The Young Turks - Criminal Clown Show

Episode Date: March 4, 2022

A Ukrainian MP said on Fox News, “You care more about whether you pay extra 50 cents for your gas” than “how many people die in Ukraine.” The January 6th committee says it has evidence showing Trump committed crimes including obstruction and fraud while trying to overturn the election. A homeless defendant with a double-digit rap sheet, accused of smearing his own feces on a woman inside a Bronx subway station, left a courtroom in handcuffs — for his months-old murder threat against a Jewish man, the final twist to a bizarre court appearance. But hours later, he was free again. Hosts: Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian 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. Thank you. Welcome to the Young Turks, Jake Ugra, Anna Kusparian. So look, there's of course news of war and we're gonna start with it in a second. So that's why I'm trying to contain my excitement, but I've, I'm ready to go. Let's just put it that way, okay?

I mean, you remember the old current TV day? So you do it's go time? Somebody hit me with that in the street the other day. Oh, someone get the fog machine. Okay, yeah. Get the fog machine ready. Oh, here we go. Where's epic?

Where's epic? Okay. Anyways. There was literally a fog machine for Jenks entry into the set for the opening for the show. I'm not even kidding. That was a thing. Some of you are newer viewers and we're not familiar with that era of our careers. But it happened.

It's fog machine. I love it. I still love it. I don't regret a minute of it. Okay, anyways, look, serious stuff in the beginning. But later, orgies, like literal ones that we're going to explain to you. And people are having sex with people from ISIS and bunnies and there's a blow up of a doll of Taylor Swift. And there are three different stories.

I mean, this show is bananas. Yep. Okay, all right. But let's all bring it down. We've got some really serious stories. And then we'll get to the lighter stuff. Yes. All right.

Well, let's start off with an update on the invasion into Ukraine. I want to talk a little bit about the additional actions that the U.S. government is taking. in response to Russia's invasion. So Ukrainian PM, Olexandra Ustinova went on Fox News to criticize the United States and its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Now, let me just preface this by saying that my heart goes out to her and of course the people of Ukraine.

But with that said, I do disagree with a lot of what she has to say here. Let's watch. All we keep asking is help protect our sky. You've heard what Mikhailo was saying previously about the no-fly zone. The no-fly zone means that we can protect our civilian population. I just keep telling them it's not about politics because I was looking at the sanctions and I was very surprised because we were promised that if the Russian soldier steps on the Ukrainian land, we will have a really good response.

Well, I'm sorry, but the sanctions avoided the energy sector. So let's talk honestly that you care more about whether you pay extra 50 cents for your gas prices or how many people die in Ukraine. We've been promised swift. We have five banks on the swift that were blocked. Out of 300 in Russia, you call these sanctions. So that is a member of parliament. I think I misspoken said PM, but member of parliament, just be very clear about that.

And look, I think that there's definitely some truth in what she had to say toward the end of her statement, especially when it comes to the sanctions that the United States has implemented. and what they really impact. So we'll get to those details in a second. But I want to reiterate, a no-fly zone is a terrible idea. We do not support a no-fly zone. It will lead to a direct war between the United States and Russia. It significantly escalates the situation.

And look, there appears to be some positive progress, and hopefully this agreement is really carried out. Let's go to the last graphic here. and Ukraine have agreed on the need to set up humanitarian corridors and a possible ceasefire around them for fleeing civilians, both sides said after talks on Thursday. So they're continuing their talks. They have not reached a peace agreement yet, but it is the first sign of progress on any issue since the invasion.

So again, no-fly zone, bad idea. But I do want to have a discussion about what she had to say about the sanctions in just a moment, Jank. Yeah, so she actually has two great points. is that the Ukrainians gave up nuclear weapons that were based in Ukraine after the Soviet Republic broke up with assurances that if something were to happen, the West would defend them. Now, those were loose assurances, they were not in NATO, but that's the first, I was reminded of that in the last couple of days. And I was like, yeah, you know, honestly I'd

forgotten that. That is a pretty good point. Now, having said that, it's just in this one case, in the no-fly zone, there really is nothing we can do. Because if we, we would have We put American fighters up there, the Russian fighters are up to it, they're gonna fire at each other, and then we're gonna be an open war. We have 90% of the nukes in the world, that's not gonna help Ukraine, Russia, America, or anyone else on the planet. So it's just, I know why they want it, I get it, and my heart goes out to them, and they should fight for it.

Well, actually they shouldn't, because I think that even in the long run, it's bad for Ukraine, but I get why they're fighting for it, and I love them for it, but we really can't do that one. Now, she's also right about the oil sanctions, I think she's most right about that. We'll get back to that in second. But in terms of the more updates, I'm a little stunned at how much the Russians have bogged down. So the Russians have confirmed there's at least 500 Russian soldiers dead. And the Ukrainians say it's 9,000. Even if the number is 500, man, they're taking heavy casualties.

Just as importantly, that giant 40 mile convoy of tanks is bogged down 16 miles out of Kiev and it's not moving. So it's stuck at 16 miles outside the city and some of them are getting picked off by drones. There's a story of a guy who rushed out, an old man rushed them through a Molotov cocktail in one of them and got them. Like I can't believe they're not moving. Well, this is so, I don't know, so far from the outside it looks like the Ukrainians are They're doing an amazing job of fighting.

