The Young Turks - Defame & Misfortune

Episode Date: August 31, 2023

Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers. After the Maui wildfire disaster, a war of words over its cause. GOP salivates at the biggest campaign finance win since Citizens United. "He was dripping with sweat": Kroger worker dies in hot work conditions in Memphis. A right-wing sheriffs' group that challenges federal law is gaining acceptance around the country. HOSTS: Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com 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. Woo! It's up! Welcome to TY, I'm your host, Anna Kasparean, and we got some big stories for you today. You know, they call me a decision maker. I make decisions and they make a lot of big ones and I make a lot of little ones,

quoting George W. Bush, of course. A lot of great stories to get to, including just desserts for Rudy Giuliani, which we will lead the show with. But later in the second hour of the show, true, true, John Adirola is still not here. He's on family leave. However, Wazney Lombre will be joining me and we'll discuss the latest social media influencer in the country. He's making waves with his content.

His name is Donald J. Trump. So we'll show you examples of what is sure to be one of the worst ideas for Donald Trump, a man who is now facing criminal indictments in four separate cases. Like, what are you doing? This is a bad idea. Anything you say can and will be used against you at a court of law. He didn't get that message. So we'll discuss that along with many other stories.

As always, just want to encourage you all to like and share the stream if you're watching us on YouTube, easy free way to get the message of TYT out there to the masses. You can also help support the show and get exclusive members-only content by becoming a member. Just go to t-y-t.com slash join or click on that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. Now without further ado, let's get to a big update for Rudy Giuliani and some of the, you know, cases that he's been catching as a result of his own behavior. He's going to lose. He was always going to lose. He was always going to lose. And now he's even more clearly going to lose because he's essentially admitted that he made false and defamatory statements about them. The language in the document was filed by his

lawyers that he reserves the right to challenge the constitutionality of the matter. I bet you have a hard time finding a First Amendment lawyer who has the vaguest idea what he's talking about. He's sort of cooked in this case. Cooked indeed. Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani is now staring down a massive financial penalty after losing a federal defamation case filed against him by two Fulton County Georgia election workers. And we'll get to the judge's decision and what spurred it in just a moment. But first, I think it's worth getting a little bit of a refresher on this case and what exactly Giuliani has been found guilty of. Now, the lawsuit was brought forth by Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shea Moss, who say they've suffered reputational damage.

and emotional harm after Giuliani specifically single them out and made false claims that the mother-daughter duo engaged in ballot tampering after the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani's statements about them included calling them ballot stuffing criminal conspirators. Giuliani also drew attention to a video of them after the election, which was first posted by the Trump campaign and showed part of a security tank. of ballot counting in Atlanta. On social media, his podcast and other broadcasts, Giuliani said the video showed suitcases filled with ballots when it did not capture anything but normal ballot processing.

And that's according to the defamation lawsuit and a state investigation. These were just some of the many lies we heard from Giuliani and Donald Trump after he lost his reelection bid. Both women testified before the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots. In fact, here's Ruby Freeman discussing what she had to endure following Giuliani's unfounded claims of ballot tampering. I've lost my name and I've lost my reputation. I've lost my sense of security, all because a group of people starting with number 45 and his ally, Rudy Giuliani, decided to scapegoat me and my daughter Shay.

18,000 voters having to do with Ruby Freeman, she's a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler. Their places of work, their homes should have been searched for evidence of balance, for evidence of USB ports, for evidence of voter fraud? Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States to target you? The president of the United States is supposed to represent every American. Not to target one, but he targeted me, Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud. America citizen who stand up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic.

Just absolutely disgusting. Everything you heard from Giuliani and Donald Trump in the video we just showed you, complete and utter lies. And Ruby Freeman is absolutely correct in noting the type of terror someone in the country would fit face as a result of the literal president of the United States targeting her, okay, basically directing all sorts of unhinged people to harass and threaten her and her daughter. By the way, the suit also alleges that during Giuliani's disinformation campaign, the FBI recommended that Freeman leave her home for her own safety. Freeman's daughter, Shea Moss, expressed that she was afraid for her safety due to Giuliani's lies, which, by the way, isn't really that difficult to believe when you consider the rage

demonstrated by rioters on January 6th as they tore through the Capitol building. My life upside down. I no longer give out my business card. I don't want transfer calls. I don't want anyone knowing my name. I don't want to go anywhere with my mom because she might yell my name out over the grocery aisle or something. I don't go to the grocery store at all. I haven't been anywhere at all.

