't played with you know. The man that you see in the video, who is a parapilligic, is Clifford Owensby, who was stopped by police officers on September 30th, as he was driving away from what police say was a suspected drug house. Because of Owensby's past felony drug and weapons history, officers wanted a police canine to conduct a free air sniff of the vehicle to determine if there were illegal drugs

inside. Now he asked for a white shirt to show up. This is a police supervisor. Look, I don't know exactly what's going to end up coming out as a result of this investigation, but what I do know is he knows that he's been stopped. All he wants is someone who apparently understands that you cannot ask a paraplegic to step out of a vehicle that doesn't make any sense and that dragging them out, including by their hair perhaps makes even less. And they would not do that. It wasn't just that they were going to get him out of that car, but they were going to get him out on their timeline if they had to literally drag him out and throw him on the street. Yeah, so first let's get rid of distraction. The first thing they always do is, is he innocent

or not? It's irrelevant. Even if, first of all, they found no drugs or weapons on his car. But even if they had, that's not how we should be detaining people in America. So it doesn't mean you let him go. We have to say this a thousand times, even though it's so obvious. It means you're a patient. You call in other people who can do it. You have them under surveillance if you're seriously concerned about him, right? And then you do it the right way.

But in America, violence is the only answer for the police. So in other countries, there is a quote-unquote right way. We've shown you tapes of it in northern European countries, in Japan, in the U.K., etc., where they're patient. I've seen the U.K. police disarmed guys with machetes swinging wildly at police officers, and they do it without any weapons, and they're amazing, and they're patient, right? Our guys are, to be fair to our cops, and it's a funny thing to say, but we teach them to be brutal and to be violent and to never take anything as an excuse. the first thing you teach them in police training is you have to assert your authority. Don't let anybody

question your authority because it'll devolve into chaos. Now if you guys were, if they were going to put together a committee and they were going to have a conversation about it for three hours, yeah I could see how that could be an issue, right? But no, we're not asking for that. We're asking for what police do all across the world. It's not complicated. Yeah. But for

us, we train the cops. Oh, they're paraplegic, then you drag him out by the hair. Yep. They drag the guy up by his hair. When you're having to do that, does it not occur to you that maybe he wasn't lying and he can't use his legs? And that's why you're having to drag him out by his hair. And then later they drag him on the street because he can't use his legs. And so did it not occur to you as you were dragging him on the street? Hey, you know what?

Maybe we should put him on a curb. We should pat him down. But wait for a professional that knows how to deal with this because obviously we don't. Right? No, it never occurs than that because there's. Their bosses never told them that. What they told them is, if you've got a citizen, especially if they're black, especially if they're poor, do not give them any benefit of the doubt on anything, just kick the crap

out of them until they listen to what you say. What if they can't hear? Who cares? We just did a story last week about a guy who is deaf. He can't hear the commands. How dare you? You're questioning my authority, I will assault you, right? You don't have legs or paraplegic, doesn't matter, because the only thing we've ever

taught our cops is brutality. That's why I tell you the most important police reform, isn't any specifics, it's actually changing the culture of policing, that brutality is not the answer. Yep. Yeah, and the only thing I want to say is it might sound as if we're trying to launch into a national conversation about whether humans suspected of having committed a crime deserve to be treated with any dignity or respect. But we're not. The right wing does think that they just think about a very narrow segment of the population. This might seem like a weird comparison but do you remember when Roger Stone was arrested and the right wing cried about how they said so many cops the

cops had guns why were they doing this why is it necessary well they were arresting him for crimes that he was suspected of having committee so they thought that him he wasn't brutalized he wasn't thrown on the ground or dragged by his hair or they didn't like take his his penguin hat off and throw it in the bushes or whatever, they treated him perfectly nice. There were just a bunch of them, and for the right wing, that was unacceptable. So there are definitely people that they think the cops should treat with respect, even if they believe that they've committed a crime, it's just not regular people like you and I.

Certainly not any random black person. Those people just don't deserve the respect that high class dignified people like Roger Stone deserve. It's not just that, John, January 6th, that's where I thought you were going with it. They're saying, oh, you know, how could they possibly shoot Ashley Babbitt when all she had done was broke into the building, trespassed, and was part of a, was the first person in a literal mob who was, who were chanting to execute the vice president. How could they do that to, this police violence? They never, oh, how about all the black people they've been killing that we showed you all the time who were unarmed, didn't do anything wrong, et cetera. Oh yeah, but they're black. Yeah, that's what's, so that's the right way in this.

country, we gotta live with them, we gotta somehow deal with them. But what we don't have to tolerate is our own government and our own taxpayer money, paying for cops who are taught to brutalize us. Yeah. It's totally unacceptable. Okay, we are out of time, although we have got to do that Charlie Kirk story somewhere. All right, so- I think that is a great bonus episode story. All right, well, members, you're gonna love the bonus episode today, apparently. All right, we gotta take a break. Thank you, John. Everybody check out the damage report.

Nina Turner tomorrow, tune in, it's gonna be fun. That's right, tomorrow's big day. Start your day with damage report, go to Indisputable, go to the conversation where I'm gonna talk to Michael Cohen about Trump financial dealings. Seeing an animal. Right. And then Anna's back tomorrow on the main show. Nice. Okay, so Jared and I'll come back.

We have amazing stories for you guys, including, yes, Civil War, that talk has definitely begun. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen to ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.