The Young Turks - Devin Nunes Audio Tape LEAKED; Did Tillerson Stop A War?

Episode Date: August 9, 2018

A portion of our Young Turks Main Show from August 9, 2018. For more go to http://www.tytnetwork.com/join. Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian. Rex Tillerson apparently prevented a war in Saudi Arabia. AP’s problematic factcheck on Bernie. CNN’s story on Tuesday’s progressive losses. AOC went to Hawaii to support Kaniela Ing. David Nunes tapes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Thank you for watching or listening to this free podcast of the Young Turks. We want to make sure that you get some portion of the show every day. But if you want the full show, which is actually five segments, come become a member and support independent media as well. TYT network.com slash join. Meanwhile, enjoy the free podcast.

All right, welcome the Young Turks, a big show ahead for you guys. In just a couple of minutes, we have rage coming, so that's always fun. This one is directed at the Associated Press. An unlikely source, we would think that the Associated Press would be in the news business, and I want them to be in the news business, but unfortunately, apparently not, as you're going to see in a couple of minutes. And then Politico and CNN, of course. also go after progressives, we will give you clarity on that as well, and we will defend our

own, but we'll do it based on facts, and we'll be honest about our losses, but also be the only place apparently in the media that points out our wins. And when I say, are, I mean, yes, progressives. So, and then a little bit later on the program, Corey Booker, genuine or not genuine, progressive or not progressive. We have a couple of answers for you guys. Again, it's not based on personalities or what we think of them as human beings. It's based on facts and what their positions are. Okay, so, interesting show coming up for you all. If you miss any part of it, you remember, if you become a member, you could always get all of it ad-free.

t-y-t.com slash join and you support home of progressives. I don't know where you're going to find another show like this or all the shows that we do in our network. Okay, I don't think there's a lot of shows right now on MSNBC defending Bernie Sanders, our revolution, just Democrats, as I'm about to do in the next two segments, okay? So if you want weak sauce, there's plenty of places to find it. If you want a strong defense of progressives, t-y-t.com slash join. All right, let's go over here. So on this show, we try really, really hard to be fair.

And we have a clear perspective. We never hide that. We're progressives. And we have a point of view about certain people, political parties, companies, et cetera. But you cannot let that get in the way of new development. facts. So boy, do we have an interesting case of that in the case of Rex Tillerson. So I am no fan of Rex Tillerson, and I don't know any progressive that is. Rex Tillerson was the CEO of Exxon Mobile. Not only did Exxon Mobile pollute the environment contribute to climate change in a devastating

way, but new memos show that they knew about it for a long time and covered it up. And I believe Brex Tillerson went into the Trump administration to try to get a deal with the Russians and ExxonMobil back on the plate. As it turned out, it didn't work because the Senate and the House overwhelmingly voted for sanctions, and they could not get that half a trillion dollar deal back into effect. So I'm telling you all that, because not only am I not a fan of Rexterson, there's good reason not to be a fan of Rexelson, and I'll sprinkle in one more thing, his hypocrisy. So, Axon Mobile was, is one of the leading companies in the country that does fracking.

When they went to do fracking near Rex Tillerson's house in Texas, he flipped out and was like, no, literally not in my backyard. So what happened? I thought fracking was awesome. Apparently not so much when it's near your home. So all the reasons not to love Rex Tillerson. That being said, an interesting report out of The Intercept, died by Alex Salmons with incisement. side sources inside the United States government, State Department, and the White House,

showing that Rex Tillerson might have been a bit of a hero in this particular case. So let me give you the facts, and then you decide for yourself, okay? So Emmons writes, in the months that followed Rex Thurson's departure, and of course he has now left the State Department and he was fired by Trump, press reports strongly suggested that the country's lobbying hardest for Tillerson's removal were Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were frustrated by Tillerson's attempts to mediate and end their blockade of Qatar. That's very interesting.

Now, there was some curious situation around the departure of Rex Tillerson and Russia. Now, to the point about how Tillerson, I'm not positive as the most honest actor in the world, to say the least, as soon as it was made evident that ExxonMobil did not want that deal with Russia anymore because they didn't think we could lift the sanctions, Tillerson was fired within a week of that. Okay, but to be fair to Tillerson, he disagreed with Trump on Russia and was much tougher on Russia than Trump was, and some thought that Trump might have been mad about that. But either way, even though I think that he clearly wanted that deal done, He still was honest in regards to how he dealt with Russia on behalf of the United States of America

near the end. Whether that angered Trump or not is a good and open question. But apparently, Russian interference is not the only thing we have to worry about, as this story explains. There are a lot of countries trying to interfere with at least our policymaking, that is for sure, let alone our elections. Now, them trying to influence us is nothing new. And every country tries to influence us, whether there are allies or our enemies in one way or another.

But the question is, do we listen to them and why do we listen to them? So in this case, Tillerson made some enemies in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Let's find out why. They explained furthermore, citing other people's reporting as well. One report in the New York Times even suggested that the UAE ambassador to Washington knew that Tillerson would be forced out three months before he was fired in March. Now, that piece of evidence is important because it goes to show you that not only did they want him out, these foreign countries, UAE and Saudi Arabia, not only did they push

for it, but apparently they knew about it before the American public did. So that shows certainly their influence in it being able to get him fired, and that apparently at least some people in the Trump White House confide in them more than they confide in the American people. So now onto the new evidence, Emmons explains that the Intercept has learned of a previously unreported episode that stoked the UAE and Saudi Arabia's anger at Tillerson and that may have played a key role in his removal. In the summer of 2017, several months before the Gulf allies started pushing for his ouster, Tillerson intervened to stop a secret Saudi-led UAE-backed plan to invade and essentially conquer Qatar, according to one current

member of the U.S. intelligence community and two former State Department officials, all of whom declined to be named citing the sensitivity of the matter. Wow. So Saudi Arabia and UAE, we're going to roll in tanks to a nearby country and just take it. That's insane. I remember the George H.W. Bush years, you know, the phrase New World Order is very maligned and people don't like it. Well, you know, as he explained it, Bush Sr. explained it, it was that you cannot attack another country that did not attack you. Now, his son, of course, destroyed that rule, part of the reason why I was against him. But this would be an absolute obliteration of that rule. Guitar didn't do anything to Saudi Arabia and UAE.

By the way, part of the reason they might have wanted to do it is some religious rivalry. Another is basically the soap opera of the different princes and shakes and kings within the Gulf. But the third was, it's possible they just wanted to take their money. There's a lot of natural gas in Qatar. Saudi Arabia is now starting to run out of their money. Over the last couple of years, they've lost a third of their reserves, which is hundreds of billions of dollars.