I felt like it was all my fault. Like, if I would have never decided to be an elections worker, like I could have done anything else, but that's what I decided to do. And now people are lying and spreading rumors and lies and attacking my mom. I'm my only child. And I felt horrible for picking this job and being the one that always wants to help and always there and never missing out one election. I just felt like it was it was my fault for putting my family in this situation.

That's absolutely awful. And she obviously should not feel that way. The fact that she wanted to spend her time and energy in being an election worker in a country that is supposed to value our democratic process. does not make her a bad person. It makes her someone who actually believes in that democratic process, unlike Giuliani and unlike Donald Trump. Now, Paper Dragon in our Twitch community argues that Giuliani is guilty of leaking hair dye, which is true.

And if that were the case, I'd say let him go. But there's obviously more involved in Giuliani's behavior here. And it had a massive impact on these women's lives. Just last month, Giuliani confessed that he made false statements about the women. He had confessed it, he admitted it, but that the defamation case against him is supposedly unconstitutional. So the court filing read that, quote, defendant Giuliani, for the purposes of litigation only, does not contest that to the extent the statements were statements of fact and otherwise actionable,

such actionable factual statements were false. Giuliani wrote in a signed stipulation that he said was intended to avoid unnecessary expenses in litigating what he believes to be unnecessary disputes. Well, we all know that Giuliani's broke, and this attempt to essentially do away with the case was pretty hilarious and actually ended up biting him in the ass later. Here's more on Giuliani's confession and the legal maneuvering he was hoping to accomplish by filing it. He's conceding that, yes, he did make these false statements about these women after the 2020 election. He's also saying that he acknowledges that those statements can be defamatory, that they were defamatory.

But he's trying to avoid his own accountability here by saying in this court filing late last night that his statements mean that he shouldn't necessarily have to pay damages to them because his statements, might not be what was hurting these women. And also, he's trying to say that what he was saying after the 2020 election is still protected speech, First Amendment constitutionally protected speech. Well, look, the Constitution does in fact protect most speech. But there are limitations to the First Amendment, as there are with other constitutional rights. While one can even engage in things like hate speech without fear of government retaliation, there are exceptions, including inciting violence or defamation of character.

So Giuliani's filing did nothing to persuade the judge that his lies about specific election workers were protected speech. But aside from that, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell determined that Giuliani lost because he struggled to maintain access to his electronic records and did not adequately respond to subpoenas from attorneys for Freeman and Moss. as the case moved forward. The bottom line is that Giuliani has refused to comply with his discovery obligations and thwarted plaintiffs Rudy Freeman and Shea Moss's procedural rights to obtain any

meaningful discovery in this case. The judge continued to argue that just as taking shortcuts to win an election carries risks, even potential criminal liability, bypassing the discovery process carries serious sanctions, no matter what reservations, a non-compliant party may try to artificially preserve for appeal. And there's some speculation that Giuliani likely didn't have the resources to properly cooperate in the discovery process. In fact, the lack of resources led to him trying to engage in that ridiculous maneuvering that essentially led to him confessing that he had defamed these women. But look, failing to cooperate proved to be pretty pricey for the former

New York City Mayor. Giuliani has already been sanctioned almost $90,000 for Freeman and Moss's attorney's fees in the case. And Howell says that he could be saddled with even more fines. Judge Howell says a trial to determine the amount of damages for which Giuliani will be held liable will be set later this year or possibly early 2024. The election workers are asking for unspecified damages, which could amount to millions of dollars. So if you're concerned about your resources, maybe don't engage in defaming

people's character. Don't engage in trying to destroy their lives because you didn't like the results of our democratic process. And while this is a civil suit that leads to Giuliani having to pay damages to the individuals that he defamed, keep in mind he's also facing other criminal charges in regard to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, and I hope Giuliani is realizing that, at least in the moments when he's sober. With that said, though, let's move on to our next story. There's a lot more news to get to today.

Hawaiian Electric facing more than a dozen lawsuits for allegedly not de-energizing its power lines ahead of a severe wind event or properly maintaining its equipment released a series of new assertions, including that the fire at 6.30 a.m., the morning fire appears to have been caused by power lines that fell in high winds, that the Maui County Fire Department responded and reported it 100. 100% contained, left the scene and later declared it extinguished. And perhaps most importantly, at about 3 p.m., a time when all of Hawaiian Electric's power lines in West Maui had been de-energized for more than six hours, a second fire, the afternoon fire, began in the same area with the cause undetermined. It's been three weeks since fires devastated Maui's seaside community of Lahaina in Hawaii,