Okay, so I wanna also just say, we gotta be careful because of fog of war and how certain things are portrayed in the media, certainly on social media. But this is something that, this is a perspective that I thought was definitely accurate. When you consider propaganda and how it tends to work, especially in a country like Russia. Remember, the troops, the Russian troops like bought into the propaganda, they were fed the propaganda regarding the people of Ukraine and how they were going to be the liberators for the people of Ukraine. So they thought they were going to invade this country and be welcomed by Ukrainians.

Well, I've heard that before. And I think that's actually really interesting and important perspective, right? You kind of have to think about the bubble that these troops have been living in themselves and the kind of propaganda that they've been fed. So I do want to go back to the sanctions for a second. Right? Because look, I'm really uncomfortable with the celebratory nature of sanctions that harm ordinary Russians. They didn't ask for this. They're dealing with an authoritarian leader. They had no say in whether Russia was going to invade Ukraine or not. And it really,

it breaks my heart to see ordinary people suffering financially. It's also telling that what the member of parliament was saying there was certainly correct about certain sanctions, is not impacting fossil fuels coming from Russia. So the White House slap sanctions on exports of technologies to Russia's refineries and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which as you guys probably know, never even launched yet, right? So far, it has stopped short of targeting Russia's oil and gas exports as the Biden administration weighs the impacts on global oil markets and US energy prices. So what she said there about, hey, you guys are more concerned.

about paying more for gas than you are about human lives in Ukraine, she had a point there. I don't think that she's referring to ordinary Americans, but she's referring to the US government's actions here. The United States did slap sanctions on Russia's oil refineries banning the export of specific technologies and a move that could make it harder for Russia to modernize those plants. But again, this is a sanction in regard to technology, not a sanction in regard to the actual fossil fuels, namely the oil. In fact, a spokesperson for the White House said this, we don't have a strategic interest in reducing global supply of energy. That would raise prices at the gas pump for Americans. So I want to reiterate how much of a disaster it is that the world is still so dependent

on these fossil fuels and how that impacts things like foreign policy. If we were further down the path of being more reliant on renewable energy, I think we would have been in a far better position. The administration did warn though that it could block Russian oil if Moscow heightens aggression against Ukraine. The top Democrat and a Republican on the Senate Energy Committee floated a bill that would prohibit the import of Russian crude liquid fuels and liquefied natural gas. The United States imported an average of more than 20.4 million barrels of crude and refined products. A month in 2021 from Russia, about 8% of the U.S. liquefied fuel imports. And that's according to the energy information administration.

Okay, so when she says you guys are more concerned about 50 cents of the pump than Ukrainian lives, I think that is just flat out true. And so there's two different set of folks here that we're talking about. One is Europe, Europe gets 40% of its energy from Russia, so they're totally hooked on that crack. And if they turn it off, there's going to be significant discomfort in Europe. And it'll be way worse than Europe than it is here in America. And so that's part of the reason why they're not doing the oil sanctions. And then the other reason is us, because let's keep it real, if we sanction their oil, and

then prices go up here because they definitely will, because it'll affect the world supply of oil, which affects our prices. What's gonna happen? You all know it. Fox News is gonna howl. Tucker Carlson and all, oh my God, it's Biden's fault. As if Biden invaded Ukraine. The oil prices are based on supply and demand in the world, in the world. So if Russia shuts off their oil or we shut off Russia's oil, that is gonna increase prices. There's nothing Biden or Trump or the ghost of Reagan can do. There's nothing you can do about it. And in fact, it would be a heroic thing to do.

It would be the right thing to do. It would put more pressure on the Russians because they're hurt dog. Don't ask them if they're all right. Luke oil, which is a huge oil producer out of Russia, today put out a message about support for Ukrainians. Interesting. All of a sudden, giant Russian business interests are showing support for Ukrainians. They're hurt, and that's without the oil sanctions.

Right. But it's not just the sanctions, shell oil pulled out of all deals in Russia. And that also hurts Russia because they helped to produce some of that oil. So they're in a world of pain right now. But if we do the oil sanctions, they're going to be in desperate straits. But it would cost us 50 cents more per gallon. And Fox News would yell at Biden forever and ever and ever. And they would trick everybody into thinking it was Biden's fault.

And they wouldn't give a damn about Ukrainians or anyone who's dying. Yeah, they have no morals at Fox News. They would never explain what the actual reality of the situation is. And Anna's right about the renewable energies. The oil and the gas is inside Russia. It's inside Saudi Arabia, Iraq around, etc. If we got in a war with these countries and we were on renewable energies, you can't shut off the sun.

You can't turn off the wind. the wind. And so we would still have renewable energy. There was nothing, there'd be nothing that they could do about it, Russia or the Middle East or anyone else. We've got to get there right away. And what do we tell you a thousand times over? By the way, what did the Pentagon tell you? That it's a national security interest that we switch over to renewable energies. Exactly. But again, you'll never hear that from the right wing who are loaded up with nothing but liars. One final thing I want to mention in regard to prices at the pump. And, and, you know, People are concerned about that, it's legitimate, especially with the backdrop of corporations jacking up their prices for their products and taking advantage of the inflation narrative.