Qatar, on the other hand, has $320 billion in reserves sitting there, let alone the natural gas that they have. The 320 billion is a sovereign wealth fund. It is just cash. So it's possible that that was just high stakes robbery, where they would just take a country for their cash. So that is, of course, crazy. What's even crazier, especially from our perspective, is that we have troops, American troops, inside Qatar. So this plan is mental. And so Tillerson did the right thing. He put the brakes on it. So let's give you more information here. In the calls that Tillerson made, Tillerson dealt extensively with the Qatari government as the CEO of Exxon Mobil, urged Saudi King Salman, then deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, and former minister Adil al-Jubir not to attack Qatar or otherwise escalate hostilities, the sources told to intercept. Tillerson also encouraged Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to call his counterparts in Saudi Arabia to explain the dangers of such an invasion.

Which you would think would be obvious, but apparently was not. And of course, the current crown prince in Saudi Arabia is absolutely reckless. No wonder he and Trump get along so well. He arrested other members of his family, basically stole their money under the guise of corruption, which is hilarious. And as Saudi Arabia now is... We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic or UNFTR. As a young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations

are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, The UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational,

aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must unlearn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're up. brooding and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. Concerned about their cash reserves, he bought a yacht that was valued according to some reports,

half a billion dollars, not half a million, half a million. million dollars for just a boat, okay? So that's this guy, and he arrested the and threatened the leader of Lebanon, which is unprecedented, basically held him hostage in Saudi Arabia when he was on a foreign visit. So him thinking of just simply conquering another country is not only not unheard of in his crazy case, but look at what they're doing in Yemen right now. Saudi Arabia has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet with their brutal bombing and blancade of Yemen, and these are our so-called allies. Hey, Trump supporters, are you proud? You're proud that your guy is in bed with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

and does their bidding for them and fires the American Secretary of State based on their request? Wow, wow. I thought you were concerned that Obama bowed to someone. Apparently, Trump taking orders from a shake in the middle of a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia and UAE. I don't care that they're Muslim, but a lot of you, MAGA guys care about Muslims. It turns out your so-called alpha male is the one taking orders from those Muslims. Enjoy more details. Al-a-Dood Air Base near Doha, Qatar's capital city, is the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command and home to some 10,000.

1,000 American troops. So our Secretary of State says, do not invade a country where we have 10,000 troops. And then he gets fired for it, according to these internal sources within the Trump administration. Does that sound like we're making America great again? I don't think the hat said make UAE great again, did they? Okay, the plan which was largely devised by the Saudi and UAE crown princess, and was likely some weeks away from being implemented involved Saudi ground troops crossing the land border into Qatar and with military support from the UAE advancing roughly 70 miles

towards Doha, circumventing the U.S. Air Base, Saudi forces would then seize the capital. Now, that is a terrible plan. As you can see with the war that Saudi Arabia has conducted in Yemen, apparently wars are not easy. You think you can just walk into a country and take it, how's that way? working for you in Yemen. Not very well. You're stuck in a mire. And if it had gone poorly, as it almost certainly would have in Qatar, the Saudis are generally incompetent as a government. It's a dictatorship, not really won based on merit, but based on random genetic lottery. So, of course, and they grew up incredibly wealthy. So the leadership is a total disaster.

They have unearned confidence. They botched it in Yemen. They would have botched it in Qatar. And in that case, our American troops would have been stuck in the middle. Thank God that Rex Tillerson and Jim Madison, whoever else was responsible, stop that insane idea. And Tillerson gets fired for that. Tillerson is not an American hero in a thousand other ways. But if he actually prevented this war, he saved a ton of lives and some of them might have been American. And he saved a colossal debacle in the middle of the volatile Middle East. Now, meanwhile, as Tillerson is trying to calm everything down and trying to explain to

UAE and Saudi Arabia that, hey, America stands with Qatar, which has an American base in the middle of it, the only country in the Gulf that will allow that, right? Trump goes out and says, at the same time, the nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. How about Saudi Arabia? Have they been a funder of terrorism? Saudi Arabia, of course, is the home of 15 out of the 19-9-11 hijackers. It's the home of Osama bin Laden.

It's the home of the people who funded the Sunni insurgency against us in Iraq and that had our troops killed. But Donald Trump has a lot of business deals with Saudi Arabia. One of the top fundraisers for the Republicans, Elliot Brody, wanted a $600 million contract with UAE, and he got one. And he raised a lot of money for Donald Trump, let alone any other nefarious deal that Broody and Trump have together. Jared Kushner on the phone with the UAE all the time, looking to make a business deal

in New York with the UAE before. And he was looking to make one with Qatar and they backed out of it. Is that punishment for this? That stuff, maybe we'll find out later. But it is absolutely evident that the Trump family personally has a lot invested in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. So, look, and I don't want anybody to mistake what I'm saying. I got no love for Qatar either.

I think Qatar is a huge host of problems. It's also a dictatorship. The way that they have conducted themselves and building up for the World Cup is a disaster. So Qatar is not necessarily a great ally of ours either, but they do have an American base, and starting a war with them would be a terrible idea. So, but Trump apparently wanted to go in that direction. and his public comments clearly indicate that he is on the side of the Saudis and the UAE and against Qatar.

And lastly, Emmez explains, according to one news report, Tillerson was frustrated with the White House for undercutting him and his age suspected that the line in Trump's prepared Rose Garden remarks had been written by the UAE ambassador Yusuf al-Otaiba, a powerful DC player who maintain, quote, almost constant phone and email contact with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to Politico. The United Arab Emirates is writing Donned from speeches according to that report. What was that about Make America Great again? I can't believe that times I've gotten so dark that we needed Rex Tillerson.

to be the cooler head and to actually care about America and be a patriot for once. But he was, apparently, and so for that, he should receive a ton of credit. And you should take that in the totality of his career with significant downsides. But that is a major upside. If it is true that he prevented a war, it doesn't get any bigger than that. And, of course, the totally reckless, corrupt person who did not mind that way. war and was frustrated that it did not begin was President Donald Trump. Okay.

Now, that's a story I was mad about, but you ain't seen mad yet. Let's go to Associated Press story on Bernie Sanders. Associated Press recently had a story that I thought was horribly biased. It's giant headlines saying that Bernie Sanders' plan for men. Medicare for all costs $32.6 trillion. Now, as I pointed out in that piece, there were a number of things that were wrong with that. The most important was that the Associated Press never clarified that the current health care system costs $33 trillion. So some simple math leads you to believe that Medicare for all then is less expensive than the current system.