marking the deadliest wildfires in more than a century. 115 people have died as a result, and as the town is trying to return to some semblance of normalcy, the blame game over who or what was responsible for the fires rages on. Now, while Hawaiian Electric recently acknowledged that its power lines fell due to high winds and ignited a fire early on the morning of August 8th, they also claim that they're not fully blame for the outcome of the fire. Hawaiian Electric faulted county firefighters for declaring the blaze contained and leaving the scene only to have a second wildfire break out nearby and become the deadliest

in the United States in more than a century. Hawaiian Electric said its own crews then went to the scene that afternoon to make repairs and did not see fire, smoke or embers. The power to the area was off at that point. Shortly before 3 p.m., those crews saw a small fire in a nearby field and called 911, the utility said. Okay, let's just stop and absorb what I just told you guys, okay? That's right. They're admitting that they're downed power lines, which had not been de-energized,

caused the initial fire. They're admitting that, okay? But they're also blaming the firefighters. Just absolute insanity. So let's keep going. What else are they claiming here? Okay. So they're refusing to really focus on how their own incompetence and their own unwillingness

to de-energize those power lines ahead of time had an impact. They want to share the blame with the firefighters who risk their lives to put out those fires. Luckily, Maui County officials have filed a lawsuit against the utility company. And that lawsuit accused the utility, Hawaiian Electric, of failing to respond to ominous weather reports on the day of the fires, August 8th, when red flag fire danger warnings were issued because of hurricane-fueled winds and of failing to perform basic maintenance in the years beforehand. That sounds real familiar. Now defendants knew of the extreme fire danger that the high wind gusts pose to their overhead electrical infrastructure, particularly

during red flag conditions, the lawsuit said. It said power company officials had chosen not to de-energize their power lines, even though they knew that power poles and power lines were falling and coming into contact with dry vegetation. So the power lines consisted of bare, uninsulated metal, and they're known to spark fires on impact. In fact, California has had similar problems. Back in 2018, when Pacific Gas and electric's down power line sparked the deadly campfire, 85 people died. Just like with PG&E, there had been a push for Hawaiian Electric to upgrade its equipment by either insulating the wires or burying them below ground.

Now, clearly that didn't happen. Equipment upgrades, obviously cut into profits. And when the profit motive reigns supreme, you can bet that these utility companies will do little to upgrade a damn thing. It really depends on the local lawmakers and regulators to enforce rules that pressure and force them to, you know, upgrade the equipment so these issues don't come up. Now, compounding the problem is that many of the utilities, 60,000 mostly wooden power poles, which its own documents described as built to an obsolete 1960 standard, were leaning and near the end of their projected lifespan.

They were nowhere close to meeting a 2002 national standard that key components of Hawaii's electrical grid be able to withstand 105 mile per hour winds. Hawaiian Electric released a statement Sunday night in response to Maui County's lawsuit, calling the complaint factually and legally irresponsible. Hawaiian Electric appeared to blame Maui County for most of the death. devastation because the fire appeared to reignite that afternoon after the lines were allegedly de-energized. They claimed that its power lines in West Maui had been de-energized for more than six hours when the second blaze started. Lawyers suing the utility company luckily aren't buying it.

So Richard Freed, a Honolulu attorney working as co-counsel on Maui County's lawsuit, counter that if their power lines hadn't caused the initial fire, this all would be moot. And that's absolutely true. I mean, the fire started as a result of energized power lines that fell and ignited the fire. In an environment, by the way, that was particularly dry and particularly dangerous. The energy company knew, the utility company knew that this would be a problem. I don't know why they decided against de-energizing the lines ahead of time. They had ample warning.

Here's more from attorney Gerald Singleton. We have looked at the evidence very closely. We have people on the ground. There is absolutely no evidence to support Kiko's claim. In contrast, all of the evidence we've seen is that the lines were energized. One of the parties that Singleton Shriver represents, the family of Lorenzo, Buddy, Jantock the second, who suffered second and third degree burns to 90% of his body, according to the lawsuit, leaving behind children, grandchildren, and a rich legacy. If there was a plan to de-energize the lines, Singleton says that's not what HECO told the federal government about a PSPS or public safety power shut off.

For HECO to say in the one hand, in a filing that's under penalty of perjury and that is with the SEC, that they did not have a PSPS. And then on the other hand, to say that they shut off the power is completely inconsistent. Hawaiian electric officials didn't respond to the allegation specifically, but instead said this. Our primary focus in the wake of this unimaginable tragedy has been to do everything we can to support not just the people of Maui, but also Maui County. We are very disappointed that Maui County chose this litigious path while the investigation is still unfolding. I don't know if they realize this, but 115 people are gone.