Look, the problem with the right wing solution to this, which is we need energy dependence, we need to drill more, more, more, more fossil fuels. Like Jake alluded to this in an earlier show, guys, we haven't nationalized these natural resources, right? We haven't nationalized oil or natural gas. And so what will happen? Okay, these private corporations will drill more. There's no guarantee that they're gonna ensure that that supplies, that Americans will be prioritized with that supply. There's no guarantee.

In fact, I will guarantee you that they will sell those fossil fuels to the highest bidder. We just don't keep that oil. It's nothing but a lie. They could sell to anyone they want. Exactly. It doesn't stay in the country. So the entire narrative of Drilso will have more oil is 100% lie.

But look, we're so used to the lies, it's just overwhelming in America. The media is filled with wall-to-wall lies, and yes, the Republican Party drives giant percentage of that. I mean, the Russian soldiers, as Anna told you, thought they were gonna be greeted as liberators. Who else said that? Dick Cheney said that when we were going into Iraq. Oh, we'll be, they talked about how they were going to throw roses at our feet. Unless roses is a code word for IEDs, that's not how it turned out. And that's certainly not how it's turning out in Ukraine.

So right wing authoritarian propagandists are everywhere, including in Russia and America. Now I want to address what was said about Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons and the promises that were made by the United States. government as a result of that. So, you know, Joe Biden has asked for additional funding in order to assist Ukrainians following the invasion of Russia into their country. Now, this is important to do because of the fact that the U.S. had made promises to Ukraine after Ukraine signed a bunch of treaties and agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. So for those of you who are like, why does the United States even have to be involved in this at all? Why do they have to help the Ukrainians at there is a promise made, and it's because of the fact that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.

So what is Biden doing aside from implementing some sanctions? Well, he has asked Congress to authorize additional funding to assist the Ukrainians. So the White House on Wednesday formally asked Congress to authorize an additional $10 billion in humanitarian, economic, and security assistance for Ukraine and allies in Central Europe to respond to Russia's invasion. of Ukraine. Now I say additional $10 billion because he had already asked Congress to authorize $22.5 billion. So this would be another $10 billion on top of that. Okay, so 32.5 billion ain't nothing to mess with. That is a lot of money. And that is quite a bit of assistance to Ukraine. So while I understand the frustration, some of the politicians there are feeling

as a result of the U.S. refusing to implement a no-fly zone. A no-fly zone would escalate the war. No questions asked about that. And the U.S. is helping in every way that it can. I think that there could be additional sanctions that would hit Russian oil, of course. I would like to see the Biden administration focus more on those targeted sanctions. But in terms of funding and military aid, it's unquestionable that the U.S. has been helping. It asks for $4.8 billion for the Pentagon to support U.S. troop deployments to NATO countries and to provide additional military equipment to Ukraine, and $5 billion for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. aid, for security, economic, and humanitarian assistance

to Ukraine and allies on NATO's eastern flank. Of that funding, 2.75 billion would go toward humanitarian assistance to provide food and support for Ukrainians displaced by the conflict. So this isn't the first round of funding that Ukraine is likely to receive. The Biden administration is asking Congress to bake in this money for the upcoming appropriations bill, which they're likely to pass before March 11th. Jank, what are your thoughts on this? Yeah, so look, there's so much propaganda out there. And so how do you know you could trust us if you're new to the show?

Well, when we first announced sanctions the America did against Russia when they first invaded, they were really weak. And if you watch this program, we told you they're super weak. In the beginning, they didn't even sanction Putin. It was absurd. And we were outraged by it. And they hadn't hit any, they hadn't cut off the banks yet, et cetera. But now they have.

And so our job is to deliver facts to you guys. So now the sanctions, with the exception to the oil sanctions are super strong and the Russians are hurt very badly by it. The stock market closed, the rubles down. Vladimir Putin appears to be in a panic. Even yelling at people on TV, nobody's ever seen that before. He never loses as cool when he's in public, but he has this time around. Now today he's out there going, oh no, everything is going according to schedule, really?

because you were 17 miles outside of Kiev a couple of days ago, and now you're only 16 miles outside of Kiev. So you've gone one mile in a couple of days. I mean, they are definitely in trouble with that 40 mile convoy of tanks, which by the way, a 40 mile convoy of tanks is a dumb idea to begin with. You know, I'm not a military expert, but they're sitting ducks. Yeah, totally. Right? And so, and they just realized Ukraine has drones. And so they're definitely in trouble. But when I see the 10 billion that we allocated, I do think what percentage of that

is just gonna secretly get to defense contractors? I mean, they're gonna get so rich off of this. Yeah, no, I worry about that too. Every dollar that goes to- A huge percentage of every dollar that goes to the Pentagon gets skimmed off the top by defense contractors and doesn't go to help anyone, okay? And so both the lobbyists for defense

contractors and the politicians who are bribed by defense contractors, probably the happiest people about this invasion. Oh, totally. Oh, they're gonna make it killing, if you will. I mean, look, the defense contractors had meetings with their, you know, with their investors and made it abundantly clear that there's a, you know, money making opportunity before them. This is before the Russian invasion. So that is definitely a concern.

But look, I think that if you're making a promise to a country in order for them to give up their nuclear weapons. You have to fulfill the promise, right? So I'm glad to see that Biden's doing that. Biden also made promises to the American people, specifically the individuals who got out there and voted for him and gave him this position of power. And he hasn't fulfilled those promises. And I'm concerned about that too. Yeah. So look, again, here's another way you can know that we're honest. And I have told you that because there's very few people in media that actually give you the facts, they usually go on one side or another, and they're more like lawyers and advocates than they are. While they pretend, some pretend to be neutral,

it's hilarious and absurd, right? But in this case, Biden has been a disaster in domestic policy, fulfilled almost none of his promises. But on foreign policy, I now think he's been near excellent. He's the only one who had the courage to withdraw from Afghanistan after 20 years. And now these sanctions are very tough and they're working. He's united the world, even gotten Switzerland and Monaco to be done with their neutrality. In this case, Russia has hurt big time and has to be reconsidering their decision. The Russian assets are being seized all across the world. A $600 million yacht just got seized from an oligarch in Germany. And Biden has orchestrated this very strong response delivering on his promises to the Ukrainians

and others, so credit where credit is due. All right, we're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about domestic policy and what the latest is with the January 6th committee and their findings in regard to Trump's criminality related to that. We've got that more when we come back. Back on TYT, Janky, Anna Kasparian, and Hunter Pete. Hunter just joined by hitting the join button below on YouTube. A bit of an American hero, Hunter.

It's good to have you with us. And I'm gonna read just one quote for you guys because it's so much fun. CJ on Twitch said, I'm only subbed so that Jenk will get the fog machine. Become a young church subscriber, we'll get a fog machine in it. TYt.com slash join.

All right, you ready to do our jobs? Yes, let's do news. Let's do news. Cool. All right, well, let's talk about the latest from the January 6th committee. The January 6th committee investigating the riots in the Capitol have said that now they have evidence that Donald

Trump committed crimes, including a repeat offense for him, obstruction, also fraud. Now, for those of you getting real excited about possible criminal charges, simmer down because we're talking about mostly Democrats here who are pretty feckless. And there's a reason why they're bringing up the criminality of Trump. It's not really about Trump, it's really about ensuring that they get cooperation among those who are closely connected to Trump. Now, this again is related to Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The committee also subpoenaed Don Jr.'s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, which I'll give you details of in just a moment. But before we get to

those details, let's go back to what they're accusing Trump of and how it relates to people close to him. This week's filing from the January 6th committee said the evidence supports an inference that Trump and his allies entered into an agreement to defraud the U.S. by interfering with Congress's election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort. So the committee specifically pointed to Trump's attempts to convince Mike Pence, for instance, to reject states. or slates of electors coming from battleground states that Biden won.

The court filing also, by the way, referenced Judge Amit Mehta's ruling last month, in which he said it was plausible to conclude that Trump entered into a conspiracy with some of the rioters on January 6th, including members of far right groups like the proud boys and the oath keepers. Just to give you a little taste of the judge's ruling, he indicated that Trump's actions in the days and hours preceding the riot could reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action and that he and his followers acted toward a common goal. That is the essence of a civil conspiracy, he wrote in his 112 page ruling. Now, then there's common law fraud, another accusation that the panel says that they have evidence

of. And what does that mean? Well, the document went on to say that Trump and members of his campaign engaged in common law fraud in connection to their efforts to subvert the 2020 election results. Common law fraud is defined in D.C. as a false representation in reference to material fact made with knowledge of its falsity with the intent to deceive and action is taken in reliance upon the representation. Okay, so that's what they're accusing Trump of. And so some might say, they say they have evidence of these things. These are serious charges. Does this mean he's gonna be indicted? No, so far Trump has not been charged, he has not been indicted.

This is all an effort to get someone close to him to participate in this investigation. And that's Eastman, okay? So Thursday's filing again, not an indictment and does not change or charge Trump with a crime. It comes as part of the January 6th committee's ongoing legal battle with the former law professor and Trump legal advisor, John Eastman, who has made broad claims of privilege while refusing to cooperate with the panel's investigation. The committee's filing on Thursday was made in opposition to those claims. So they're just trying to get home boy to cooperate.

That's what this is really about. And fine, I'm okay with that. But I really hate the way the press has been portraying this story, making it appear as though like, ooh, the panel, they're making so much progress. Trump might be behind bars soon. He might be behind. He's not. He's not going to be behind bars. Jake Tapper. You know it. I know it. The American people know it. Report the story the way that you should, which is accurately. Yeah. So I'm going to back up what Anna said about why in reality the criminal charges are now less likely, they're more likely.

Not because of this news, but because of other developments. But first, John Eastman was saying that, hey, listen, I've got privileged documents here. And because I talk to the president, I should get to have the privilege of not sharing them with you. He just made it a curious case because he said it's white privilege. And because I'm white, I don't have to give you the documents. No, I'm kidding. But you know, it's Trump people. So it's not impossible. All right, no, seriously, guys.

Is it fraud in regards to the election? Absolutely. It's not that Trump didn't do it. I don't want you to mistake what we're saying. We're just saying that Democrats and prosecutors overall, like the establishment is so weak that it doesn't matter how overwhelming their evidence is. They never have the courage to actually criminally prosecuted. That's our thesis.

We'll see, we'll see, right? But in terms of the evidence, think about it this way. They were trying to get Pence to not accept the results of the election. Now, he doesn't even have constitutional authority to do that, but they were saying it doesn't matter. Just pretend and just don't accept it. Don't go through the ceremonial role and we'll try to steal the election in other ways. And so if you think about it this way, if somebody came in and said, hey, Mike Pence, I'm going to give you $10 million, but do not certify the election. Would that be fraud in regards to the 2020 election?

Well, of course it would. There's no one who thinks it wouldn't. And would they be criminally prosecuted? Well, you imagine, although in America, the rich never get prosecuted. But so if you're not offering $10 million, but you're pressuring pests to do the same thing through other means of coercion, it's still illegal. It doesn't have to be a bribe. You're saying, do this fraud for me, okay? make sure that we do not certify the election as you're supposed to break the law on our behalf.

It's definitely criminal. The judge has said that it is criminal, so those are not the issues. The issue is whether anyone in the establishment has like one iota of courage. And so far the answer has been an overwhelming no. And so while the January 6 committee is high stepping about that they put it in a memo, right? And a while, it's a legal document we're handing in in another case, right? The Manhattan DA's office, which is actually looking into criminal charges against Trump is apparently going to drop everything.

There are two top prosecutors quit in disgust just a couple of days ago. There's a new prosecutor at the Manhattan DA's office. I don't know if Democrats told him to stand down. I don't know why he's doing it. But his and why are we blaming Democrats that's the Republicans that this Trump did this and the Democrats tell you all the time how opposed to Trump they are. So if you're new to American politics, you'd be confused, right? No, historically, Republicans commit crimes, war crimes torture, warrantless wiretapping,

financial crimes, etc. Democrats come in and say, that's it, they're free to go. Don't worry about it, we're never gonna prosecute. And Obama had the legendary line, we don't look backwards. we look forwards. Well, all crimes by definition are in the past. So that was a get out of jail free card. That is what Democrats do every time. And that is what looks like they're in the middle of doing now. So a lot of this is marketing for them. And so they will, we would be shocked if they actually prosecuted the criminal Donald Trump. But you should know that there is one

thing Trump is telling the truth about. He says a thousand times over there was fraud in these elections. Well, ironically, it's true. He's the one who committed it. Right, that's true. Now, one of the other individuals that the panel is trying to get to cooperate is Kimberly Gilfoyle. At first, she agreed to a voluntary interview, but she walked out on it. She caught some feelings, I guess. And so now they have decided to subpoena Gilfoyle, who is, of course, Don Jr.'s girlfriend. Now, here's what they argue. This is from Representative Benny Thompson, who is the chair of the committee. Miss Gilfoyle met with Donald Trump inside the White House, spoke at the rally that took place before the riot on January 6th, and apparently played a key role in organizing and raising

funds for the event. The select committee is seeking information from her about these and other matters. Because Gilfoyle backed out of her original commitment to provide a voluntary interview, we are issuing today's subpoena that will compel her to testify. We expect her to comply with the and cooperate. You should not expect that from anybody associated with Donald Trump. I'm sure she's going to fight it. I'm sure she's also going to allege executive privilege. But, you know, in certain documents, she bragged about having raised quite a bit of money

for the rally that happened right before the riots. She even bragged about one donor giving $3 million, which is, imagine spending $3 million to fund one of Trump's rally, fund any rally. Fund any rally, like tax the rich. It's like crazy. You know, Kimberly Guilfoil is like patience zero for what's wrong with the American establishment political class. She was originally married to Gavin Newsom, the governor of California. Then she went and worked at Fox News and now she's going out with Donald Trump Jr.

I mean, she's a walking, living, breathing symbol of the American establishment and their grotesque corruption. and their obsession with money and lies. Anyways, I think Joshua James part of this story is even more interesting. So let's go to that Anna because a guy has turned evidence against them and taking a huge prison. He looks like he's going to get a huge prison sentence. So I'm really surprised by this and it looks like they might have really good evidence about actual sedition. Right. So I just want to be clear that while Donald Trump and others in positions of power, people closely associated with him, are

unlikely to ever see a day in prison, the people who Trump incited to riot in the nation's capital on January 6th are facing consequences, some of whom will probably face several years behind bars, maybe even decades behind bars. And a good example of that is an oathkeeper by the name of Joshua James. He has been charged with sedition and he has actually decided to plead guilty to those charges and he says that he will testify and cooperate with authorities. Joshua James, a 34 year old, pleaded guilty, seditious conspiracy and obstruction of justice after communicating and congregating with several other members of the far right group

before and during the capital right, the far right group that we're referring to here, of course, as the oath keepers. The Alabama resident was originally charged last April, but last month was among the 11 individuals to be hit with seditious conspiracy charges alongside Oathkeeper's founder, Stuart Rhodes. Now he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, although prosecutors argue that he's likely to get about seven years in prison, and a $30,000 fine. The indictment also alleges that he and Robert Minuta, another oathkeeper, drove to the Capitol in a golf cart from the group's D.C. hotel. While entering the Capitol building, James and

Minuta pushed past Capitol police officers who placed their hands on James and Manuda in unsuccessful attempts to stop them from advancing toward the rotunda. Now, Menuda has pleaded not guilty. We'll see how that works out for him. But once in the building, prosecutors argue that he berated and taunted several officers in riot gear before the pair forcefully entered onto the Capitol building or into the Capitol building through the East Side Rotunda doors. James and Minuta were allegedly both wearing military gear. And prosecutors said that at one point, James was seen assaulting law enforcement officers inside the Capitol building while screaming, get out of my capital, this is my effing building.

Yeah. So the most interesting part of the story is sedition charges, and he pled guilty. Hmm. So that's the part that I thought would be the hardest to prove that, yeah, did they commit fraud as now Donald Trump is accused of, at least in some legal documents? Yeah, well, of course they did. They tried to get the vice president to throw the election. That's the definition of fraud. They obviously did that. They had the Green Bay sweep that Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro talk about where they were going to, they had fake electors that they were going to put into place.

I mean, that's all criminal. That's all a conspiracy against the United States government. But sedition is super heavy charge. And apparently, ladies and gentlemen, they got them. This this guy's pleading guilty, he's going to turn evidence against other people. He's willing to go to jail for seven years at least. You're not going to plead guilty, that's not a light sentence, right? You're not going to plead guilty to that unless they had overwhelming evidence.

And he's apparently worked in security for Roger Stone, one of Donald Trump's closest advisors. If he turns evidence against Roger Stone, first of all, that's awesome. And then if Roger Stone or he have evidence against Donald Trump, That could be the mother load. So I'm surprised by this story. I think it's really interesting. And once one person flips, usually you got dominoes. So.

Yeah, yeah. And I can't wait to see the evidence that they have because they might have been stupid enough to write it down. Look, what I think, I'm just hoping that all the people who got fooled into carrying out Donald Trump's dirty deeds. I mean, this guy was offering or providing free security to Roger Stone on January 6th. Like, he's got to feel like a schmuck. Yeah.

My only ask is just be smarter and don't get suckered into, don't get incited into committing ridiculous crimes by these fraudsters. It's just so, it's depressing, it's sad because they got suckered into doing this. Look, I'm not crying in tears for them, let me be clear about that. But the people who did the incitement, people like Donald Trump, will never see the inside of a jail cell. Let's be clear about that. Yeah, so last thing is the part about Stone and Trump is speculation because we don't know yet. We don't know the evidence that they have.

It's possible that they just have overwhelming evidence about the oath keepers, which is already a group with violent tendencies. So if they had planned to do violence on their own or with other right wing paramilitary groups and they were going to convince the addition, That's also possible. So they might have evidence on that and this guy's looking to not get 20 years but get seven possible. So but if he has evidence on the bigger guys, that would be an earth shattering story. All right, we gotta take a break. When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about the crime wave, bail reform and what we're noticing in some of these blue states. Interesting story, stick around, I'll give you the details more.

All right, back on TYT, Jank, Anna, and Greg won. Greg just joined, hit the join button below on YouTube, become a young Turk's member. Casper. All right, the story is uncomfortable because of the bodily stuff that's involved, but let's get into it. A man with an incredibly lengthy criminal record was released without bail in New York after he smeared his own feces in the face of a victim sitting at a subway station waiting for a train.

In an earlier attack, by the way, he went after a Jewish man while uttering anti-Semitic garbage. He also spat on the Jewish man. We'll give you the details of that crime in a minute. But assistant district attorney Grace Phillips, this is in New York, recounted how Frank Abroquah initially harassed the the victim, the woman, saying, hey mommy, hey mommy, why don't you talk to me? When she ignored him, he walked into an idling subway car and pooped into a bag, then returned to smear the excrement on her face, head, nose, mouth, and eyes.

And then he said to her, you like this, you like this bitch? And this story infuriated me like you wouldn't believe because of the fact that I see this as a violent crime, I see him as a dangerous person, and he somehow gets let go because of the bail reform policies that have been implemented in New York, and California has similar policies. And we'll get into what the flaws are in just a moment, because I think that bail reform is something that was, you know, people who pursued that did so with the best of intentions. But the problem is how crimes are classified, why some crimes are misdemeanors while others

are considered felonies. That's the real issue at hand, and we'll talk about that in more detail in just a second. Before we do though, how do we know that he did this? Well, there's surveillance footage of it, and he also showed absolutely no remorse when he showed up in court. Without further ado, why don't we take a look at that surveillance footage, and then we'll talk about it. So there he is, you can see him clearly victimizing this woman.

She's minding her business, waiting for a train. It's just absolutely disgusting. Okay, so it turns out that after they let him go with no bail, he had to return to court because they arrested him for a hate crime, for basically going after a Jewish man in September of 2021. He was hauled before a judge for the second time in days. This time on charges, he spat on a Jewish man and chased him down a Brooklyn street screaming, come here you effing Jew, I'm going to kill you, according to a criminal complaint.