Not mentioning that is negligent, to say the least. Now, I don't go after the Associated Press because I want to destroy them, or I think they're an enemy of the people, or any other lunatic theory like that the right wing has. No, I actually hold Associated Press to a very high standard. We need the Associated Press to be a great press outlet and actually deliver facts for us. Leaving out that giant fact was deeply problematic. And we hear the Young Turks asked their audience to contact them about that. Apparently, and I don't know if this is why they did this AP fact check, but it looks like

they got the message that some people were not pleased with their last report. Now they also did not make clear in the beginning of that article that the people who wrote that study about how it cost $32.6 trillion were funded by the Koch brothers. So they didn't make it clear in the headline, they didn't make it clear in the first several paragraphs. It was an aside later in the article, but they wrote it as if what the study said was pretty much true, not focusing on the fact that it comes from a right-wing perspective with an agenda. Now, the Koch brothers have been against the Affordable Care Act, and of course can't stand Medicare for all. You would think that that would be an important

context to point out. And I've spent millions of dollars trying to destroy any of those systems that would bring expanded health care to Americans. Important context. Now, they've made it far worse because today there's a story out that says big letters, AP fact check. And the title is Sanders spins savings in Medicare plan. Now, you're doing a fact check, and already in your title, you charge Bernie Sanders with spinning things. Okay, wait. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives,

constantly monitoring us and storing our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from. from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install.

A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired Magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-Y-T. Check it out today. If you say, hey, look, here are his facts and here are the issues with his facts.

And so that is his perspective, but we don't necessarily agree with the conclusion. That would be fair. That's a fact check, right? But already you're telling me your perspective. And you can say, hey, maybe that's their conclusion. So let's go to the body of the article and see if they did this right. So they talked about how Bernie Sanders says that Medicare for All would actually save overall about $2 trillion from the overall amount that we spend on health care in America.

In fact, Bernie Sanders used the Koch brothers founded study to prove that. So now that is where their analysis begins. And they say the facts. They set up to what I just explained to you. And then they say, the facts. Okay, great, I can't wait to see what the facts are. And remember, this doesn't come from perspective of not liking the Associated Press or not cheering for their success.

It comes from wanting them to do well and to give us real journalism. But here they go, the facts, colon. Sanders' vision of El Dorado in his tweet and a YouTube video is being widely echoed by supporters of a government-run national health system. Now, they might be referring to a young Turks video that our viewers sent them. Thank you guys for sending that to them. I'm not sure, though. I don't know.

Unlike the Associated Press, I actually care about the facts, apparently. So they might be referring to a different video. That is not important. What is important is the beginning of that? You just told me this was a fact check. You had a big thing there that said in capital letters of facts. And then you started with Sanders' vision of El Dorado. What are they talking about?

What is that? El Dorado is a mythical golden city. Wait, you didn't give me the facts. You just said that Bernie Sanders, you implied, lives in a mythical city like a utopian vision of the world that is totally unrealistic. That's not a fact. That's you saying, I don't like Bernie Sanders. I think his plans to help the American people is magical and mythical. And that's my opinion.

I thought this was a fact check. El Dorado? Could you imagine if they did that in an analysis of a right winger? And boy, do they deserve it. Ted Cruz on his website for the United States Senate explained how the United Nations wants to force us into Hobbit homes. We covered that years ago on the Young Turks. Now, there was no fact check about how Ted Cruz lives in a maniacic. mythical world where the United Nations is going to put us in Hobbit homes.

That's a direct quote from Cruz's old website, Hobbit homes. That's apparently not El Dorado. Why do they hesitate when it comes to the right wing? Oh, no, the right wing's going to call us liberal. They're going to call us liberal. Don't, don't, don't be real with them. But as soon as there's a program to help you guys, El Dorado, like you can help the American people, was to $2 trillion tax cut for the rich.

That was not El Dorado. That put it, according to the latest estimates, and by the way, do you do your job? Money righted El Dorado piece of fact check on the Republican tax plan. It has increased from $1.5 to $1.9 trillion that it's going to cost us. But that was not El Dorado. The Republicans said over and over again, oh, we care about deficits. We care about deficits. Then they put a $2 trillion hole in our budget that created a massive deficit.

Did you call that El Dorado? No, because you're scared of Republicans. And you're so scared, you refuse to do your job, besides which is not just that you can see. In every word of this article, the disdain that the mainstream media has for progressives dripping from every word. So, okay, that is a terrible gratuitous beginning to a so-called fact check. But let's go further, let's be fair. Did they actually talk about facts and did they disprove Bernie Sanders?

So let's go forward. It's a short article because they don't have the facts on their side. So I'm going to quote almost all of it, but it's quick. So they refer to the libertarian study as the study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia. In their fact check, they do not mention at all that the study is funded by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers who have spent millions of dollars trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act, let alone Medicare for All.

They never mention that. You don't think that's relevant? You don't think that's relevant context. And then you wonder why I think you're not a very good journalist. I want you to be better, but you got a long way to go, apparently. Oh, I'm sorry, did you find that dismissive? Because I thought this was fairly dismissive. So please don't cry.

Okay, I'm going to go forward. The study, they say, found that if hospitals and doctors were willing to accept Medicare-based payments of 40% less for patients who currently have private insurance, then projected U.S. health care spending would decline by about 3% from 2020, 2022 to 20131, or $2.05 trillion. You know what that means? That means Bernie Sanders was right. They just told you, in their own fact check, that not Bernie Sanders study, the Koch

brother study does show that if we do Medicare for all, and we use Medicare, Medicare rates, it saves $2 trillion for the country. So did they declare Bernie Sanders is right? No, they did the opposite. And here comes another dismissive line. Quote, that's the number Sanders is celebrating. No, that's the number of Sanders is quoting. That's a fact from their own study.

I think the study actually is biased. We would save a lot more than $2 trillion. And there are other studies to indicate that. But you don't talk about that. Oh, I guess that's the one you're celebrating. Okay, so what are the facts? For God's sake, are you ever going to do any facts in your fact check? So let me quote them at length to see if we can find anything, okay?

So they say, but the study said, also said, if medical providers continue to be paid about the same as now, U.S. healthcare spending would increase by $3.25 trillion over 10 years under Medicare for all. It works to about 5% more. So, you just said, the study says if you do Medicare for all with Medicare rules, you will save $2 trillion. But if you do Medicare for all and it isn't Medicare for all and you decide to pay more, then it would cost more. That's true, but then that wouldn't be Medicare for all. So I think you kind of proved our point.