They're dead, leaving their family members to piece together their own lives, leaving people who lost their homes, everything that they've built for themselves, gone. They're left to deal with all of that. The idea that this company wants to skirt any responsibility, well, honestly, at this point should not come as any surprise. In fact, the company seems to like skirting important questions, as you'll see, see in this next video. Why didn't she shut off the power when the wind started to pick up? As I said earlier, it's still in the early days. We're still looking at all the information and

we haven't actually had a chance to do all of that at this time. With all the respect, it's been six days though, so almost six days. And we've been putting everything we've got to helping our communities right now and our employees who are going through a lot and supporting them so that they can support the communities. You may be talking. about what happens in California in the shut off program. And so we like most utilities don't have that program. Hawaiian Electric is also coming up with some pretty interesting excuses in its defense, claiming that the water system in Lahaina relies on the electrical system to pump water through the network and deliver it to fire hydrants. So the company says that they need to

maintain that pumping capability factored into their decision about de-energizing power lines, meaning they didn't want to de-energize the power lines in case there was a fire, and the firefighters needed access to that water, which the electricity is important for. Look, honestly, I'm not sure how much truth there is to that. We're not idiots. I mean, consider the fact that they later de-energized power lines as firefighters were combating the blaze. But one thing we do know for sure is that the fire was one of the most deadly fires in modern American history. According to Politico, crews in Hawaii have finished their search for victims, but it's unclear how many people are still missing. Maui police chief John Pellitier said

urban search and rescue teams have completed 100% of their area, but some search activity continues in the ocean off Lahaina. The FBI is searching 200 yards. out along a four mile stretch of coastline, but no human remains have been found, he said. There are 110 missing persons reports filed with Maui police, and more than 50 of those remain open cases that are still actively being worked, he said. Officials suggested that responders likely have already recovered any remains that are recognizable. They are now shifting their focus to removing hazardous weight. and making the area safe for residents to return to.

But one thing that I will say is that the idea that this utility company is not to blame, completely to blame, and that the attention should be focused on the firefighters is absolutely ludicrous. And not to go off on too much of a tangent here, but some of you have asked why I have such a negative reaction to any mention of California governor Gavin Newsom running for president of the United States. When the campfire killed dozens of people in the state because PG&E couldn't be bothered to upgrade their electrical equipment, they got sued. They went bankrupt. And you know who bailed them out? Gavin Newsom. I'm not okay with that. I'm not okay with slimy, sleazy politicians

providing cover for privatized companies that screw over their own constituents. So that's where I stand with Gavin Newsom or on Gavin Newsom. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with him. Now the real question remains, what will local lawmakers and politicians do to help support and protect the people of Maui? What will they do to hold the utility companies accountable? I like that they filed this lawsuit. But should they lose that lawsuit?

should they go bankrupt? What happens next? That's the real question. And the priority should be, again, to help the people of Maui who have suffered the most as a result of the incompetence and the inaction that sparked this fire in the first place. We got to take a break. When we come back, we have more news for you, including a little known lawsuit that the GOP has filed, which could result in further weakening of our campaign finance. laws. Don't miss it. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. One of the topics that we talk about quite often on the show is how bribery due to basically Supreme Court rulings is now baked into our political system and there are

consequences to that. But if you think that corruption was already a problem, get a load of what could be happening very soon in the near future. The American political system could become a lot more corrupt soon. That's because of a little known lawsuit filed by the GOP that would allow for official party committees and candidates to coordinate freely by removing current spending restrictions. As Politico notes, an eventual victory in this lawsuit filed last November by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee would eliminate the need for House and Senate campaign committees of any party to set up separate operations to make so called independent expenditures to boost campaigns with TV ads.

So look, this story, it gets a little complicated. It's in the weeds. I'm going to do my best to make it digestible and easy to understand. But in order to fully understand how the victory for the GOP would actually transform our already weak campaign finance laws and exacerbate corruption in our political system, let's get into the details on what the current laws are before discussing how they could change. So under the existing campaign finance reform, the National Republican Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee can spend between $59,000 and $119,000 in coordination with their candidates. The NRC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee can spend between $119,000 and $3.6 million, which by the way sounds

like a lot of money. But beyond that, party committees must rely on their independent expenditure operations known internally as IEs. Now independent expenditure arms require a degree of separation from the candidates. Their staff cannot directly coordinate with candidates or those in their organization who don't work for the IE. They communicate in code through so-called red boxes on hidden public websites during the fall TV ad campaigns. So let me break it down even further, okay? What this basically means is you have, you know, the national committees for both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

They fundraise, they raise a lot of money and they've got a ton of money to spend and burn, right? Now, they can coordinate with their candidates up to a certain amount and up to a certain amount of money specifically. However, past that amount of money, they're not able to spend and coordinate with these specific candidates. And while there are limits to how much money you can donate directly to an individual campaign, those limitations are less restrictive for national party committees. They can take in a lot more money, bigger donations, which tend to attract quite a bit of cash from money to interest, including Wall Street players and big banks.

