The Young Turks - Cryptic Casings

Episode Date: December 6, 2024

An Israeli airstrike is believed to have caused the deaths of six hostages in Gaza. The French government collapsed after Prime Minister Michel Barnier lost a no-confidence vote. Cryptic words were reportedly found on shell casings at the scene of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder. A heated exchange took place between Charlamagne and The View’s Whoopi Goldberg over President Biden’s pardon." HOST: Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur), Yasmin Khan (@YazzieK), Jordan Uhl (@JordanUhl) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Hello, everyone and welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Yasmin Khan. I'm in for Jenk and Anna. And joining me today is Jordan. Jordan, thank you so much for being here.

How are you feeling? Yes. Always a pleasure. Happy to be here. Very happy to have you with me. I know we lost a little bit of time. So let's get right into the first. story. They're kind of hefty ones today. Yesterday, the Israeli military unveiled that the six

Israeli hostages who died in February were either killed by Hamas due to an impending airstrike or they were killed by the airstrike itself. These hostages were being held in a tunnel in Khan Yunus on February 14th, an Israeli air strike hit near that tunnel. The hostages captors were found dead beside them. According to Israeli officials, Hamas operatives have orders to kill hostages if they feel endangered. And this is from the Wall Street Journal. It says the Israeli military said it had no prior knowledge that the hostages were located in the tunnel when it carried out the February airstrike. Had such information been available, the strike would not have been carried out,

the military said. The Wall Street Journal reports that before the Israeli military presented their findings to the public, they spoke to the hostages families and asked them for forgiveness. The hostages families forum, which represents many of the Israeli hostage families stated yesterday, the findings of the investigation are more proof that military pressure is leading to the deaths of hostages. Bombing poses several risks to the hostages, as you can imagine. Even if the actual explosions don't kill them, the bombs can release deadly gases. You've all bushed, The younger brother of one of the hostages who was killed in February said this. Even if the bullets of the terrorists are what killed them in practice, they would have died

from carbon monoxide poisoning. You can't separate between the bombing and the reason for their death. Hostages will continue to die as long as there are hostages and there is fighting going on there. Jordan, make it make sense. Isn't that the whole point of taking hostages? People who take hostages do it because they want some kind of. a bargaining tool. It's meant to discourage the other side from doing whatever the hostage takers don't want them to do. And in this case, they want the bombings and the incursions into Palestinian

land to stop. This didn't start on October 7th. We know that. They didn't just take Israeli hostages for fun or for no reason. This was all a response to the incursions that were already happening for decades in Gaza. It just feels so disconnected to be surprised at Hamas has orders to kill hostages if and when Israel threatens to attack them. What do you think about that? I mean, at first, we have to lay out at the onset. We can't just take what the Israeli military says at face value. They've lied before. They will lie again.

So with that said, they lay out a couple different avenues for how these hostages could have been killed. All of them are tragic. Let's be clear here. I think every well-meaning person in this conversation, in this debate, in the broader advocacy space, whatever side you're on, I think everybody wants. people who have nothing to do with this conflict to be safe. And with that said, when you lay out,

whether it was Hamas who killed him or airstrikes or bombs, I don't know what seems more likely. The military that has been dropping bunker buster bombs on a densely populated area for a year straight or the people who need them for a bargaining chip. I'm not saying that is right or moral or ethical, but seems more likely that the military who has killed 40,000 plus people might have also killed some of these hostages in airstrikes.

The point of all of this is to say, we all want a ceasefire and we want the return of hostages. Those should come hand in hand. And a deal that secures the safety and release of these hostages while also protecting the remaining Gazans and their safety and security should be celebrated by a everybody who is certainly truly anti-war, but ultimately wants peace. The people who are standing in the way of that and then includes the U.S. government and Israeli government and some elements of Hamas, I don't have sympathy for anybody who is prolonging the suffering.

And I think they only deserve our scorn. Yeah, I think that's absolutely fair. And to that point, we're going to pivot a little bit, the situation has become so dire that yesterday Amnesty International accused Israel of committing a genocide. That makes them the first international human rights organization to do so. And it made that proclamation as part of a nearly 300-page report. According to the Guardian, Israel has committed prohibited acts under the genocide convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm,

and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about, their physical destruction with a specific intent to destroy Palestinians in the territory. The report said amnesty cited the deliberate obstruction of aid and power supplies together with massive damage, destruction and displacement, leading to the collapse of water, sanitation, food and health care systems, and what it called a pattern of conduct within the context of the occupation and blockade of Gaza. The Israeli chapter of Amnesty International publicly disagreed with the organization's charge of genocide. Not surprising, not only that, but the chair of the chapter, as well as two board members resigned over the accusation. However, the chapter did make one concession. They said, there were nevertheless suspicions that Israel had committed widespread violations of international law that may amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. So basically, they were like, well, I guess we can see how someone might take. it that way. So it's not really much of a concession. Meanwhile, the carnage in Gaza continues.

In Gaza, at least 39 people were killed by Israeli fire in the preceding 24 hours, according to medics, including at least 20, who died when an overnight airstrike set a light cooking gas canisters and tent housing displaced families in what Israel has dubbed a humanitarian zone. Israel said the strike targeted senior Hamas operatives whom it did not identify. Okay, so better late than never, I guess. They finally said the thing that the rest of us had been saying for over a year, we all saw it before they did, but good for them for getting it done. I understand that these things take time.

And they did put together a giant report, 300 pages that said, will anything change because of it? Probably not. Will this report undo the thousands of Palestinians who have already been killed or displaced? Of course not, will it restore their land to them? It's very unlikely. To be clear, I am glad that this report is out. The people who support Israel will continue to do so, though.

This isn't going to change anything in that respect. Even the Israelis who work with Amnesty International could not admit to what was happening even after the report was out. But at least it's on the books now. There is something official about what's happening. Jordan, this just feels like one of those moments where people in air-conditioned buildings argue semantics over what qualifies as a genocide and what doesn't. And meanwhile, people are literally having their lives destroyed in one way or another. How do you feel about this report

coming out now? I mean, I think to your point, this takes time and this report was thorough. It was 300 pages. They investigated dozens of just tragic, horrific incidents to get full accountings of all of them. They looked at the scale of the conflict. I don't, want to assign any, you know, and I'm not saying you're doing this, but I think people, I saw this a lot and maybe you did as well. People were saying, well, we already knew that. Well, yeah, but we don't have any institutional responsibility on our backs, right? Like anybody, any of us can just tweet something calling it a genocide when we see it. It's different for a group with a legacy and a tradition and an image like Amnesty International. But with that,

I think should come much more weight. But unfortunately, this barely even registered in legacy Press. The New York Times instead yesterday put out a push alert about a college student at Columbia being suspended for protesting. Like, where are your priorities here? You are the paper of record and you think a college student disciplinary action warrants a push alert to all of the people who have your app on their phone. Come on, what are we doing here? We cannot turn a blind eye to this. We're talking about entire bloodlines being wiped out in Gaza. beyond repair buildings hospitals schools infrastructure totally destroyed they're not going to get that back their loved ones are not going to come back and you know i made this point in a in a video for

another outlet earlier today but i think it bears repeating a lot of people ask themselves and like to think that they'll do the right thing during times of moral crises or grave injustice like what would you do during the civil rights movement a lot of people i think want to pat themselves in the back and say, oh, I would do this. Now is your time. This is the test. What are you doing in this moment? What are you doing to try to end the suffering? What side are you on? So if you really want to judge and you really want to have a clear look at your moral character, it's this issue right here right now. Are you going to insult, which I think most people in

Congress will do? You're going to assault, criticize, attack, amnesty international like they have done to the ICC, to the UN, or are you going to accept these findings, respond to them and call for an end to this genocide. Yeah, it's definitely not a good look for the U.S. government to now denounce Amnesty International, if that's what it plans to do. And you're right. I definitely agree that these institutions, they do have a lot of weight behind them, and it is important that they are thorough with these things, right? So I do agree that certain things do take time, and it's good that they do take the time to put together this giant report because there's supposed to be some credibility behind it, right? Especially when

you're talking in context of history, a year isn't that long. I know a year is very long if you're suffering. I'm not trying to diminish that at all, but I'm saying in the context of history, you do have to kind of like zoom out a little bit before you get a full idea of what is happening on the ground and be thorough about it as a matter of respect to the people who are going through all of it. In the meantime, you would hope that, you know, The governments are doing what they need to be doing to negotiate for something better, to end the hostilities that are occurring, all that you hope is happening. We're not really seeing as much of that as we would like.

And going forward with the new administration, I think things are going to, well, I don't want to speculate. But, you know, it is very scary what's going on over there. And the way out seems a little dire. But with that, we're going to take our first break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the Young Turks. I'm Yasmin Khan, and I'm here with Jordan. We're in for Jank and Anna. Let's get into the next story. Well, there we have it. The result of this no confidence motion mission mission. Bagnier has been brought down by a no confidence vote in parliament that has succeeded.

The first time that a French prime minister has been brought down by a parliamentary vote in this country since 1962. His government now falls, and he will have to tender his resignation to President Emmanuel Macon. All right, so a bit of world news for you guys. In France, the government has collapsed. after a no-confidence vote removed Prime Minister Michel Barnier. Barnier was appointed to his position just three months ago by French President Emmanuel Macron, but many on the left were upset by the appointment. Over the summer, the left won the most seats in a snap election,

so they felt as though they should have had more power within the government. However, instead of getting a left-wing prime minister like they wanted, Barnier, who was considered to be center-right at best, was appointed instead. However, the far right party, which is led by Marine Le Pen, hasn't been happy with Barnier either. Not to mention, it's no secret that Le Pen wants Macron's job. She's run against him and she hasn't won, but people are suspecting now that maybe this push to get the prime minister out of the way is the next step along her path to the presidency. The big inciting incident that led to this vote occurred on Monday when Barnier invoked a presidential

decree to push through his budget. He had to invoke the already controversial decree because he didn't have enough support for the budget bill for it to pass properly. So while the left was already trying to get rid of him, this budget brought the right wingers on board. With all their powers combined, 331 votes were cast to oust Barnier. Only 288 were needed. President Macron, who has largely just not been involved with any of this, is expected to appoint a new prime minister sooner than later. This weekend, Paris will be hosting leaders from around the world, including President-elect Donald Trump, for the reopening of the Notre Dame Cathedral.

So people are saying he should probably appoint someone before that, but that's just like in two days. We'll talk more about the budget. But first, something that I want to point out to our audience is that in France, they have a left wing and they have a right wing of government. But the president himself right now is more in the center of everything. So in a way, that's a bit more defined than it is here in the United States, where the president is in the middle and he's got two opposition parties, one on either side of him. If we want to talk about horseshoe theory, we can really see that playing out right now in France. There's more to this story.

But Jordan, what do you think about that? I'm just concerned having watched Le Pen's rise over the past several years now. Every couple of years, I grow increasingly concerned about her popularity, her prominence in French politics. I think she wields a xenophobic message. you know she was extremely anti-immigrant and she also kind of came about at the same time as Trump riding a right-wing populist anti-immigrant wave and I'm just alarmed that she is still in politics she could even be seen as a useful tool here you know I think the argument the Cenk wanted to make tonight, where his internet gave him troubles was, you know, it can be used

sometimes, this kind of horseshoe theory, to take on the establishment. But, you know, I would break from that. I think on issues like this, they're not our ally. Even if it is to get McCrone out, I think McCrone would be more of an ally in the long run, maybe not even a good one than Le Pen. So, you know, new popular front, I think with the approach and the parties and the interests, and the ideas that they represent overall are the best path forward for France. I don't know how I feel about Le Pen in this situation. She's not somebody I would want hanging around in the long run. This kind of reminds me of our conversation from yesterday,

where we were talking about how good the right wing tends to be at playing the long game, right? Marie Le Pen has ran for the presidency a few times against Macron. She hasn't won. Macron, I don't believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but he's not eligible to run again after this term is up. And people are saying or people are suspecting that by ousting the prime minister, now the people in government in the French government can insist that Emmanuel Macron stepped down from his position. And then that would be, you know, kind of a way to get Marine Le Pen into that position. But you're absolutely right. Maybe I undersold it. She's, she's dangerous, you know, and she is the least. of the right wing of the French government right now.

And she's not anyone to underestimate. We've underestimated people like her in the past, and we, you know, we see where that's gotten us. And right now in the French government, it's kind of interesting what's happening, because obviously they have more than one party. They have the right wing, but then they also have the left wing. But the left wing is not very well organized. It's very disjointed.

It's kind of they had a whole bunch of smaller left wing parties, and they all kind of came together for this one common purpose. So yeah, to your point, if there is some kind of populist argument to be made here, maybe it did get this one thing done. But where do we go from here? That's the big question. But I do want to talk very quickly about the budget itself and why it was so bad that people from both the left and the right had issues with it. France is currently experiencing a severe debt crisis, one that Barnier insisted needed to be dealt with one way or another. According to the New York Times, Mr. Barnier has justified his proposed cuts and tax rises, saying the country needed to address its financial troubles. France's annual deficit

is projected to reach at least 6.1% of gross domestic product, twice the limit prescribed by the European Union. Its debt is 112% of GDP, nearly twice the limit. Between the proposed cuts and the increased taxes, there was plenty for people to be upset about. Let's hear more from the BBC about the budget. We had the problem of a budget because there is a deficit in France that is increasing and increasing. And that's why this budget was considered an austerity budget. Because Michel Barnier had to find ways to cut budgets in many different fields. Now we have no measures anymore and we have to start everything again.

This budget was also the risk right now for French people is that everyone who pays taxes. So for approximately 70 million people here in France, they're going to pay more taxes in 2025 than they should have paid because the rules are not following the inflation. Barney's budget would have made cuts to pensions, health care reimbursements and climate initiatives, among other things. This feels like a pattern that we're seeing. There was a similar situation recently in Germany. There was that short-lived martial law that happened in South Korea. And if you want to loop us in, our own country is facing a lot of uncertainty right now. All of that instability can possibly have detrimental impacts around the world, perhaps most notably in Ukraine.

But there is something to be said about, you know, the populism that we were talking about earlier, you know, so many issues are presented as being left versus right. But in reality, it's the governing versus the governed, right? It's the elites versus everyone else. It's all these fain partnership because there's left collective bargaining whenever there are smaller factions of people. And I'm not saying necessarily that the left needs to agree with the right on the reasons why they wanted Bernie out of office. But I am saying that around the world, and throughout history, whenever there is mass upheaval, it almost always is a situation of massive inequality, and that's obviously a problem here in the U.S., but it's a major problem that they're dealing with right now in France. Jordan,

I don't know, do you have any words of comfort as we head into the new year? Because everything feels it's a little shaky right now, I'll say. Oh, certainly. I mean, Macron is like the poster boy for Neil liberalism and what i think and i hope we're seeing is the death of neoliberalism more and more people are

recognizing that it is unsustainable and it favors the wealthy and then you enter moments like this like we saw in the eurozone crisis in the early 2010s austerity budgets and then again to bring it back to le pen that's a moment where you can exploit people's economic suffering and blame immigrants they did that then people were blame it was it was a christopher coldwell wrote this ridiculously dense book in the late 2000s. Reflections on the revolutions of Europe was one of the thickest books I've ever read just in terms of text

and citations, but it was just a rigorous and thorough denunciation of the Eurozone and free-flowing migration. That's not what caused the Eurozone crisis. So sovereign debt that then spread throughout the zone. And when you cut back on social services

and you cut back on government programs through austerity budgets to try to ease this economic circumstance, a right-wing populist is going to exploit it and blame the other, blame the most marginalized. Trump does it here, Le Pen will do it in France. So this situation that an era of neoliberalism has created yet again is an opportunity for Le Pen to exploit,

and that's why I'm deeply concerned about just even using her to oust Macron. Yeah, absolutely. I think it's just going to be an ongoing situation. We're going to have to keep monitoring it just like everything else going on in the world right now because it all comes back around. So with that, we will take our second break. We're back. All of a sudden, Jake Huger. Okay, so guys, obviously I was trying to do the show out of South Florida here. I'm going to be on Patrick Bed David's show tomorrow. You should check that out. It's going to be super interesting live, I think, at 9 a.m. Eastern and so we got something sorted out, so here I am.

And I can't wait to do the rest of the stories. I won't be able to read the comments. I don't have a lot of the things that I would normally have in the studio. But yes, let's do it. Let's do some stories. Thank you for being here. Very happy to have you. Let's roll the tape.

Still no arrest in the murder of United Health Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. Investigators have been scouring midtown security cams. But this morning, they're focusing on writings left on the shell casings at the crime scene. According to investigators briefed on the situation, the NYPD believe the gunmen may have written messages on those casings. Officials say the writings found said, defend, deny, and depose, which may potentially go to a motive for the shooting. So the words defend, deny, and depose were written on the shell casings found at the scene of Brian Thompson's shooting, bolstering the theory that the targeted. attack did have something to do with Thompson's role as United Health CEO. The words were written on the casings in Sharpie, and according to CBS News, investigators believe they could reference the three Ds of insurance coined by the industry's critics, which are delay, deny, and

defend. The alliteration is a comment on the tactics that opponents say insurance companies use to delay or deny policyholder's claims. It's also the title of a book, Delay, Deny, Defend, why insurance companies don't pay claims and what you can do about it. I don't think this was recommended in the book. An attack against the insurance giant from a disgruntled patient or a family member would be consistent with the comment from Thompson's wife, Paulette, who told NBC News that he had been receiving threats. We spoke about this yesterday.

She said there had been some threats. Basically, I don't know, a lack of coverage. I don't know details. I just know that he said some people, that there were some people that had been threatening him. As we talked about yesterday when the story broke, United Health Care is the largest private health insurance payer in the United States. And they've been widely criticized for their frequent denials of health care claims. In fact, they're reportedly the worst offenders when it comes to denying in-network claims. Their denial rate this year is a whopping 32% compared to the industry average of 16.

In a recent Senate report slammed Medicare Advantage insurers, including United for using predictive technology to deny claims. Between 2019 and 2022, United Health's post-acute services denial rate increased from 8.7% to 22.7% the report found. Meanwhile, United Health's skilled nursing home denial rate increased nine bold. Meanwhile, they have been raking it in. United Health ranks as the nation's fourth largest company by revenue this year just behind Apple and ahead of tech giants, Alphabet, and Microsoft. Last year, they brought in $376.6 billion in revenue and reported $22 billion in profits. Jank, you weren't here yesterday when Jordan and I first spoke about this story, but we did our best to present the story without

speculating too much about the shooter's motive. But admittedly, that was a bit tricky to do because it felt like the motive was quite obvious. The victim's wife's comments about how her husband had received threats from people who were disgruntled about their health care coverage seemed to confirm what everyone was already thinking. And now we have these shells. And I saw an article earlier that referred to the public response to the shooting as quote unquote shockingly celebratory. Jank, what do you make not only of the situation itself, but of the overall response to it. Yeah, so you have to separate out two different things.

One is, was this attack justified in any way good? And the answer to that is obvious. No, vigilante justice is never the right answer. Violence is never the right answer. Assassinations are never the right answer. So now the second part of the question, the topic is why? And that's a very legitimate question. We ask that in time.

there's any kind of shootings, mass shootings, et cetera. And so the reason we ask why is not to justify it, but to learn from it so that we can prevent it going forward. And so the why here is, to me, enormously obvious. So I would be shocked if the person who did the killing didn't have a family member who died because they were denied health insurance. And they would be among over 76,000 Americans that suffer that faith. So guys, we, as you hear me say,

all the time and this is unfortunately an excellent example of it. We live under corporate rule and the corporate rule is squeezing in this case with health insurance and drug companies, etc. Literally squeezing the life out of us, right? So the press will make a giant deal out of this story and I get why and it's understandable, but it's of course because someone powerful and wealthy died and they shouldn't and that's terrible and your heart should go out to them and he's got a family etc. But no one ever notices the 76,000 people dying every year because we don't have universal health insurance in this country. Meanwhile, as you, they're making 22 billion in profit. We're going to get into some more numbers in a second. Yes, I'm going to share with you guys

and give you a sense of how oppressive our system is, how inefficient it is, how full of waste, fraud, and abuse it is, because when you privatize health care, you give two clear incentives. maximize your revenue, which means take as much from the American people as you possibly can. But also, and this is the really terrible part, minimize your costs, which means deny as much health care as you possibly can because those are your costs. So give as little as you can to the American people and take as much as you can. And that's why you lead to that leads to these horrible, horrible results. But since mainstream media is a propaganda machine for corporate rule, they never talk about those people dying in quiet misery and those families

that are destroyed, let alone the fact that 40% of the bankruptcies in this country is because of medical bills, because again, insurance being denied. So we should say that what happened to this gentleman is an absolute tragedy because it actually is. And we should also talk about what happens to the average American that no one cares about and no one talks about is a massive tragedy that is 76,000 times worse. Absolutely. And yeah, to that healthcare industry data, we do have some of that for you, just to give you an idea of how bad things really are in the healthcare industry

and how badly people are suffering. If anything, I think that this incident has really sparked a national conversation about just how disgruntled and how desperate people are, because I think that's something that just gets overlooked so often in the stories. But yeah, so for that data, let's see. The revenue of six largest insurers, Anthem, Centina, Cigna, ABS, Etna, Humana, and United Health. They have more than quadrupled from 2010 to $1.1 trillion. Combined revenues with the three biggest United Etna and Cigna have quintupled.

And in 2022, United Health Group made over $20 billion in profit. Sina made $6.7 billion. Elevents Health made $6 billion and CBS Health made $4.2 billion, all told America's largest health insurers raped in more than $41 billion in profits in 2022. Then we can look at per capita spending. Get that graphic up there. Let me see. The U.S. has the highest health care administrative costs per capita compared to other OECD countries. And people die in America because of our health care system. Researchers of a 2022 Yale study,

and this to say, our calculations indicate that 76,064 lives would have been saved by universal health care among individuals of all ages in 2019. We found that single-payer universal health care would have saved $439 billion in 2019. So, you know, even the cost savings would, you know, like the lives aside,

the lies that they obviously already don't care about. The cost savings would have been there too. But it's about, you know, whose pocket do those, those, do all those savings end up in? So, Jenk, any final thoughts on this story for a move on? Yeah. So guys, the reason why all this exists and the reason why I know the problems that America ever gets solved is because these same companies then go and donate to politicians. So they're not making an extra trillion dollars because, oh, golly gee, that's just the laws of the universe. No, in fact, all other developed nations have universal health care for a reason, because they know that privatized health care does not work.

Remember, when you have universal health care, you could layer on private health care on top, okay? So it doesn't mean that you don't have any other options. But under our system, there is no guarantees, and people are denied care and often die for strictly profit motive. So someone makes way more money when your family members die. And that's stuck. That's totally and utterly unacceptable in a normal democracy if the people were really ruling. But we are not ruling. Corporations have taken over politics.

They've taken over mainstream media. And it's like they have a vice script on us. And so you should be absolutely outraged at our health care system. that even though we're the richest nation on earth, we have one of the worst life expectancies. We have one of the worst cost per capita. So last thing on this, to give you a sense of how stark it is. So not only do 76,000 people die, but we pay twice as much. Why do we pay twice as much?

It doesn't go to health care. It goes to their profits. And so that's why they made $20 billion in one year. in profit, not in revenue, in profit. That's $20 billion that could have been spent on you and your family to treat you if we were doing health insurance in a right way. And not only did those people die, on average now, Americans live four years less than other developed nations that have universal health care.

So they're actually taking four years off of all of our lives, all of our lives, So they can make $20 billion in profit. Is that a sane system? No, that's a system that the American people should absolutely end. The only reason we don't end it, because every liar in mainstream media never tells you how grotesque and injustice system is. They love that injustice. They propagate that injustice and they keep the truth from you. That's the reality.

You could look it up. And guys, when that happens, when a system is that unjust. Whether we like it or not, and no matter how much we condemn it, it leads to this kind of wrongheaded vigilante justice. Because when the government doesn't do anything, and why did we have all of these protests, etc.? You remember when people are costing the politicians in public? Why? Because they never allow us to talk to them. The only way you can talk to them is by bribing them, giving them a giant check.

And then they're like, oh, you can't accost me in public, but then you never listen to us. So I don't want them accost it, but I do want them challenged. verbally, not physically. And so now you can't touch any of the overlords. You can't speak to the overlords. And then it gets bottled up, bottled up, and then it gets released in all the wrong ways because that pressure is inevitable.

So they can keep ignoring this, but we're just going to have more and more vigilante violence as this system is so unjust and so oppressive. Yeah. And I think especially now since the shooting has come out, has come out. There's a lot of people who are just like, you know, can't be bothered to feel bad for the guy. And, you know, however you feel about vigilante justice and like the fact that someone was killed and the fact that they have a family, all that aside, people have known

people who have died because they didn't get the health care covers that they needed. And those, those stories aren't making the headlines. So it is, it is really, really distressing to see all of this. But I think it is indicative, this entire response to it. I think it is very indicative of the fact that people are tired of being told, you know, now is not the time to talk about this. We have to be respectful of this and that and that and that. All these, you know, semantics and politeness and niceties, right? Because we're a civilized country, right? We're a civilized society. We have to, we can't condone this type of behavior. But at the same time, it's like it's really hard kind of to feel bad for certain things in certain situations because

at the end of the day, you know, other people have died because of the decisions that that man has made. And not only that, he's, he's at the head of this company. He is the figurehead for it all. But there's so many people working beneath him who work for these type of companies. And they're, you know, they're not really doing their jobs. At the end of the day, they're not doing the job that they have to do, which is to help the American people to get the health care coverage that they need. But the flip side of that is that no, like their job isn't actually that. Their job is to make more money for the company and to increase the shareholder value. So with all that said, I think this is just like putting such a spotlight on what is wrong with this country

and the fact that people are going to act desperately. They're going to act in more and more unpredictable ways because they're desperate because they feel like they have no way out from these situations. And it has to be dealt with. They can't just keep sweeping this under the rug and telling us, just deal with it, just deal with it. And then hoping we'll forget about it by by the time, you know, some next headline comes in the papers or on YouTube, wherever you're watching it. know, Democrats stand on this moral high ground all the time, and, you know, they act so self-righteous. The reality is he didn't have to say anything in regards to, you know, whether or not, you know,

his son wanted to be pardoned. He could have said, hey, man, I'm not, I'm not focused on that right now. But since they were calling Trump with threat to democracy and they were saying that, you know, nobody's above the law, but they were speaking about him, that's what they were running on. So when he kept saying things like, oh, you know, nobody's above the law, I respect, you know, the jury's decision in regards to my son, he didn't believe that. But he didn't have to volunteer that lie to begin with. I'm going to stop you for a second. Uh-oh.

Uh-oh. Okay, so that was Charlemagne the God and he was on the view. And he was discussing President Biden's pardoning of his son Hunter. And Charlemagne was making a few larger points about the democratic, the moral high ground and how, you know, partisan politics in this country is like a team sports thing. So here's what we had to say in response. you don't know that it was a lie. We don't know why he changed his... You really think he just changed his mind

over Thanksgiving weekend all of a sudden? No, I'm going to tell you what I think. Okay. I think he changed his mind because he got sick of watching everybody else get over. And this is just my feeling because at some point, you get to the place where you just go,

so I'm just going to follow the straight and narrow always. Okay. And so at this point, Charleneyne challenged Whoopi and the other co-host, claiming that once people take their political side, it's very difficult for them to be critical of that side. There's more. I don't think people are flipping out with Joe. I think Democrats are flipping out with Joe because Democrats believe that they don't represent

what he's currently representing. But that's just not true. That's why I say they stand on this moral high ground that simply does not exist. And I think this is also the problem when we pick sides. When it comes to political parties, if you pick a side, right, If you say you're a Democrat, if you say you're a Republican, you refuse to be objective about anything. That's why I'm an independence. Yes.

And I think that's the best way to go. But that's not a monolith. We're not, Democrats are not a monolith. Why can't you say when Democrats are wrong? And why can Republicans say when Republicans are wrong? I'll tell you when Democrats are. So you don't think Joe Biden is wrong? No, I don't.

Can I just point that? That's ridiculous. All right. So I get where he's coming from with his criticism. But, Jank, he couldn't possibly be talking about us, could he? No. She's definitely not talking about us. So, you know, Charlemagne has been on the show.

We like Charlemagne a lot. And the reason we like him a lot is because he spits truth. And that's what he just did, right? So, I mean, then my favorite part of that whole segment was Whoopi Goldberg saying like, oh, we criticize Democrats all the time. That's so funny. She was a comic, right? Back in the day.

Because he's going back to her stand-up routine. No, Hugh is known to be the largest ass kissers of the Democratic Party. That is literally the number one thing that they're known for. There isn't any Democratic ass they wouldn't kiss as long as the establishment ass and leadership ass. Oh, if you're a progressive, oh, then they'll throw you onto the bus. Like, oh, Bernie, boo, we hate Bernie, right? And all that stuff. And I'm positive that what Whoopi's referring to is like, oh, I keep the Democrats honest.

I'll criticize them from time to time. like Bernie Sanders, like, ominous. I hate the populist Democrats. And I remember when Justice Democrats first came out, she was like, what do they mean justice, huh? Like what other Democrats don't believe in justice? Yeah, you don't. You love the rich.

You love leadership. And you demand that everybody in your audience bow down to the authoritarian gods of the Democratic Party. You said maniacal things like Joe Biden wasn't too old. You said that you don't care if he craps his pair. and can't even function as a human being. You still wanted him to be president. You know what that means?

That means you've lost your goddamn mind. You're gone. You're in a different planet. Oh, man, I'd love to have Democratic presidents who poop their pants. No, no, I criticize the Democratic Party. Come on, get, get, get. So, look, she is, I love the Charlemagne Challenge the View on the Views. I love the Charlemagne Challenge the Democratic Party in the Everett.

epicenter of propaganda for the Democratic Party. And what Whoopi and the rest of the view cast don't understand is that when you are so over the top and you criticize 200% of what the other side does and zero percent of what your side does, not only do you look ridiculous, but you lose all credibility. So no one outside of your, you know, your audience that has been, their minds have been stoked with your propaganda believes you. Every normal, rational human being goes, oh, the view, dismiss them, dismiss, right? Morning joke, dismiss, dismiss, and look, for a lot of Fox News, dismiss, dismiss, okay?

So not interested in propaganda. And then the core of what Charlemais said is exactly true, which is how long have you had in this country, Democratic, left-wing media, theoretically, or Democratic media. Oh, the Democrats are right, Democrats are right, Democrats are right, right. Right wing media. Republicans are right. Oh, really? 100% of the time your side is right.

And the other side is completely wrong. There's not a single thing they've ever said. That's right. Garbage. What do we do on the young Turks? We do the exact opposite. We criticize both parties. And how do you know it's not us?

Because the Democratic Party has caught all sorts of feelings about us. Oh, you guys, you're wrathfully online media. You won't even do marketing for us. You won't even lie and say that Joe Biden is young. You won't even say that his uncle was eaten by cannibals. So whoopi, you're hilarious accidentally. Yeah, and Charlene did actually say, I think you said it, that it was ridiculous. It is crazy.

And, you know, like we, I know that we try to do a good job of it here on this channel. And it is, it feels good. It's like liberating. But it also shouldn't be that unusual for people to criticize their government, including the people that they voted for, right? That's why they're there because we want them to be there. They work for us, right? We're not supposed to be loyalist to them. They're supposed to be loyalist to us.

They want to appease us. They work for us. So it's a very normal thing to criticize the people in your government or to criticize your entire government, the structure, whatever, you know, like that's how progress gets made. That's why they call us progressives, though, I guess. So anyway, on that note, we're going to wrap this first hour. Jake, you're going to be back on with Jordan, I believe, right? Yep.

So we've got an amazing second hour for you guys. Lots of drama. Pete Higgs if is he going down or not? And so stay right here. Jordan and I will be back in a minute. I'm going to be. I'm going to be. I don't know.

I'm going to be. You know, Buhn't know Buhn't Bhop Bhop B. I don't know.