But no, no, no, no, no, no, you have to attack Bernie Sanders. You have to pretend that his plan is unrealistic. Okay, even though look at your own facts. Is there a fact checker in the Associated Press? Is there an editor at the Associated Press? Did you look at this and not get embarrassed? Wait, but hey, hold on. The guy, well, you seem like you're quoting things that Bernie Sanders said that are actually true.

Okay, so now, last part here, this is quoting the study. Listen to what the study says. And this is, let's be careful here. He says, they said, more generous health care insurance. would provide to everyone at the expense of health care providers. Whether providers could sustain such losses and remain in operation, and how those who continue operations would adapt to such dramatic payment reductions are critically important questions. So even the study itself did not say that you can't do Medicare costs and prices.

It said, if you do, they, the Koch brothers funded study is concerned that doctors and hospitals will not accept those payments. It did not conclude that it would cost more. It included that those would be questions for Medicare for all. The Associated Press takes the best reading of the Coke study and then says, no, they didn't say questions. they concluded it, and they are correct. It's not like I'm going to actually do my own study.

It's not like I'm going to do my actual reporting. I'm just going to tell you what the study says, take it as a fact, and then I'm going to add on top of it. The study didn't even say it. I just read it to you. The study said, are critically important questions. The question is, are you really going to pay the Medicare rates or are you going to be forced to pay higher rates?

Now, if the Associated Press said that's a fair question, it is a fair question. That would be a fair debate. But then to take that and to say, no, the study concludes that the prices will be higher. It did not conclude that. You just told me it didn't conclude that. And then to take the study's word for it, as if you're not a news organization. And that's it. That's the whole fact check.

And then so they are declaring that Bernie Sanders is spinning and that he lives in El Dorado, even though the body of the article says he's right. According to Koch brothers' study, their own study, if we actually did Medicare rates, which is what we would do under Medicare for all, it would save us $2 trillion. I don't want you to do terrible journalism. I believe in journalism. I want you to do great journalism so that I could cite it on the show. We need the Associated Press. We need Reuters. We need McClatchee. And we need Knight Ritter. And the print journalists are the only one. ones that are actually doing journalism in this country, if we have to rely on cable news, we're all ruined. So I don't want to tear your house down. I want to help you build it right. But if your disdain for progressives leads to such a monumental bias that you attack

all progressive ideas despite the facts that are in your own story, then I have got to question whether you're a good journalist. This certainly proves otherwise. If you don't like that, don't look at us and get upset. Look in the mirror. Actually have some editors get together at the Associated Press and go, wait a minute, it appears that their point is based on the facts. Now, I can get upset and you can say, well, hey, you're upset, so I'm not going to listen to you. Okay, that's fair. It's not fair. That makes no sense. But I know that that's, oh, uncivil, unsimble, he raised his voice. What are the goddamn facts? That's your job. We have a perspective and we're clear about it. But we never twist the facts to suit our perspective. We tell you

what they are. I mean, to ask the Associated Press to do likewise is the bare minimum of what they should do. This was abhorrent. And unfortunately, a lot of the mainstream press, and they don't know it, and it's not a conspiracy. But in their groupthink, in their bubble, in their minds, The right wing is to be feared and respected. The establishment is to be revered, the status quo, the politicians, the Pentagon, official sources revered. Progressives disdain, dismissive, irrelevant, to be attacked and mocked. And that's no longer our opinion, you just showed it yourself with this disastrous, so-called fact-checked with absolutely no facts. Young Turks

All right guys lots to do I gotta get to your comments later let me do two more stories real quick and then Anna's got a ton of stories for you guys as well so let's go right over here and get started okay

so CNN and Politico and a lot of other organizations covered the Tuesday elections some more fairly than others and in Tuesday's elections for progressives there were some excellent wins, there were some disheartening losses, and it was a mixed bag. And if you reported that way, that is true. So I'm going to give you the full context here. First, let's go to CNN's reporting.

They say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's movement failed to deliver any stunners Tuesday night. Now, I don't love the word fail in the title. It seems like it is not mixed news. It makes it seem like it's totally terrible news, that it was a failure. But when you go to the text of the article, it's not as bad. So they say there were no major surprises. I would argue that Jamie Schoolcraft winning was a very nice surprise. I'll tell you about him in a second.

Rashida Talib was in fifth place and went to first. I would argue that was a surprise. But that's not an overly offensive thing to say. If off, it's off by a little bit. They explained that another Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez favored, James Thompson, won comfortably. So that at least gives some context for some of the victories. So that's also good. I'm trying to be fair here and giving you all sides, the negative and the positive for how this coverage went in the mainstream media.

And then they explained the most hardening result for leftists came in Michigan's 13th congressional district where former state lawmaker, Rashida Taleb, outlisted a crowded field. And that's good, that's great. So they mentioned Thompson and they mentioned Talib. So now overall, they painted one of general failure. They mentioned two of the winners. You know, I guess my expectations for the mainstream media is low enough that I found that almost to be a relief. Politico, of course, was far, far worse.

Lately, the Associated Press, which should be the bastion of objectivity, has been unfortunately, quite bad at how they report on progressives, and I would argue, in fact, biased. Now, so, but I want to give full context here, so it's not true that the overall, the night was a bad one. In fact, there were great many victories for progressives throughout the night, including for Working Families Party, our Revolution, which we'll get to in a second, P-T-T-R-C, and certainly the Just Democrats, and McCullough was defeated in Missouri. He's one of the worst prosecutors in the country, and he's the one that basically helped

the police evade justice in the Michael Brown case. So that was a great victory for progressives. But just on Justice Democrats alone, there was 13 races. One is still not decided, believe it or not, in Washington's 9th District. So of the 12 that have been decided, if you looked at the CNN article, you would have gotten the impression that the Just Democrats law. the overwhelming majority. But that is not true. They actually went six for 12. So they went literally won half the races. That actually sounds pretty good. So let me show you the winners

just to help out here. James Thompson, as they mentioned, in Kansas' fourth, a great victory, closed what was a 27-point victory for the Republicans in that district in a special election, down to six. And now that he's won his primary, anything is in great shape to actually win that race in the general election, and he has moved on. Matt Morgan in Michigan's first district, another Justice Democrat, and that means no corporate PAC money and a progressive platform, also won. Rob Davidson, Michigan's second district, also won. Now, those races were not surprises. That is true, okay? Now, James Thompson, with a nice, solid victory, but he was also expected to win. Rashida Talib was definitely a surprise, certainly from the beginning of the process. Like I said,

she was in fifth place, she kept moving up, moving up, moving up, and eventually winning a very close race. So that's the victory number four. The person they didn't mention at all is Jamie Schoolcraft. Now, I think that's the most interesting case. He's in Missouri 7th. He was outspent two to one. So he barely won, right?