So let's take a look at the National Republican Congressional Committee back in 2020. So these are the top 2020 contributors to the NRCC. Okay. So it's important to keep in mind that while you know, you see Marcus Foundation, they donated nearly a million dollars. Charles Schwab, nearly a million dollars. Ray is holding nearly a million dollars. You've got energy transfer LP more than half a million dollars in one election cycle alone to the Republican party. Then you have Uline, Inc. 513,775 in donations. It's important to note that there's a little trick being played here because the companies themselves are actually restricted from donating unlimited amounts of money to campaign committees. However, individuals associated with those firms,

including executives, employees, and those people's immediate family members donate large sums instead, effectively on behalf of the company. So in other words, Marcus Foundation itself didn't technically give the NRCC nearly a million dollars. Rather, people within and associated with the organization did. And they are able, individuals are able to donate larger sums of money to the committees on their own. When it comes to individual campaigns or candidates, the amount of money is actually much less, right? They can donate, I believe it's a little over $5,000 each election cycle to each specific candidate. But that amount is actually much larger when it comes to donating to

the national party committees. Now, in addition, with committees working in concert with their candidates, millions of dollars will effectively be funneled into an individual campaign allowing party committees to purchase TV airtime at much cheaper rates offered to candidates. Experts say that this will allow big donors to exert more influence over candidates, even more influence than they already have. Super PACs will remain the same, even if the court's rule in favor of the GOP's claims in this lawsuit. But does that really matter when wealthy donors can just donate to national party committees instead, knowing full well that these fundraising arms can coordinate directly with the candidates,

no restrictions. So what's the likelihood that this case gets decided in the Republican Party's favor? Unfortunately, very likely. So the case currently lies with Ohio district court judge Douglas Cole, a Trump appointee who only has to determine whether this case should be sent to the Sixth Circuit for review. And look, he gave Republicans a lot of hope in early August when he ordered a speedy three month discovery period, which hints that this case is headed to the higher court for full arguments. In fact, Judge Cole indicated to attorneys involved in the case earlier this month that he was setting a fast timeline to get arguments up to the circuit court. And the Sixth Circuit is a fairly conservative bench with a near,

super majority of GOP appointed judges. The venue itself is a win for Republicans. The FEC, the federal elections committee, sought to have the case either dismissed on technical grounds or move to federal court in D.C. But Cole denied that request. And should the FEC challenge the case all the way to the Supreme Court, you should keep in mind that, SCOTUS voted 6-3 to roll back another campaign finance regulation, which could indicate a willingness to strike down other longstanding laws. And while, look, the Republican Party has brought this suit forward, I want to be absolutely clear about something. It's not just the Republican Party that stands to benefit from the loosened campaign finance laws.

Obviously, this would apply to Democrats as well. And it's just another example of of how our, whatever remains of efforts to prevent bribery and corruption in our political system, they just keep getting chipped away at, chipped away at, chipped away at. And there are consequences to that. Because if you have these moneyed interests providing a lot of funding for these political campaigns and these specific candidates, well, they're going to have a lot more pressure or say over what those politicians actually end up fighting for once they are in fact elected or reelected. And that's where the issue is, right? You know, oftentimes you'll see politicians like Joe Biden,

for instance. He ran on, you know, wanting to fight for a public option in our health care system. He didn't fight for that at all. He claimed that he was going to fight for the pro act to improve the ability of labor to organize their workplaces. Didn't fight for that either. And so it's one thing to hear them campaign on something, which oftentimes will get them elected. But it's not surprising that they then abandon those campaign promises, keeping in mind who funded their campaigns the most. And technically, it's the money to interest that have money to burn. The fact that you have individuals within any given corporation or company donating nearly a million dollars to one national party committee tells you all you need to know, that drowns out the voices of individuals

individual voters or small dollar donors, grassroots individuals, right, who donate, let's say, $26 to a campaign, their voices get drowned out in this system. And so I think this is something that voters, both right and left, can agree on. In order to have a political system that actually looks out for the best interests of ordinary people, ordinary constituents, you have to ensure that everyone is on an even playing field in our political system. That is not the case right now. The fact that we have essentially baked bribery into the system and allowed for this

corruption to be as bad as it already is, is just ludicrous, but it's about to get worse if the GOP gets its way with this lawsuit. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we have more to get to. I'm going to read some of your comments during the break, but when we come back, we're also going to talk a little bit about something pretty awful that Greg Abbott did in regard to workers' rights and protect. We'll also talk about how there is a group of sheriffs in the country that don't believe that they should enforce the law, but rather decide which laws they should enforce.