That alleged hate crime happened September 9th in Crown Heights. Now, the victim in this case spoke to the press, New York Daily News, Menashem Minkiewicz, and he said this, he singled me out because he noticed I'm Jewish. It's not even like I said something to him. I was minding my business and looking at my phone. Everything happens so quick. A person comes up and spits on me. I said, what the F is wrong with you?

And he said effing Jew, I got spit on for being a Jew. Just because I'm wearing a Yamika, I should be treated like this. And by the way, when the perpetrator here showed up to court for the second time in days, he was annoyed, he was very irritable that he had to do that. He told the judge, I'm effing tired of it, I'm hungry, why am I still here? They want to charge me with a hate crime. Wow. This guy's been arrested 44 times.

In my opinion, violent offenses, not nonviolent offenses. Nonviolent offenses is, hey, you got caught with the baggie of marijuana. You're not harming anyone, okay? You got caught shoplifting, some negligible amount, right? Like, that to me is nonviolent. I think, you know, bail reform certainly makes sense in those circumstances. We're talking about a guy who's been arrested 44 times, okay? Some of his crimes include sucker punching a man in the Port Authority bus terminal in Midtown.

He went to a Bronx hardware store and threatened the owner with a screwdriver that he took off the store's rack. another victim was punched in the face multiple times on a Harlem subway platform. But because of how crimes are classified and how these very crimes that I just listed right now are not considered felony offenses, they're considered misdemeanor offenses, the judge has no choice but to let this guy go free with no bail. How does that make any sense? How does that make any sense? No, guys, we've got to figure this out. If I don't understand how those are misdemeanors.

And so first of all, they're under the umbrella of nonviolent offenses. He punched a guy in the face multiple times. That's violent by definition, by definition. How is that not violent? And so, and what the assault that he did on that poor woman is obviously violent. violent and and it's that's a misdemeanor like not a big deal to smear excrement on someone's face what kind of insane world do we live in now I know that misdemeanor doesn't just mean no big deal and yes you can you know get prison sentences

for it etc right but this bail reform issue has to be sorted out based on the classifications of the crimes right so keeping people in jail because they can't for bail on minor crimes makes no sense. You're punishing them for being poor, not because of the crime. But letting dangerous, violent people go while calling them nonviolent, makes no sense at all. And look, there's the reality and there's the politics of it. The politics are less important, but the politics of it is, hey, if this is what is perceived as being the progressive point of view, that's a disaster for progressives. And it isn't, it certainly isn't my point of view.

And so, and I hope it's not a progressive point of view, nobody wants this. That's just, it's disgusting, it's unacceptable, et cetera, right? But the more important thing is reality, reality. People are actually getting hurt, and then guys are walking out of the court system. That guy was bragging about how he knew he was gonna walk. You know, out of the 44 crimes that he committed, only one was considered a felony. And we just read your number of insane crimes that were very, that were violent in nature, no, there has to be real consequences for real violent crimes.

So I wanted to learn more, like I wanted to really verify that this is really what's happening, that they're classifying these violent offenses as misdemeanors that, you know, essentially mean that the perpetrator gets to take advantage of bail reform. And the New York Times even reported this. Under the new law, Judges will no longer be able to set bail for a long list of misdemeanors and non-violent felonies, including, look at this list, stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, which I'm fine with, and even some kinds of arson and robbery. Guys, the difference between a burglary and a robbery is that in a burglary, there is a weapon

involved and there's a person in the house or a person in the store, someone is being threatened with violence while this theft is happening, right? That is a violent crime. That is a violent crime. How can anyone advocate for that being like some no big deal, no big deal. If someone is suspected of carrying out stalking, domestic violence is also on the list, by the way. Yeah. Yeah, just let them go. No bail, you know, not a threat to society whatsoever. That is insane, and if there are progressives who have been advocating for this, I guarantee you it is a losing strategy, 100% of losing strategy. And they are a minuscule percentage of progressives, let alone the country. I don't know if they actually exist, if they do their, maybe they're loud and small.

But I don't know any normal human being who thinks, oh, a guy punches somebody in the face a bunch of times, He yells at a poor Jewish guy spits on him and this smears crap on some poor woman's face. No big deal, let him go. I don't know anybody who thinks that. That's insane, okay? So, and I know he's theoretically supposed to come back to court. But do you know in that hate crime he did against the Jewish guy in Crown Heights? They couldn't find him.

They couldn't find him for months. They only found him after the excrement situation. They matched his clothes, the things that he had on him to that earlier crime. But otherwise, Mr. Minkowitz there was saying the cops were barely working on the case. I mean, they were pretty non-responsive. They weren't going to find them. And that's infuriating to be attacked for your ethnicity like that. I have a guy disgusting guy spit on you like that.

And no one cares. But the silver lining there is, now this is a good case for making hate crimes significant again, because the hate crime part might classify it as a felony and we might actually be able to keep him in jail until these things are resolved. Wrong again, Bob. So let me give you another example this time out of Brooklyn. Tiffany Harris, a Brooklyn woman who was released after she was alleged to have hit three Jewish women in a bias attack was arrested the next day and accused of an assault on yet another woman.

Now you can't release people who are committing violent crimes. So New York, California, wherever it is, they have to fix the laws so that it's for actual minor crimes that you don't get stuck in jail because you don't have bail, right? But for serious crimes, yeah, no, we need bail, we can't. We gotta make sure they show up to court and there's gotta be real consequences. And by the way, we say this about right wing attacks as well. A lot of times the right wings do outrageous attacks, enormous. enormous assaults, threats of killing people over and over again, there's barely any punishment.

Right. They just walk. Well, if you do that, yeah, they're going to threaten to kill people. And yes, they're going to kill people eventually because they think there's no consequences. And we've said this a thousand times, and it doesn't matter the left wing, right wing, or any political aspect of it, that we have to have rule of law in this country. And rule of law does not mean, let's go kick random minority's asses. Right.

Right. What an absurd interpretation that unfortunately police in the justice system have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. Oh, there's a problem with crime? Let's pick a random black guy who didn't do it and kick his ass. What? No, don't do that. Find the actual people who did it and put them in jail. And again, I think bail reform has been pursued with the best of intentions. But there are flaws and they need to be remedied immediately because innocent people are getting hurt.

There is obviously a place in society for public safety, and the way that this is being carried out is not prioritizing public safety or justice. And I find that to be a huge issue. All right, well, since we're talking about public safety and criminal justice, why don't we give you a quick infuriating update on the officers, the cops involved in the shooting death of Brianna Taylor. Only one cop faced any legal consequences after the killing of Brianna Taylor during an early morning no-knock raid. And unfortunately, now we know that he's been cleared of all charges. That happened earlier today. A Kentucky jury was cleared or has cleared a former police officer who fired shots during the 2020 raid that ended in Brianna Taylor's death. the jury on Thursday found Brett Hankison not guilty of three counts of wanton endangerment

for firing shots that ripped into a neighboring apartment. For those of you who might have forgotten what he did, he wasn't even like in the apartment as he was firing his weapon. He was in the parking lot, just indiscriminately firing away, putting people's safety at risk. Okay, So a couple and a small child lived in that neighboring apartment and were present at the time of the shooting. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, was startled by the cops and he fired one shot because this is a no-knock raid in the middle of the night. He had no idea what was going on and he thought that someone was trying to enter like a home invasion. So he fired one shot and that's what led to the officers firing in this case with Hankison doing so indiscriminately from the parking lot. Now, prosecutors called 26 witnesses, and they argued that Hankison shot blindly

into a window from outside the apartment in a direction perpendicular to where the shot originated. The gunfire went through Taylor's apartment and endangered a man, a pregnant woman, and her five-year-old son who lived next door, prosecutor said. One of one or two more inches, and I would have been shot, testified the neighbor, Cody. Etherton. So the jury has cleared him of all charges, though. Apparently just firing in an incredibly belligerent and irresponsible way is totally fine. Hankison himself testified during the trial that he saw a muzzle flash from Taylor's darkened hallway after police burst through the door and thought officers were under heavy fire. So he quickly wheeled around the corner

and sprayed 10 bullets hoping to end the threat. But as prosecutors noted, the shell case, We're all in the parking lot. Yeah, no, I mean, look, the guy's totally unhinged. You could hit your fellow cops. You're firing wildly, and he almost hit a baby in another apartment. But I think it's part of police culture. You know, hey, there's a slight threat to your safety. And in this case, the threat, by the way, was real.

They had gone into the wrong apartment. And they got a legal gun owner who fired because he thought it was robbers, right? I thought it was robbers, right? Somebody coming to assault them. Yes, there was gunfire, but firing indiscriminately isn't gonna help anyone, and where does the police culture come from? Where they go, I just do it, who cares, right? Well, it comes from things like this, the jury let him off.

Oh wow, I mean, he was trying to do the right thing, so he almost killed the baby. So what? Not so what, that's negligent. That's, I mean, at a bare minimum, that's deeply, deeply negligent. Right. So he got acquitted and that's that, but I don't agree. And guys, just always, I always put myself in each person's position, right? You could do that too.

Let's say this, Edwin's in trouble, he's our stage manager, he's in this room. And I think somebody's firing at him from over there. Would I fire knowing that Bart is in that line of fire? Bart's our audio guy. Well, of course not. I might hit Bart. That's insane, right? And if I did, that's negligent at a minimum.

But if it's a cop, they're like, yeah, who cares? It's so frustrating. He was scared, you know, he was scared and he was worried. Well, you're a cop, your job is to not be scared. So I, and I want to be clear that he was let go from the police department, so he's no longer a cop, so at least we have that. But again, this goes along with the problematic culture that we've been talking about when it comes to local policing.

The reason why they just willy-nilly open fire like this is because they know that there are no consequences. And people get hurt, innocent people die as a result of that culture. So all right, we got to take a break. When we come back for the second hour, at some point, I promise we will lighten things up. But first, before we do that, we'll talk about racist Tucker Carlson and his latest comments about Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee. Come right back. And then orgies. Yes. Yeah. Listen ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.