Because you already know he's a winner. No, he didn't barely win. He won by 30 points. I would count that as a significant surprise. how much coverage has Jamie Schoolcraft gotten? Outside of the young Turks, I don't know that he's gotten any coverage. He won by 30 points after being massively outspent. And the final victory was Pramila Jayapal.

She is an incumbent. That was also not a surprise, again, to be fair to CNN, but she is a Justice Democrat and likely will be part of that caucus in the next Congress. So overall, not terrible coverage by CNN, and they had some caveats in there, but I thought, obviously, if you give the full context, you see that there was significant progressive victories, and overall the night was split. And don't get me wrong, I've already told you this for two days straight, but I'll say it in the context of these stories, too.

There were painful losses, Cory Bush, Brent Welder, Abdul al-Said, so there was some painful losses and some wonderful victories. That's the reality. So now we go to Politico where you are not going to get the reality. They painted as a Bernie issue, and their headline, unsurprising, given that it's Politico, and their enormous disdain and bias against Bernie Sanders, is Bernie and his army are losing 2018. How's that for context? Okay.

And just in case you weren't clear on where they stand, they are not going to give you the full picture. Instead, in the body of the article, they have lines like this over and over again. Bernie Sanders is sputtering. Okay. Now, Politico did a hit job on Our Revolution earlier. Again, they emitted all their victories and only focused on their losses. If you talk about their losses, that's fair, that's real. Nobody's trying to cover that up.

But you should also talk about their wins. That's called journalism. What you're doing is, as usual, and I know that the people in Washington think this is crazy. Like, oh my God. But yes, you are biased against progressives. It's so obvious from all of your coverage. Bernie Sanders losing, sputtering, our revolution disorganized. I can't believe he has no organization.

Plus, he's not part of our revolution. He set it up, but he can't technically be involved in the organization. You leave that out of your stories, or you pointed out with no sense of irony or hypocrisy, right? So again and again, Politico with their attacks against progressives. So I don't care what the Republicans say, and as a reporter, you shouldn't care. Oh, well, the Republicans say we're liberals, so we have a liberal bias, so we're going to go out of our way to bash liberals. Does that sound like journalism to you? That sounds like cowardice to me.

It certainly doesn't sound objective. So, again, I'm going to give you the full context here in a second. They go on to say two years after his defeat in the 2016 presidential primary, the Vermont senator has amassed a growing string of losses in races in which he has intervened. This is so-called reporter David Siders. And then they go on to say you get the whole sense of it here. Sanders also campaigned for James Thompson, who won his primary in a less competitive Kansas House District Tuesday, and our revolution endorsed candidates have already won

local contests elsewhere. Now, I give you that because I'm trying to be fair to them. That was their only caveat for, lost, sputtering, terrible. James Thompson won, and I guess there was local elections somewhere, and they won some of those. Anyway, we're moving back to Sanders is terrible. Can't win it all. Now, look, if you want to point out that Sanders supported Brent Welder, Abdul-Sayn, and they didn't win, that's super fair.

That's what happened. But if you don't talk about the victories, well, then I have to question whether you're biased. Why are you leaving out the victories? Now, it's not like Politico doesn't know that Bernie Sanders started our revolution. They did a giant hit job just a little while ago saying that everything that our revolution did can be pinned on Bernie Sanders and it's Bernie Sanders fault. You can go back and read that story. That's a fact that they wrote that. So why don't you look at how our revolution did on Tuesday night? Oh, if you had asked them, if you were an actual reporter, you might have

found out they won a lot of races. So just like the just Democrats went about 50-50. They won six out of 12 that are decided. Our revolution backed 24 candidates on Tuesday night. And guess how many of them won? If you read Politico, you might have thought one or, you know, or just a couple. No, out of the 24, 11 won. And four of the races are not decided yet. So since Politico apparently never bothered to ask our revolution or even just go to their website, I'll read it to you so that I could educate Politico. If you think that that sounds dismissive, how do you think you sound to us?

So here you go, if you actually bother to do reporting, you would find out the our revolution back, James Thompson, obviously for U.S. Congress, Kansas 4th, George Hanna in Kansas State House District 47, Mark Bignell, Michigan State Senate, District 33, Rashida Talib in Michigan 13th. By the way, they won on a very important issue and very decisively on no on Prop A, the Missouri ballot measure that was really important to the unions and the working class in Missouri. A resounding victory, which Politico seems to have forgotten about in bashing our revolution in Bernie Sanders again. Adrian Plank, Missouri State House District 47, Michaeliskelton, Missouri State House District 50, Curtis Wilde, Missouri State House District 107, Primalogh, U.S. Congress, Washington, 7th. Victor Minharas, Thurston County Prosecutor in Washington, Aaron Frazier, Washington State House District 19, Jessel Lewis, Washington State Senate District 6.

So don't tell me that you do objective reporting because you don't. You don't even do neutral reporting. I used to criticize organizations like Politico because they would just say, oh, well, he said, she said, the Republicans say this, the Democrats say that. I mean, how would I know? What am I a reporter? No, who cares what the Republicans say and the Democrats say, what is the reality? In this case, if you had the so-called liberal bias, you would have talked about all the

victories and not mention the losses at all. We have a perspective. We're progressive. We're honest about that. But you think we covered up the losses? No, those losses were really, really painful. We talked about them all night long. But we also talked about the victories. Because unlike you, we might have a perspective, but we're not biased.

And we're not looking to cover up the truth because that wouldn't help our audience. So what's your excuse, Politico? So within the context of these stories, and there's more where this came from in the mainstream media. The CNN story seems benign. I think they could have done a better job of giving context, but I'm being fair to them. Whereas the political story was yet another hatchet job against Bernie Sanders and progressives, our revolution, and all of these organizations. Because they're biased. They don't like progressives. Almost all of their stories attack progressives. And that's the reality. And I just proved it. And by the way, since the last time I did the

story about their last hatchet shop, I challenged them. All right, well, show us any stories you wrote that was actually fair, not positive, not something that skews artificially in favor of progressives. Just give me any story that you wrote that was in any way earned in a positive way or fair towards progressives. Nothing, nothing. When there's an opportunity to bash progressives, political will show up every time. When progressives have victories, gee, I wonder if you're biased.

Politico takes ads from giant corporations all day long and then supports corporate politicians. How dare you mention that bias? How dare you? That's our living. We make all the money from these people who support the corporate politicians. You're not allowed to point out our bias. Only the right wing is allowed to point out our non-existent bias. New York bias, it's even, it's not so much that they're right wingers or that they're conservative.

It's that they cater to their advertisers, they cater to corporations, they cater to the status quo. If anything, they have a really deep-seated establishment bias. If it comes from an established government official, the White House, the Pentagon, a corporation, a politician, someone they find official. Oh, yes, absolutely, sir, absolutely, sir. Progressives are trying to challenge the establishment? A sputtering losses. I'm not going to tell you about their wins. Politico is one of the worst organizations in mainstream media.

So don't believe the hype. We're not like the right wing. We don't want the politicos of the world to be terrible at their job. We want them to be good at their job. We want good, strong, healthy journalism. But it ain't Politico. Okay, now, I'm going to give you one last thing here. I got worked up, man.

I got worked up. Okay. Kanyella Ng has an election on Saturday. That is unusual. That is the state of Hawaii where they actually care if you vote. In fact, mail and ballots are available in Hawaii, partly because Kaniola Ining, as a state legislator, sponsored that resolution and got it passed. Well, his election is coming up on Saturday.

So here comes the Justice League. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez changed her schedule. She had attended net routes. She came here. She was on the Young Turks. She went to net roots. She was supposed to go back home. She said, no.

I'm going to go help my fellow just Democrat, Conella Ng. So tonight, there is a rally in Hawaii. Acacio Cortez lands in Hawaii. They go immediately, and you need to go and join them. Doors open at 5.30 Hawaiian time, 630, the event begins. You must RSVP. There, and you could watch, if you don't live in Hawaii, you could watch it on Facebook.com slash RebelHQ.

As always, we will be streaming all of these progressive events and we stream all of them at Facebook.com slash Rebel HQ. A famous Hawaiian singer, Tavana, is also going to be there. He is going to join them, and I love when progressives stick up for each other. And especially Accio Cortez, who goes out of our way to make sure she helps fellow progressives, fellow Justice Democrats, all these scathing articles in Politico, associate press, et cetera, about the losses on Tuesday night for progressives, not mentioning the wins, right? And then they question her on it, and they say, you know, hey, you know, you know,

Why are you still out there and, you know, and they try to basically shame her and other progressives over what happened in Tuesday night? Again, if you weren't paying attention or you watched the mainstream media, you probably got implicitly lied to. The reality is half of the just Democrats candidates won, half of our revolution candidates, one, you don't get that perspective at all from the press. But even so, there was a quote that I really liked from Alexandria. She said, wins in the short term are important, mile markers, and necessary to building power. But you can't be afraid of loss. Fear keeps people from accomplishing great things. I love that quote.

Because a regular politician, the last poll that was taken, Conella is not winning. He can win. You have to go out there and vote. And we think the volunteers can make a huge difference. Go to his website. Volunteer there. That can make a huge difference. This rally can make a huge difference.

And he has a, he totally has a chance of winning if you get involved. That is absolutely possible. But a careful politician would go, well, wait a minute, he's not leading, he's not leading by a lot yet. So I'm not going to go risk my career or my reputation, especially with the press yelling at me nonstop, to go help someone else that might not win. That has some percent of chance of winning, but not a good enough percentage chance. That is how politicians act.

Not Acacio Cortez. She said, no, I'm going to go help that fellow progressive. I don't care what you think his chances of winning are. I know that there are less if I don't go to help him, if other progressives don't go to help them. So whatever you do, go to canyella ing.com. Get involved. Go to this rally.

It's tonight. So you have plenty of time in Hawaiian time right now. Obviously, that'll be 830 Pacific time. But in Hawaii, it's at 530, attend the rally, RSVP, watch it on Facebook. But most importantly, volunteer and vote. If you want progressives, you have to actually show up and make sure that they win. Conella Ng is a just Democrat, no corporate PAC money, uncorrupted. The rest of the people in that race are some of the most conservative Democrats in the country.

Hawaii is a deeply progressive state. There's no reason why they should elect private prison lobbyists. Yes, he's up against private prison lobbyists in the Democratic primary. That's crazy. Go vote for a progressive who's actually going to fight for you. And now Ocasio-Cortez coming to help him in that fight. That's the kind of unity I love. So if Ing wins, that would be another person in the Justice League.

As I've been telling you today, six Justice Democrats won on Tuesday. So there are now 18 going towards general election. And the Justice League grows. Justicedemocrats.com slash Conella Ing is another way that you can get involved. He needs your donations and your volunteer time to overcome the corporate money that his other so-called Democrats have in his primary. So let's go out there and fight for our own, just like Ocasio Cortez's.

All right, I got to take a break. We've got a lot more news for you when we return. You're right in the middle of this podcast. We've got another great segment coming up for you. If you'd like the full show, which is actually five segments, go to t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. You become a member, you support the show, you support independent media, and you get the whole two-hour show ad-free every day. Let's go do it now. All right, back on a young Turks.

Anna joins us a little bit later in the program. Fox News, this propaganda for Kim Jong-un. It's one of the most incredible segments that Fox has ever done, and that's saying something. They're unreal. All right, let me read some comments as usual. Michael Cotavelli writes in on YouTube super chat. Saudi Arabia government connected to group threatened Canada with a 9-11 style attack. It's amazing how Iran is considered the boogeyman, and Saudi Arabia gets away with real terror.

By the way, great job, TYT, thank you. And great job to The Intercept, who broke that story. And here at home of progressives, we believe in supporting fellow progressives, including other media organizations like The Intercept, who does a fantastic job. And so, yes, gee, I wonder if it's the money or if people actually care about terrorism, or if they use that as a prop, right? No, the Saudis give us money, and in return, we let him get away with terror. That's the reality.

Mark Vaz, writes in, just Democrats should consider getting behind Sherees David's and Gretchen Whitmer, this can be predicated on them taking up policy positions that the just Democrats believe in. So, Mark, let me be clear. If they agree with those progressive policy positions and they were willing to state them and fight for them, absolutely. It's not personal. So all I care about is policy.