That and more coming up. Don't miss it. Welcome back to the show, everyone. I'm going to Casparian. I want to talk a little bit about what workers across the country are currently faced with as they deal with heat waves and workplaces that just simply do not have any air conditioning. Garcia is still processing the sudden death of her 29-year-old cousin, Efraín Lopez Garcia, a farm worker in Homestead, Florida. On July 6th, He died while working outdoors in the sweltering heat. Well, unfortunately, he is not the only worker who has died due to hot temperatures and poor

working conditions. In fact, a Kroger employee in Tennessee has just died as a result of extreme heat at the workplace that does not have air conditioning. Sounds like a bit of a problem, especially when we're talking about labor that requires you to, you know, be incredibly physical. And that was certainly the case for Tony Rufus, who worked in the salvage department of the grocery store, which again did not have air conditioning, or at least that area did not have air conditioning. He tried to cool himself off after getting overheated in the produce section of the store, but Memphis police ended up finding him dead at 8.13 p.m. Now, Teamsters 667 leader Maurice Wiggins told local media that guys said he was dripping with sweat.

sweat asking for water. Wiggins said Rufus died on a dock in front of his co-workers. His death comes after his union had been asking the company for more breaks, cooler temperatures, and drinks other than just water. And if you're wondering what that means, likely, you know, fluids that have electrolytes and can help hydrate people a little quicker. Now, workers unions across the country are in fact demanding better, cooler working conditions as heat waves rage on across the country. And as we know, every year seems to get hotter and hotter as a result of the climate emergency. It's very serious. But installing air conditioning cuts in the profits. So of course, these companies are going to fight against it. Now, when you look at companies like UPS where their

workers are unionized, they've got some leverage. And as a result of that leverage, they just secured an incredibly good contract, a new contract that ensures that their delivery drivers get to deliver packages and vehicles that are air conditioned. That's what happens when you have a seat at the table, when you have some leverage as a worker in an organized workplace. But unfortunately, workers unions, or I should say, the percentage of employees protected by workers' unions is incredibly low in this country. And so those who do not have that leverage end up suffering the consequences of this system where companies want to maximize profits in an era where temperatures just get hotter and hotter every single year.

Now, conservative political forces are pushing back against any effort to pass regulations ensuring that these workplaces have the proper breaks and work environment to keep people safe during these high temperatures. Lobbyists from the agriculture and construction industries, for instance, are working to prevent heat protection laws from going into effect at state and federal levels. And then the Biden administration has proposed some federal regulations requiring workers be protected from the heat, but no such law has materialized so far. And in September of 2021, the Biden administration announced the launch of a rulemaking effort at the occupational safety and health. administration, also known as OSHA, of course, to develop heat exposure standards to protect outdoor and indoor workers. But there are pretty powerful lobbying groups representing various industries that, again, are fighting back against that rather aggressively. The American Farm Bureau Federation has objected to that proposal, for instance, considering the variances

in agricultural work and climate, they argue. AFBF questions whether the department can develop additional heat illness regulations without imposing new onerous burdens on farmers and ranchers that will lead to economic losses. It's really not that difficult, right? Give people the proper breaks, ensure that they have adequate access to water. These are not difficult things. It's not like the Biden administration proposed that, like, the,

agricultural workers be protected by a giant tent above the entire farm or something crazy like that. You know, but they don't want to spend a single dollar making the working conditions better for the workers, which is why again, when you're dealing with a workplace or if you're a farm worker and you're not unionized, you have to kind of rely on the whims of the government, either state, local government or federal government. And certainly in the case of the federal government, we're talking about significant legalized bribery being baked into the system, which leads to a lot of these lawmakers listening to moneyed interests as opposed to doing right by their constituents and these workers. Now, let's go to the state level, because this is what

I found particularly disgusting while researching for this story. So in Texas, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law that eliminated local rules requiring water breaks for workers. Here's more on that. Under this new law, the state will have power to override municipal code throughout Texas in certain circumstances. So any law that is stricter than state law. And currently some cities like Dallas mandate construction workers take a 10 minute break every four hours. So with this new law, that mandate would disappear. Opponents say this takes away the cities or town's right to protect its workers.