All we care about is change. Okay. So if Shrease Davids comes around and goes, yeah, I meant Medicare for all, yeah, I meant $15 minimum wage, yes, I'm not going to take corporate pack money. wonderful, wonderful. Then I go, oh, okay, I wish you would have said that during the primary, but okay, you didn't. Maybe it was strategy-y, whatever it is, but I'll take it. But that's a big if.

So we'll see, we'll see if she does it, then fantastic. But right now, I mean, she's backed by Emily's List. So when's the last time Emily's List allowed someone that they gave $630,000 to be a progressive? Okay, not very often, to say the least. But hey, God bless, I'm open. And if, by the way, Sheree Davids wants to come on the show, I'm super happy to have her and have a real conversation with her, right? The primary is over, primary is over.

And I've already even told you that if you're in that district, you should definitely vote for her, right? But whether you should go out of your way to support or volunteer or et cetera, she has to earn that. It's not her, you know, birthright. So, last two comments from Twitter, Bubka Kank says, Jenk, despite what dummy conservatives like Crowder say, your rage is much appreciated by us liberals.

One day you're going to do an unironic elbow drop on those right-wing loons. Are you louder than Crowder? Yeah, I thought he didn't mind louder. It's kind of in the title, isn't it? Okay. So, hey, thank you guys. And I appreciate you guys. We gotta do it together.

So please sign out for membership, get all of our shows. If you listen to all of our shows, that'll fill up a 24-hour day for you. Okay, so it's like the progressive Netflix. Join us at t-y-t.com slash join. And then last one real quick is Chuck Henry writes and just watched Matt as Hell today. I never knew it had existed. You're an effing madman, jank, and I appreciate your efforts from back then and now. Glad to know somebody who had the exact opinion is I did then and now.

So, hashtag too strong. Thank you, Chuck. I appreciate it. Matt as hell's documentary about us. If you haven't watched it, it's funny. There's two different points of view on it, and you watch it and decide for yourself. Almost every progressive that I've ever talked to, or people that are not even progressive, but in the middle, go, wow, that's an amazing movie, right?

It is. All the critics were like, Jank Yugar. my friends in Washington don't know him, so I hate this movie. So not all of them, obviously, critics were mixed. Yeah, look, you're being humble. It's a documentary about Jank, let's keep it real, and it's a documentary about you turning down an insanely lucrative contract and deal with MSNBC because you didn't want to be censored

and you wanted to speak truth to power. So let's just, like, people who are against them, message in that documentary? I mean, I don't know, that's a little strange. But let's move on, let's do some stories, you're right? Yep. Okay. A new tape has come out featuring Devin Nunes at a fundraising event for Representative

Kathy McMorris Rogers. Now, Devin Nunes has been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. He continues to spread this narrative that this Russia inventors. investigation is nonsense, it's a witch hunt against Donald Trump and his administration. And what he essentially talks about in this recording, which was recorded by a progressive organization that actually paid to be at that fundraiser, sheds a little light into what he really thinks about this investigation and why he thinks it's incredibly important for Republicans to maintain control of Congress moving forward.

So to give you some context before we go to these tapes, and by the way, Rachel Maddow is the person who obtained them and broke this story yesterday. In private, in private at a closed door fundraiser for a Republican colleague, Nunez took the new step of trying, I'm sorry, of tying the investigation to the midterm elections this fall. In comments captured in this audio recording, he laid out in stark terms the rationale for preserving the GOP majority in Congress. So with that said, let's take a listen to the first portion of the tape. And here is where he really emphasizes the importance of maintaining power in Congress. So there and lies, so it's like your classic catch-22 situation where we're at a, this is what puts us in such a tough spot.

If sessions won't unrefuge and molar won't clear the president, we're the only one, which is really the danger. That's why I keep, and thank you for saying that, by the way. I mean, we have to keep all these cities. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away. Okay, so a couple of things that we get out of that. First of all, when he says we have to keep the majority, there's nothing wrong with that.

It's a fundraiser for a fellow Republican, and of course the Republicans want to keep the majority. That makes sense. When he says, we're going to catch 22, he apparently does not understand what the, we're phrase catch-22 means. Catch-22 is you're basically in a tight spot either way. In this case, no, you're just saying we're in a tough spot, not either way. Anyway, it's a minor thing, but another Nunez, imbissal comment, and he struggles with the English language, okay, but that's like his friend Donald Trump.

Obviously, the relevant part is if Sessions won't recuse himself and Mueller won't clear Trump, then we're the only ones who could stop it. Wait, if Mueller doesn't clear him, that means that he's guilty. That he did, that the special counsel thought he broke the law and is guilty. And you're saying here, don't worry, we'll stop it. By the way, not even, we'll look at what Mueller said and the evidence that he presents and then do our constitutional duty, which might be to then fight him because we don't agree, right?

Yeah. It was, no, we're not going to look at the evidence. Our job is to make sure we support Trump, no matter what the evidence is, and if he broke the law or didn't break the law. So make sure that you put us back in charge so that we can make sure basically Trump is above the law. Well, thank you for the clarity. So for me, and it's subtle, but it's also noticeable.

That sound clip that we just had you guys listen to is the first time where you hear him in a private meeting, essentially, private fundraiser, admitting that, you know, the only line of defense that Trump has is Republican lawmakers who are willing to brush things under the rug and protect him, regardless of what he's done, right? So in public, it's a witch hunt. In private, no, no, no, we need to maintain power in Congress because we're the only ones that can protect the president. And one part that no one's emphasizing, because mainstream media just generally doesn't like to talk about donors, because it makes it uncomfortable to talk about the corruption.

But he at the end says, then all of this goes away. And he's saying that to the donors. Implicit in that is all the goodies we got you, including the giant tax cuts. That goes away. If Trump goes away, so who cares if he broke the law or not? You don't want those tax cuts and everything else to go away. So make sure you support us as a last line of defense if Trump did break the law. Because by the way, if Trump didn't break the law, then you don't have any issue at all, right?

His comments matter only if Trump did break the law, in which case Nunes and his buddies, he tells his donors will protect Trump who gave you all those tax cuts. So that's how corruption works. Exactly. I like that you pointed that out. And then in this next clip, it really drives home the point that Nunez believes that what Trump has done is illegal. Because he is going to give these donors a hypothetical of what would be considered criminal behavior or criminal activity. And he essentially outlines a hypothetical that is very similar to what the Trump campaign is accused of doing.

Take a listen. Now, if so many things that my campaign, the Kathy's campaign is polluting with the Chinese, are you naming the country? They could happen. It would be a very bad thing if Kathy was getting secrets from the Portuguese that say, just because my Portuguese was getting a secret information for the Portuguese. You know, well, you know, may or may not be able to do it. But ultimately, that said the Portuguese came and brought her some stolen email and she decided

So, okay, now we have a crime, right? Somebody stole the mail, they can't be released. Well, if that's the case, then that's criminal. Okay, so it's not my interpretation that his hypothetical is incredibly similar to what the Trump campaign is accused of doing. It is everyone's perspective. So I'll give you an example. This is according to think progress. It's got to graphic 37.

The hypothetical Nunes outlined resembles key asses. resembles key aspects, key aspects of what we know about the Trump campaign's interactions with the Kremlin in the months leading up to the 2016 election. So let me explain the same day that Trump publicly urged Russia, if you're listening to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, the indictment revealed. Several Russian government hackers began trying to access the email accounts of staffers in Clinton's private office. The indictment further described how the Russians delivered the hacked emails to wicketts.

And by the way, there was also the development that prompted the Australian diplomat to come forward. And that development was George Papadopoulos telling the Australian diplomat, hey, yo, the Russians have dirt on Hillary Clinton, we're communicating with them, right? And so the Australian diplomat went to the authorities and told them, this is what's going on, this is the kind of communication that the Trump campaign has with the Russians. Look, I don't, in the grand scheme of things, what I find to be way more important is the financial dealings that Trump might have with the Russians, right?

Money laundering, working with oligarchs, you know, possible, you know, blackmail that these oligarchs could have dangling over Trump's head as he's supposed to be representing the American people. That for me is far more important. Collusion, you know, is an issue, is a problem. I do think that Democrats are focusing way too much on it as an excuse for what. they lost, but at the same time, Trump is freaking out. He can't stop tweeting about how innocent he is.

And I think that his latest tweets, which I'm not even going to get into, are a direct reaction to these tapes being released. Yeah, so the only possible difference between the scenario that Nunes laid out in Trump says, he said if Kathy McMorris-Rogers took the information from the Portuguese and then released it. Now, it's possible that the Trump administration campaign never took the stolen emails from the Russians. Instead, the Russians gave it to perhaps WikiLeaks or others who then printed them. Now, that would be a difference. And I think that would be a substantial difference. It's one thing if the emails go to the New York Times and they print it, it's a different thing

if you give it to the campaign and then they go, thank you, and they release them. Because then they have accepted a donation, an in-kind donation, and conspired with a foreign government. So you would need to prove that the Trump campaign, members of the Trump campaign, were in communication with the people who had the dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign and that they played a role in deciding how that would be released. Because clearly, if the campaign releases it, there is a criminal liability there. I mean, I think that some of those campaigners were dumb, but they're not that dumb. You never know, right? So that is why, first of all, you should like the investigation go forward and see what they come up with, because none of us really know, unlike Nunes, we're not prejudging it. Curious to see what they come up with.

But the things that we do know already is people are wondering if Roger Stone, who seemed to know before WikiLeaks was going to publish the emails. had communication with the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks. And if there was coordination there, well, then that's a totally different story. It's one thing if WikiLeaks just publishes it, I think that they're a news organization. And so, you know, and look, there's some now questions around how thoroughly that they're working with the Russians, et cetera. Certainly in the past, they've been a news organization. And again, I would let the investigation tell us, are they coordinating as a news organization or is something else, et cetera.

But stone knowing it indicates some level of coordination. Papadopoulos knowing that the Russians have stolen emails before that's public reveals some at least information and an attempted conspiracy, which is what the Trump Tower meeting appears to be. So you can't say there's nothing there because clearly people in. the Trump camp know about the stolen emails before the public does and before anyone in the press has made them public. Exactly, yes. And then one final part about these tapes that I thought was fascinating. Look, publicly, Nunes is so supportive of Trump, says nothing but complimentary

things about Trump, never criticizes him in any way, shape, or form. However, privately, he made a point to talk about how Trump's tweets make Republicans like him cringe. So, So it was just interesting to hear the private version, the in front of donors at a fundraiser version of Nunez, and juxtapose that to who Nunez is in the public eye. So look, you know that most politicians are liars, and it's grating on everybody's nerve. The only people who don't call them liars or don't recognize it are the people on TV who think they're honorable gentlemen. But the only time that a politician is telling the truth is when he's in front of his boss.

That's the donors. So Mitt Romney in front of the donors. Gianforte in Montana while he was running, he was saying, oh, affordable care act, I'm not sure. Health care, I don't have a, you know, have not solidified my point of view on that because it's actually popular. To donors in a call that was also recorded, he's like, oh, yeah, I'm going to kill an affordable care act. I'm definitely going to vote with Trump and definitely going to kill it.

Don't worry, give me the money and I'll do exactly what you asked me to do. Nunes here. Don't worry, you guys, we're gonna protect all the things we got for you guys. As long as Trump's in power, we're gonna protect them on no matter what. Oh, I know that Trump makes everybody cringe, who cares? But no, I'm gonna go on TV and say, no, he's a very stable genius and he's awesome. That's the time that they're telling the truth when they're in front of the only people they care about, their donors.

Exactly. Now, I wanna be fair, so I'll go ahead and read the statement from a spokesman for Nunes, and they are blaming this all on left-wing spin, because it was the left-wing who forced Nunes to make these statements in front of donors. Anyway, the statement is, it's unsurprising to see the left-wing media spin chairman Nunez's routine observations as some nefarious plot, since these same media outlets spent the last year and a half touting a non-existent Russia collusion conspiracy. Doesn't seem like Nunes thinks it's a non-existent issue.

Seems like he knows it's an existent issue, it's a real issue. And that's why he's urging, you know, the donors to keep supporting lawmakers, Republicans lawmakers who will go ahead and brush all of this under the rug for them. And the last irony there is, Nunes to the donor says, don't work will cover up for Trump. And then his spokesman says, I can't believe you would say that that's what he said. By the way, the Russian investigation is a conspiracy and a hoax, which is covering up for Trump, which is exactly what we said Nunes was doing. So thank you for proving our point.

Yeah. They're just not bright, but anyway. We gotta take a break when we come back. We're equal opportunity critics of lawmakers and Cory Booker's next. You don't want to miss this. Thanks for watching. We're listening to this free version of the Young Turks podcast. know that the full show is at

t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. If you become a member, you get the full show ad-free. We love you for watching or listening either way. There's going to be a new free podcast tomorrow. You can keep on doing that. But if you want to get the full show ad-free, t-y-tnetwork.com slash join. 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 podcast at apple.com slash t-y-t. I'm your host, Jank Huger. and I'll see you soon.