Critics are calling it, quote, the Death Star Bill. That's a Star Wars reference. But first you're going to hear from a supporter who says small businesses who don't have the staff to keep track of all the different laws and regulations across different cities. This say it will make things easier. It will cut down on confusion and make things more consistent across the state when it comes to labor and other regulations. So I want to note that this new change will go into effect on September 1st in Texas.

But what I'm about to tell you is kind of symbolic. Well, not symbolic, it actually happened. But you should expect a lot more of this considering the weakening of labor protection in the state of Texas. So shortly after that law passed, a 35-year-old utility lineman in Marshall, Texas, died after experiencing heat illness symptoms. We live in the United States of America, one of the richest countries in the world, where corporate profits year after year increase, and where ordinary people see their wages stagnate,

see their working conditions deteriorate. Now, luckily, because of some leverage that workers have, wages have gone up a little bit. But the fact that we can't have safe working conditions in the United States of America tells you everything you need to know about the imbalance of power we have in our democratic system, where again, the whims and the desires of corporate interests outweigh the concerns of ordinary Americans and the very workers who make things happen in this country, who keep things running in this country, who produce the food you

eat, okay, who make the products you buy, who provide the services you need, who provide the services you need, these are the people who get screwed day in, day out, and you should know, very likely you're an American worker. But with that said, the law will now revert to OSHA regulations, which I just told you that the OSHA regulations are too weak, which is why the Biden administration wanted to upgrade them to ensure that there were rules in place to protect workers during these terrible heat waves. Now, hundreds of American workers have died in recent years as a result of extreme heat on the job. I think it's important to take a step back and look at the broader picture here, because it's not just a few stories

here and there. Not just not just a few lives lost here and there. Since 2011, there have been 436 work-related deaths caused by environmental heat exposure, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to UPS company records obtained by the Washington Post, at least 143 UPS employees were hospitalized for heat or dehydration related injuries between 2015 and 2022. Now, luckily with this new contract that the labor union signed on behalf of the UPS workers will provide additional protections and air conditioning to prevent these types of deaths from occurring in the future. But if you're not unionized, if you don't have an organized workplace and you have no leverage, who's going to protect you? Who's going to look out for you?

Is it going to be the federal government? Honestly, at this point, I would say unlikely. So please talk to your workers if you can. Consider unionizing your workplace, because it could literally be a life or death situation if you don't. This is insane. The fact that we've had hundreds of workers die as a result of heat, as a result of dehydration,

not having the basics to protect them is absolutely ludicrous and disgusting. Anyway, let's do one more story before we wrap up the first hour and go to the second hour with Woz. This one is insane. We've actually covered the story in the past, but we do have some updates because it's still a problem. While law enforcement is supposed to do what their title describes and force the law,

someone to serve as lawmakers and judges to determine whether they agree with the laws in the first place. So the constitutional sheriffs and peace officers association is a sheriff's organization, that believes that sheriffs have the right to determine if a law or laws are unconstitutional and then choose whether or not they enforce those laws. Again, these are members of law enforcement. These are not individuals who are legislating or governing the country. They're not the ones who make the laws. We didn't elect them.

We pay them. But they apparently don't want to do their jobs. They want to be the ones who decide whether or not the laws are okay. So one of their board members argues that the sheriff is supposed to be protecting the public from evil. When your government is evil or out of line, that's what the sheriff is there for, protecting them from that. No darleaf. That is not what law enforcement is for. Law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law. That's what law enforcement is supposed to do. That's the whole point. And I'm going to back up for a second and just say this.

Law enforcement, I believe, is an incredibly important part of a well-functioning society. But the question is, what is law enforcement made up of? Who are the people within law enforcement? If you have people who just refuse to enforce the law or decide that they don't like laws and they're not going to enforce it, or should they be allowed to serve as members of law enforcement, I would venture to say no, and the fact that they're publicly saying these things without any consequences is concerning to say the least, especially at a time when trust for law enforcement is at an all-time low.

I hate that. I want to change that. And the only way to change that is to create a system in which people feel that law enforcement is actually protecting and serving. That is not what's taking place here. Further, the organization's founder, Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, argues that the safest way to actually achieve that is to have local law enforcement understand that they have no obligation to enforce such laws. Well, I live in Los Angeles. I've definitely experienced some of that. They're not laws at all anyway. If they're unjust laws, they are laws of tyranny. As you can imagine, we're not talking about cops who want to, like, sit by and watch, let's say, someone shoplift without any consequences.

No, no, no. It's a very specific things they don't want to enforce, including gun control laws, a little problematic. During the coronavirus pandemic, they didn't want to enforce, you know, mask, you know, mask mandates and other COVID-related mandates. and election fraud claims. They don't want to deal with that either. So the scariest part of this organization is that it's unfortunately growing. In fact, it's implementing taxpayer-funded trainings at sheriff's departments around the country. So over the last five years, the group has hosted trainings, rallies, speeches, and meetings

in at least 30 states for law enforcement officers, political figures, private organizations, and members of the public, according to the Howard's. Center's seven month probe conducted in collaboration with the Arizona Center for investigative reporting. The group has held formal trainings on its constitutional curriculum for law enforcement officers in at least 13 of those states. In six states, the training was approved for officers continuing education credits. This is insane. The group also has supporters who sit on three state boards in charge of law enforcement training standards. How is this okay?

How is it okay for members of law enforcement to just not only publicly say that we're just going to enforce the laws that we want to enforce? And then also take taxpayer money to train other members of law enforcement to believe this crap, to actually go along with this crap. One former federal prosecutor described the group's trainings as broader insurrectionist ideology. So just how popular is this group at its ideals? So since 2018, the Howard Center investigation found at least 69 sheriffs nationwide have either been identified as members of the group or publicly supported it, though at least one later

disavowed the organization. A 2021 survey of sheriffs by academic researchers, working with the nonprofit Marshall Project, found that more than 200 of the estimated 500 sheriffs who responded agreed with the group's ideology. And look, this is different from, you know, having discretion as a police officer or as a sheriff's deputy, right? So I'll give you an example. I remember talking to a deputy about an elderly woman who was caught shoplifting. And in this state, it wasn't the state of California, it was a different state, the, if the store decides they want to prosecute, the police officers are supposed to detain them. She decided, I'm not going to put this elderly woman in handcuffs.

That's ridiculous. That kind of discretion totally fine, but that is not what we're talking about here. In this case, we're literally talking about sheriff's deputies who just decide they don't like certain laws and as members of law enforcement, they will not enforce those laws. And it's unsurprising, I'm getting a little bit of a right wing militia feel from some of these members. And I'll provide a little bit of evidence for that in just a moment. So the group does not release the names of its dues paying members, but we do know the names and activities of the members on the board. Okay, so let's start with the co-founder, Sheriff Richard Mack.

Mac was an early board member of the Oath Keepers, the group involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Although he said he split with the group several years ago when it became a militia, Mack still speaks at Oathkeeper-affiliated rallies. Wow, really working hard to gain the community's trust as a member of law enforcement. How is this okay? Next up is Michael Perutka, who is another sheriff's group board member and former candidate for Maryland's attorney general. So he was once affiliated with the League of the South, which supports a free and independent Southern Republic. At a 2019 sheriff's training event, he said, there is a creator, there is a creator God.

our rights come from him, the purpose of civil government is to secure and defend God-given rights. Well, it's a little unconstitutional. Little unconstitutional. I mean, it depends on what he means by God-given rights. If he means the rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, totally fine. You know, there are religious people who think that the Constitution reflects rights that were given to us by God. But given his associations and some of his other political beliefs, I would venture to say, you know, there's a little bit of an issue with how he sees the role of law enforcement. And last, but certainly not least, board member and Michigan police officer Dar Leaf, who we heard from a little earlier, Leaf was actually, I can't believe

these people are sheriff's deputies. Leif was investigated, but not charged in connection with the Michigan Attorney General's investigation into the alleged illegal seizure and breach of vote counting machines in 2020. He also appeared and at an election denier rally with two men later charged in the conspiracy to kidnap Michigan's Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. We need massive reforms in policing in this country. And we need to do that at a time when police departments across the country are dealing with severe deputy shortages.

This crap is not helping with any of that. And the fact that it's just happening out in the open with absolutely no backlash, with absolutely no consequences for people who literally do not want to do their jobs, is a problem to say the least. And this has been going on for years now. But I thought you should all know that there are literally sheriff's deputies who think they're the ones who get to decide which laws they enforce and which laws they either ignore or refuse to, you know, yeah, it forced basically because they just don't agree with it.

They're allowing their personal political biases impact their ability to do their jobs. That's not all right. It wouldn't be all right if a judge did that. And it's certainly not all right when a member of law enforcement does it. All right. We got to take a break. When we come back, Wazni Lombray joins me for the second hour. And we're going to begin with a story involving Ramoswami.

who likes to brag about how he's self-funded and he doesn't take corporate pack money. He's not bought and paid for. But it's not really 100% true. That more coming up, don't miss it. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts

at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon