The Young Turks - Did Trump Just Win The 2020 Election?

Episode Date: July 27, 2019

American democracy is fading away. Cenk Uygur, Mark Thompson, and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. All right, well, you're the young Turks, Jake, you're Mark Thompson, John, I, and all my rowdy friends are here tonight. All right, so lots of stuff, Mitch McConnell, or Russia's Mitch, if you will.

Oh, we're going to do more of that pun. Okay. Do we have to? The answer is we do. Damn. And then we have several different stories about Ilhan Omar. Remember when they thought the Justice Democrats wouldn't be relevant? Is there, like literally, is there a day in the news where we aren't mainly talking about

just Democrats and the impact that they're having? They're the poster children for all hate. I mean, on that side of the aisle. Yeah, directed all towards them and we'll discuss some of that in the first. first hour and then she has a new awesome opponent. There are two people that are opposing her in Minnesota and you will love both of them. You'll love them because they're both able in their own words. No, insane and their hypocrisy is wonderful.

So we have a super fun show ahead for you guys. Let's just do it. Let's do it right now. Okay, okay, we've got so much to get to and we're gonna try. Okay, the Senate Intelligence Committee has released their bipartisan report on election interference during the last election. Now understand that the release strategy for this report is very reminiscent of the Hobbit movies. It would be convenient if it all came out at the same time, but they make more money by releasing

it in installments. So there will be five in total, this is the first of five coming this month. So they did actually, it turns out, find some evidence of interference. So they found that hackers likely tried to access election systems. in 50 states, I don't know what percentage that is, but it's a lot. The document shows that Moscow's military hackers significantly infiltrated 21 states in 2016, but at varying degrees of success in the systems that they accessed. And we're gonna break down, there's scary stuff, there's also significant limitations.

So it doesn't mean that Moscow got into all of the state's systems, just that it infiltrated at least one system in each state. The report did not find any evidence that hackers were able to actually change votes. But because there was no discernible pattern to the attacks across the country, intelligence professionals and other U.S. officials believe Russia likely aimed to gain access to any systems it could to better understand what it all looks like. And in conjunction with a few of the other things that they found, for instance, they asked for the ability to monitor the elections like states do from the time to time.

They were turned down for that. They found evidence that they actually did dispatch people from their embassies to watch polling places. We don't know exactly for what, but the way that it's described as that this is less a successful attempt to get into the systems and more sort of a fact finding or reconnaissance style thing. Yeah, okay, so this story gets a little complicated, so I want to simplify. In order to do that, I'm gonna go back to Mueller for a second. So there are two strands of the Mueller investigation, one that is the reality and the other one

that is more political and has received 98% of the attention. The reality is that Mueller investigated Russian interference in the elections. And so, and when he came and did his opening statement the other day earlier in this week, he said this is one of the worst cases he's ever seen in his life in terms of an attack on our democracy. Now, the second strand of the Mueller thing was getting Trump. Now that was not Mueller's intent, nor did he do that in any way, shape or form. In fact, he assiduously avoided getting Trump because he did not look into his business

interest because he was just laser focused on elections. Did the Russians hack the elections, and what are the consequences that flow from that? Oh, Trump did business deals with the Russians before the elections. Trump might have done something and coordinate with the Russians after the elections. I don't care, I'm looking at are the Russia's interfering with our elections? And that is why he's, and he came to the conclusion that, that yes, they most definitively did interfere on elections. We have video of that if you'd like from the testimony.

Yeah, so we're gonna pick that up in a second, but I just wanna lay out the summary here. So, and then did Trump cooperate with them? He said no, to the best of his ability to tell, he said that he did not. Now, as he was doing this laser focus investigation, Trump trying to end it, kept trying to end and he's like, okay, we have obstruction. And unlike conspiracy to work with the Russians, he said there, there is not enough evidence, he is exonerated. On the obstruction, he is not exonerated.

You could consider that there's enough evidence, but it's not my job to decide because I was laser focused on this, besides I couldn't sit indicted sitting president. The fact that he was clear that there was no collusion in a sense shows you that it is equally clear that he did not conclude likewise on obstruction. But that whole obstruction stuff doesn't have that much to do with this issue that we're talking about today, which is Russia's interfering with the election. The day after Mueller testified, the Senate Intelligence Committee puts out this report, the story that we're doing here.

And they say, oh yeah, Mueller's definitely right. They were definitely interfering in our elections, and they got into the databases of the 50 states, the voter databases. Now, I wanna make a second important distinction, and then we'll get into more details. There's two things that the Russians went after. The voter databases, and then the actual voting systems. In all 50, they in some way touch the databases, okay? So now the database is not, as John pointed out, there was no, it's not they, they're sure

that they never affected the vote, they didn't say that. What they said was, we don't have sufficient evidence that they affected the vote. But the voter databases creates a series of problems if they break into them that are different and really important. But if they get into the electoral counting or in any way related to the actual vote itself, that is a much deeper problem and they infiltrated 21 of those systems. It doesn't mean they infiltrated them to the depth that they were able to affect the outcome on that day, but some degree of infiltration, and in two states significantly so.

So just put Trump aside for a second, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, and focus on what both Mueller and the bipartisan committee here, led by a Republican, Burr from North Carolina, is saying, they're like, the Russians came for us, they're still coming from us for us, they'll still try to infiltrate our system. And meanwhile, of course, we'll tell you more later, but Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican Senate, that I ain't going to do a damn thing about it. I mean, that's an open invitation for not just the Russians, but every country. It's saying open season, try to hack into the American voting system any day you'll like.

And that's where there is a bit of a through line from interference to obstruction, not obstruction with a special counsel investigation, but obstruction with doing what's necessary to stop it from happening again. Before we get back into the details, let's just go to that video that we alluded to. just a brief bit of Robert Mueller talking about the interference. Our committee issued a report and insight on saying that Russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity, and including their expanded use of groups such as the IRA, and these groups pose a significant threat to the United States and our allies in upcoming

elections. Would you agree with that? Yes. In fact, one of the other areas, that we have to look at. There are many more companies, or not companies, many more countries are developing capability to replicate what the Russians had done. Is this, in your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again? Oh, it wasn't a single attempt.

They're doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign. And bear in mind, that was literally the only thing Mueller. felt free to talk about at the thing. So it must have been important to it. Yeah, he came to life when that part of the hearing rolled around. You know, at the state level, you're dealing with a lot of states that are wildly underfunded when it comes to election practices and protections. So it's not as though you need a super sophisticated kind of a software system oftentimes

to get into some of these election systems in these various states. So when you deal with underfunded election set up state to state, and you're dealing with this inundation from the outside of those trying to hack these systems, it's a prescription for there being all kinds of issues in the next election. Yeah, so there's just a couple more quick details that just run through from the report, to give you an idea of the depth they went into. So Russian cyber actors had successfully penetrated Illinois's voter registration database, viewed multiple database tables, and accessed up to 200,000 voter registration records.

Hackers were able to take out an unknown quantity of voter registration data, including names, addresses partial social security numbers, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers, and quote, we're in a position to delete or change voter data, although the Senate panel saw no evidence of that, although I have seen no confirmation that if it had been changed, they would know that. The same with votes, too. One of the cool things about not having a paper ballot is that if the number gets changed on a computer, how would we know that?

Yeah. I have no idea. And that was sarcasm, because you didn't pick it up. Yes. It is remotely, not remotely cool. So I wanna just talk about this for a second, this detail, because if they get into the voter databases as they clearly did in Illinois, what are the different things they could do? First of all, they could help their social media infiltration programs so they could take

the voter data and match it to the people on Facebook and then target them with specific ads with the information that they know about them. So that could make their propaganda campaigns more effective. So that is the lowest level of concern, but still of significant concern. Another thing they could do is they could do what is similar honestly to a Republican trick. They can say, all right, which names sound like they might vote Democratic? So Republicans oftentimes do voter purges based on the same names. But knowing that minorities have more similar names than white people do, that's just a fluke

that that happens to be the case. But they use that fluke to then eliminate people from the voter rolls. Asians have the most common names, meaning people that have the same exact name in common in the same district, and they just eliminate them. And neither one of them can vote, blacks and Latinos are two and three. So the Russians could get in and go, why don't we take out all the similar names, all the African American sounding names, et cetera, so that Republicans will have an advantage so that our friend Donald Trump can win.

Now, whether they are, Donald Trump is cooperating and colluding with the Russians as they do, that is a different story. But the Russians clearly want Trump to win. Anyone that's sane knows that, and that is what the report has. concluded and Mueller has concluded. So, but by the way, the Chinese could want the Democrat to win. And then they can get into the voter rolls and take out all the white names. Exactly, and Iran was mentioned in this report.

I mean, Iran clearly would not have an interest in seeing Donald Trump prevail again. So Jenks right, I mean, you put China and Iran together in a battle for this same space, the election space against Russia, and you know, who knows. And it's not just names, if they know their addresses, people that live in wealthier areas are more likely to vote Republican people that live in poorer areas are more likely to vote Democratic, but it actually depends on the state, it depends on a lot of different things. But people have that information available to them. So based on addresses, they could just delete it.

And so that doesn't mean the person's deleted, but when they go to vote, they say, I'm sorry, but you have no registration. And boom, you just block their vote. And that's how you hack into an election without having to hack into the votes. Yeah, you wanna turn now to what can and is not being done about that? Yes. Okay. The recently released Senate intelligence report not only makes clear the extent to which

some foreign countries have already attempted to intervene in our voter systems, but also provide some recommendations as to what to be done, what should be done to stop that, including things like security audits, two-factor authentication, paper backups of voter databases, and replacing outdated voting systems. Because it acknowledges that our voting systems are less secure. than Candy Crush on your phone for some weird reason. Now, what are we actually doing, knowing what the threat is and knowing what is recommended to do to stop it?

Well, Mitch McConnell's been busy lately. He blocked two election security measures on Thursday, arguing Democrats are trying to give themselves a political benefit. So let's establish whether that is actually what they were doing. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to get consent Thursday to pass a House bill that requires the use of paper ballots and includes funding for the Election Assistance Commission. It passed the House 225 to 184 with one Republican voting for it. Again, paper ballots and money for the Election Assistance Commission, thus Democrat plot, because paper has a well-known

liberal bias. So let's break that down a little bit. If you're a Republican, why would you object to paper ballots? I mean, especially given all the conspiracy theories out there and the Q&ONs and the this and that, the paper ballots are much, much, much, much harder to fake. So you know that Democrats are mainly in Silicon Valley. We're much better at tech than you guys are. And you guys have these conspiracy theories about how Facebook and Google, et cetera, are screwing you and Twitter is blocking your tweets and all these things, right? So why would you want there not to be paper ballots that could validate your vote?

Why would you let big government say, oh, trust me, I'm just using a computer brought to me by Silicon Valley filled with liberals to do this vote? It doesn't make any sense, right? Especially for the right wing, it doesn't make any sense. And then giving money to the Election Assistance Commission is not with any agenda, it's not, it doesn't say, provided that it be spent on voting rights. Now, which, but by the way, like, why would you be against voting rights? But I know why, because you don't want black people to vote because they vote Democratic.

I know that. You don't want poor people to vote, you don't want students to vote because they vote Democratic. So that makes you a terrible person and a person who doesn't believe in democracy or America. But even if you believe that, that's not what this bill does. This bill says make sure that no one is cheating. And here is the Republican leader saying, no, I want people to be able to cheat. It is stunning, even for Mitch McConnell to come out and say, for just generally blanket, I do not want our elections protected.

That is amazing. But then take a look at the connection between the House and the Senate, because as we said, only one Republican voted in favor of that bill, which is then used by Mitch McConnell who says, clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law, clearly something so partisan that it only received one single solitary Republican vote in the House is not going to travel through the Senate by unanimous consent. So Republican stonewalling of election security in the House is used as an obvious reason why in the Senate, we don't even need to discuss this at this point.

Yeah, there's no logic, that's the flimsy logic to it, but there is no logic. And what Jenk was just mentioning is the real thing, which is that we know that if every person in America could vote, would be able to vote. and it was unfiltered and unmeddled with that we'd lose as Republicans. There's no question about it. And so the only answer is to suppress that vote somehow. And that's what's happening. In plain sight, it's happening.

So there's two components of that. And then there's one more stunning thing that McConnell did. So one reason why he doesn't want the votes to be verified is the more people that vote, the more likely Democrats are to win. But here it doesn't even, it's not even who's allowed. vote, it's just about verifying who did vote, right? But apparently he thinks, well, the foreign actors are cheating on our behalf, so why would I stop the cheating?

If we had fair elections, the Democrats might win. But there's a second component. If you're a Republican, you're wondering, okay, guys, but you make a good point about how liberals are better at tech and own Silicon Valley, and I hate Facebook. So what the hell, why is Mitch doing this when he's supposed to be the leader of the Republicans? Well, we're gonna get through that in a second, because it's called corruption. And so there's a Russian company that conveniently found a way to invest in Kentucky as home state in a way that benefits everyone, including Mitch McDonald's.

So we'll get to that layer of corruption in a second. But one more stunning thing. So then Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, proposed another legislation. He says, okay, look, if anybody reaches out to your campaign, whether you're running for president or any other federal office, you have to immediately report it to the FBI. It doesn't matter if it's the Russians, the Saudis, Iranians, Chinese, it doesn't matter. You have to go to the FBI and report it. And McConnell also objected to that bill.

Wait, I don't get it, like I, there's not even any justification for that. His earlier justification was I object to it because other Republicans object to it because we're all corrupt. Okay, but right now for this one, wait, if a foreign government is trying to interfere and has reached out to you in an illegal way, should you contact the FBI? No, no, I don't want anybody to work with the FBI, which is the Trump line. He said, what, I've never worked with the FBI my whole life. Only rats work with the FBI.

How much, why don't you put a sign or a necklace around your neck saying, I am a criminal? Well, I mean, I think that, look, it's bizarre, but it puts a lot of pressure on McConnell. Donald Trump, within the past two months, said, if I'm offered more information by a foreign country, I will accept it. Or he might have said I might accept it or whatever. God only knows. But he's very interested in still getting that information. So he has said that this thing that the Democrats want to make a legal, I want to do. So he can't allow it to become illegal.

I mean, it's partisan, it's transparent, but. It's worse than the tax thing. I was going to say it's like the tax thing and that there's sort of been an understanding up to this point that you go to the FBI, you know? It hasn't been legislated. Similarly, you know, you release your taxes because there's an understanding that every presidential candidate releases their taxes, but in this case, you have to push back on this legislation just makes it so clear what's going on.

And let me follow up on that before we go to the corruption angle. So Schumer then says, look, we're Democrats. We're not going to fight for our own legislation, even though approximately 98% of Americans would agree with it. So he turns to McConnell and says, why don't you propose something? You say you wanted to be bipartisan. Hey, you know, I'm a Democrat, I'll surrender right away, I'll cave in. I'll take your version of the bill in a second, right?

So Mitch, what's your version of the bill? McConnell's like, I'd have no version. I don't want election security, I'm not even going to give you the weakest form of it that I know the Democrats will sign on to because I don't want any election security. That is unreal, unreal. And by the way, Republicans, if some other foreign actor does interfere in elections and does it to the advantage of Democrats, I'm going to serve you a tall glass of shut up juice. because your representative, Mitch McConnell, said, I don't care, it's open season.

Iranians, Saudis, I don't. Swedes? Swedes, apparently we're against them now. Okay, Turks, Israelis, Canadians, it doesn't matter. Come and steal our elections. He put a four sales sign in front, okay? So if you're thinking, Jake, out of all the things you get animated about, you seem to be most animated by this. Yes, because it's unbelievable and inexplicable.

It is declaring, please commit fraud upon us because we think it helps the Republicans. And by the way, what a stupid miscalculation. Do you have any idea which way the Chinese are going to steal the election? I don't. I don't know if they're going to help the Republicans or the Democrats. Maybe they help some Republicans and other and some Democrats, depending on who's willing to get bribed by the Chinese. They could like the libertarians.

I don't know. Reform party. I don't know if you know this. The Chinese government is technically communist. They could help the socialist. Oh. Okay. But no, Mitch McConnell says, I don't care, I don't care.

Right now the corruption benefits me. So that leads us to Kentucky. Yeah, I don't know what you were talking about with the corruption. Just a random, extra bit of news I want to sink in as much unrelated news as possible. A sanctioned Russian oligarchs company plans to invest millions of dollars in a new aluminum plant in Mitch McConnell's state. And now for something completely unrelated. So this is hilarious. So it's this guy named Oleg Der Paska, and he's one of the top Russian oligarchs, and of

course an ally of Vladimir Putin. And he was on the sanctions list because he was the one part of the people trying to rig our elections. So he's sanctioned, and then look at that, Trump's Treasury Department at the beginning of this year, said, maybe we take his company off the sanctions. list, okay? And they said, all right, why, why did you do that? This guy is like, there's not actually not that many Russian oligarchs on the list.

He's one of the worst, so why'd you do it? They're like, no, no, he doesn't control his company anymore, he promised this. They said, oh no, he reduced his stake in his company and his voting rights are down to 35%. So when he says, oh, I will not be communicating with my board board. members and otherwise giving direction in Russia. Now you have no way of checking that, you will trust me on it. And our Treasury Department said, of course we will, sir.

Yes, Russian oligarch who tried to steal our elections, of course. In Russia, they must have laughed and laughed at this. Like, oh, we're not to communicate with one another, even though I own the biggest share in the company. Sure. Hey, board members, you will not take directions from me, right? They said, oh, niet, we will not. It's worked with Trump and the Trump organization.

Why can't it work in this context, too? So then on top of that absurdity, as soon as they're going to come off the sanctions list, they're like, no, we would like to do big investment in Kentucky. What a lucky break for Mitch McConnell. The guy who did not want any interference with Russia interfering in our elections, says Russia, steal any election you like. hey, guess this giant new business in Kentucky, which, by the way, then leads to more campaign donations for Mitch McConnell, more power from McConnell, his ability to win re-election by claiming

that he created jobs in Kentucky, which then allows them to do more and more corruption that he is best known for. But if you're proud that the Russians have now set up state control basically over Kentucky, all right, but if you guys are going to call yourselves patriots and Americans, you should should begin to rethink that. And then I'm gonna say one last bit here, which is, because it's so funny. They say, well, that's okay. He sold off some of his shares to VTB, the Russian oligarch did.

So what's VTB? Well, that happens to be a Russian bank. Okay, was it connected to the government of Putin? His nickname is Putin's piggy bank. Gee, I wonder if Derpaska and Putin are still running that aluminum company that Mitch McConnell just made a deal with. Of course they are, of course they are. Then his decision, Mitch McConnell's decision to not protect our elections in any way, shape,

or form becomes a little bit more explicable. It was inexplicable before, you at least have one plausible explanation for it now, which which is corruption. Okay, we gotta take a break. When we come back, Ilhan Omar gets attacked. I know it's a big surprise. And with misleading video, I know you're shot. And then Republican politicians join along, I know, I hope you're sitting, okay?

We'll break it down all for you when we return. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fee-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 writers 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 have learned what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting 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.

First of all, I want to tell you about the debates, that's next week, okay? And on Tuesday we're having a rally, so that's the 30th, okay? In Detroit, I need you to go to t.yt.com slash rally, and on both days, you gotta watch, obviously, here as we do the show, we cover the rally for you guys, and then we, right after debate analysis, John and I will be in Detroit, we'll be in the spin room, we'll be doing coverage from there, and Anna, Ben, will be here doing it at t.y.t.com slash live, and Ida Rodriguez will all. also be here. But for the guys in Detroit, definitely sign up at t.com slash rally because we're going to send you information. But you can go to the Weston Book Cadillac Hotel at 4.15 p.m. And part of the reason why that's important is the first 100 people are going to get wristbands to be able to go into the watch party afterwards. So watch the debate and then the Young Turks coverage. And that includes free food. So be among the first 100 to come. That's really important.

It's not the first 100 to register, that's important too, but the first 100 to show up at the Weston will send you more information through tyt.com slash rally. That's next week, July 30th. Don't miss it. Abdul al-Said is going to speak there, but we might have other surprise, excellent guests that I think you'll be thrilled with. So make sure you're there in Detroit with me and John. Okay, now a couple of quick comments from our member section. The Restless Progressive says, Jank, your puns are horrible. I love it.

Yabby Marita says, I feel like whenever John I enroll is on the show, we should keep a running tally of how many fictional universes he references to make his points. So far, Lord of Rings 1, Star Trek Zero, Fancy Boy, board games with unicorns and glitter, incoming, probably. Nerd.

He's got me in there? And then finally, Doris says, There's so many others. Andrew mentioned the scrutineers in Australia, which is an awesome name for people scrutinizing elections. I wish we had the scrutiners here and then John could reference them. Anyway, but Doris says- I may have missed it, but you may have mentioned, have you mentioned that the United

States interferes with elections of other countries? It's kind of important to contextualize. I always hear that, go ahead. Yeah, and so I, you know, I'm as big a fan of context as you could possibly imagine, we talk about on the show all the time. These are not standalone events. America interferes with other elections all the time, all the time. That doesn't mean our elections should be interfered with. We shouldn't do that, and we certainly shouldn't allow that to happen here either. Two wrongs don't make it right. Let's try to get it right in both contexts. Yeah, the people

who point that out and say, I want you to be consistent on it, that's how context is supposed to be used, and thankfully we are consistent on that. People who point that out because they want there to be no standard applied for literally anyone, that's just nihilism and it doesn't help. Hashtag scrutiners. Exactly. Okay. Was that the Twitter account, the scrutiners? The scrutiners are apparently election monitors. Monitors in Australia.

I love that. I do love that name. I do like that, yeah. Okay, let's turn now to more big news. The right wing war against Representative Ilhan Omar has a number of different weapons in its arsenal. Lately, Donald Trump has taken a just making up quotes that she supposedly said about al-Qaeda and things like that. She didn't say it, but nobody checks anything anymore, so it doesn't really matter. And that's all well and good, but it's not as good as video.

You really want to see Ilhan Omar saying something, and if she doesn't actually say something horrible with a bit of selective editing, you can make it look kind of bad. And so we're gonna show you a video. It's from an interview she did with Al Jazeera last year. Now, all of this is the interview. Maloy took the video and she highlighted the section that has been spread on right-wing Twitter. So you're gonna see the full video, but notice the section in the middle that has been edited

out. A lot of conservatives in particular would say that the rise in Islamophobia is a result, a lot of hate, but of fear, a legitimate fear, they say, of quote unquote, jihadist terrorism, whether it's Fort Hood or San Bernardino or the recent truck attack in New York. What do you say to them? I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country. And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe, inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring. and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.

So if you saw the video there, the entire, like her describing what is the rhetorical point she's making was oddly cut for time, I guess, in making it seem like what she doesn't believe and isn't advocating for is what she's advocating for. But I don't even know why was she, even the deceptive editor one, is that controversial. So let me expand upon it. So the Anti-Defamation League said that last year in 2018, 98% of the attacks that led to death, domestic terrorist attacks, were done by white right-wingers, 98%. So if you want to get all afraid of someone and take action and profile them, well,

it should clearly be white men. Okay, well, you say, all right, well, look, that's just one year, okay, and by the way, That's the Anti-Defamation League. I don't know. Ironically, they say Ilhan Omar is anti-Semitic, but I can hear right-wingers typing right now. Who cares about the anti-a-a bunch of Jews, don't care about them? Right, anyway. So, but let's put that aside.

How about the FBI? Well, Christopher Ray, Trump's pick for the head of the FBI, testified just a couple of days ago and said, yeah, the majority of the attacks, domestic terrorist attacks are from white supremacists. Now, overwhelming majorities from white supremacists, there's also anti-government extremists who are also white, right-wing men, and some from in-cell extremists who hate women, also right-wing men, white men, okay? Now, you say, all right, well, look, Jane, it's just one year, okay, fine, do FBI agrees with the ADL, so I lost that argument? Okay, so how about if it's longer period? Well, if you look at the decade before 2009 to 2018, well, it turns out 75% of the

attacks, or three-quarters of the attacks, again, according to the ADL, are from right-wing extremists. Okay, if you go all the way back to right before or right after September 11th, guess what number you're going to find? This is according to the government accountability office. So now these are several different organizations all agreeing all across this different timeline. And they say about 75% of the attacks are by right wing extremists who are white men. Now it is a perfectly fair point to say the country is 75% white.

So it's somewhat proportional, right, or completely proportional. Now, the country is 50% women, and all of this, almost every attack is by a guy. So again, if you wanted to be accurate in who you profiled, you would profile men, period. You'd leave women alone completely. Now we're not saying profile white men, and Ilhan Omar didn't go as far as I did, she's definitely not saying that. She's saying, why are you asking to profile people who are doing a tiny percentage of the attacks as opposed to the people who are doing three quarters to 100% of the attacks.

If you wanted to profile someone, you would profile the people doing the great majority of the attacks. But we don't want to do that. We want to drive fear and hatred. And that's her point. It's a hundred percent accurate point backed up by data and logic. So, of course, it drives Republicans crazy. Yeah, I mean, what she was saying was right on. She was responding to the question honestly.

He asked the question about fear. She's saying, really, well, if you look at it statistically, the people who you should be afraid of is this group that's being radicalized and they're white men. I mean, it really is as obvious a point as can be made. Yet it needs to be made over and over and over again. She was making it articulately. She is that, right? She's very, she speaks clearly, and I think she speaks calmly to the point, even as she's being assailed constantly by the right. Yeah.

Yeah, I just sorry, John, before you have more details and thoughts on it. I wanted to say just to point on what Mark said, which is that the people who speak the truth get attacked more. Like if you are misleading, you're gonna get actually attacked less. It's kind of a weird irony. It's the truth that bothers them the more. Like, oh, you say, well, the majority of the attacks are by white, right-wing extremist men.

They're like, how dare you? I mean, they get triggered more than you could possibly imagine. I once talked about how the Holocaust was done by Christians. Every conservative blog read the headline. They were like, can you believe he said it was done? by Christians. Obviously it was the Buddhists. It's obvious that it was the Christians who did it.

And they say no, no good Christian could have possibly done it. So the Christians who did do it are now no longer in hindsight Christian. Whereas since all the Muslims are bad, when a Muslim doesn't attack, all 1.6 billion Muslims are guilty. And the fact that they can't see the hypocrisy and irony of that is unbelievable. They have no logic at all, it's stunning. And I could go on and on the other day, I said progressives won everything in this country that expanded liberty, including the civil war.

They're like, oh yeah, now they're gonna think that the North was liberal and the South was conservative, outrageous. So if you say something true, it will trigger them more, not less. Yes, and so this was a very convenient thing to put together. I don't know who did put this video together, who initially cut out that section. But they didn't care about the people that would see it. They didn't, they don't care about the truth, obviously. They had an admission, and that is to just try to destroy Ilhan Omar.

And because it, if you're a right winger, it feels good to believe that she said something discriminatory against you because you go through your day just hoping that you'll get to pitch yourself as a victim, right wingers, from pundits to regular people to right wing politicians just started tweeting it out. Automatically, no thinking, they probably didn't even watch the full video, let alone actually go and find the interview itself. So Marco Rubio immediately, I am sure the media will now hound every Democrat did announce the statement as racist, right?

Well, he made the mistake of tweeting out a video that was edited to fool people like him, and he helped them to do that. When that was pointed out to him, he took that as an opportunity to learn. No, he didn't. He said this, no, you got duped into proving my point when it was pointed out. My tweet wasn't about her, it was about the double standard and how many in the media would Okay, Marco, but to what? To react to you tweeting out a video that has been deceptively edited?

She said white men, but in a rhetorical point, the point of which is that we should not racially or religiously profile anyone. And even when it's been pointed out, he's a part of the modern day Republican Party where facts don't matter, there's no accountability for anything, and so why would he apologize? Just double down and say that you were right. And indeed, while it was far more, there's some politicians, there were so. There were so many commentators, so simpletons like Dave Rubin instantly were tweeting it out. Dana Loche, she tweeted this, Democrat privilege so far known in the media is reporting

how an elected member of Congress is advocating for racial and gender profile. It might be because they watched the full video and she was explicitly not doing that. Dana Loche is so sure that she was right that when it was pointed out afterward, after she ran the video on her radio show, she began tweeting and tweeting and tweeting and tweeting constantly varying reasons why she was still right. And depending on what the moment was, oh, I totally watched the full thing. Oh, like they're stretching that this is selectively edited. Does anybody really think that this was not edited in a way to fool people into thinking something that's undrue? Plus, the damage is done. I mean, there are a lot

of people here when you put it all together who are then tweeting out that video. And it's completely erroneous and hacked and edited video. And it's that old line, the Churchill line, around the world before the truth even gets its trousers on? I mean, that really is what happens here. That video, the edited one, gets out there in such a big way that the truth telling, the actual video, doesn't even have a chance to really knock it down in any sort of appreciable way. And we're really fast on that too, because there are people who just instantly retweeted it

or added something, virtually every right-wing pundit did that. They did the thing that people do, whereas if something is convenient for you, you don't check it, you just tweet it out. But there is a layer that's worse than that. And that is Fox News that night, because after we already knew that it had been edited, Tucker Carlson used the video, Laura Ingram used the video, all of them. Like, Tucker Carlson, he's the thinking man's pundit, right? He's the guy, he thinks a little bit deeper.

You know, he's not just Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, you have to be fair to him, okay? No, you don't have to be fair because he's not being fair to anyone, because he used it, knowing at that point that it was wrong because he cares more about taking out a woman of color in the U.S. government that he does about reality. So to that point, look, the main point she's making an interview is we should not profile anyone. They all lie and say, can you believe she wants to profile white men? No, she was using white man as an example of why not the profile, right?

So they're like, we don't care, we don't care what the reality is, we just want to attack her. And the main point that Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity made last night were, can you believe she's fearful of angry white men? That you guys gonna do something about it. That would seem to be proving her point, even if that was her point. Yeah. We should probably take a break though.

Okay, yes, indeed, when we come back, Trump attacks inanimate objects as biased. It's a hilarious story. We'll do it when we're talking about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling 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 eavesdroppers and cyber criminals. 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 T-Y-T, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while support. independent media become a member at t yt dot com slash join today in the meantime enjoy this free segment all right back on a young tour it's just two quick fun ones viscous creases conservatives always say charlie kirk or alex jones are taken out of context by the way i can add sam harris as their number one that guy that they complain about yet they blatantly

complain that he's taken out of context yet they blatantly chop up ilhan omar on AOC Soundbites, 100% projection like always. But guys, are you kidding me? The Project Veritas, the whole point was to selectively edit videos. It's always projection. They do dirty tricks, and they assume you do dirty tricks. And left wing are doing dirty tricks? I don't remember the last time it happened.

I don't know when Kennedy stole the votes in Chicago. It's been a while. Maybe Sasha Barron Cohen, I don't know how left wing he is, but. All right, and Eric Rooney goes, it's the boys, I love Mark, love Jank, love John, veggie burgers for everyone. We actually had, our lunch was a jackfruit sort of taco thing. Yeah, we went over well to. That's good, yeah. So guys, speaking of which, t.yt.com slash join to become a member.

So these are all member comments that we read, plus you get all of our old schools, including the last one that Mark and I did. That was fun. It was great, well, of course you loved it because I declared you stronger than. than me. Oh yes. I've forgotten, thank you. So watch it and you'll see why.

Okay. All right, John, what's next? Okay, let's have a little bit of fun. If you're a host of Fox and Friends, you know that at any given moment, it is guaranteed that Donald Trump is watching you. And that makes it dangerous on the rare chance when you actually acknowledge reality, as you'll see. Head to head with the president.

He beats President Trump by 10 points. Sanders beats him by six, Warren and Harris basically flat-footed tie. Early, early, early, barely buy it, doesn't matter. Okay, so there you saw that Biden and Sanders winning by significant amounts over Donald Trump, who was indeed watching and immediately tweeted this, which is a lot of fun. Fox News is at it again, so different from what they used to be during the 2016 primaries and before. Proud Warriors! Now new Fox polls, which have always been terrible to me, they had me losing big to crocadilly,

have me down to Sleepy Joe, even considering the fact that I have gone through a three-year vicious witch hunt. perpetrated by the lame stream media and collusion with Crooked and the Democrat Party. He's got to fix his cap slot key, because it just keeps going off. With the greatest economy in U.S. history that I can be losing to the sleepy one, Cape Vergerie! So they just reported on what a poll said, and he implied that they are colluding with the candidate for the Democratic Party for the presidency from 2016. Well, I actually know why, and so that'll be fun.

I mean, I think I can explain why. Okay, so we'll get there in a second. But I just love that he thinks inanimate objects are crooked and are part of a witch hunt. It's a poll, it's not a person, right? It's like saying, math has always been terrible to me, which is kind of true, right? He's like, two plus two equaling four has been terrible to me. I don't want it to equal four, but nonetheless it does. Okay, so the polls are not people.

It is a collection of data, right? So they ask people and that's what they're, nobody at Fox fix the poll, and that's your answer. He's projecting, because in his experience, he is corrupt about everything. So he projects that corruption onto them. So he doesn't think that the polls are corrupt. He just thinks Fox News obviously rigs every poll. If I was running a poll, I'd rig it, he thinks. So why are they ringing it against me?

His set base assumption is corruption. So that's why he says like, oh, Fox is being terrible to me. He never occurs to him for a second that someone wouldn't rig a poll. Yeah. Right. He can't imagine anything being truly legit. That's right. Yeah.

Even if in this case, it's like this is Fox News' poll. This wasn't like, I don't know, daily costs or something, like this was his guy's poll. if it's consistent with a pattern that we've seen. So it's not like they're bad polls sometimes. Like we take issue with the methodology of certain polls. But we don't just look at the results of the poll and say, I don't like that. We don't just read a write-up of the poll and say, I don't like that. We look at the actual breakdown of who they talk to.

In this case, it's Fox News and it's consistent with what we've seen. Let's bring up just a random screenshot from real clear politics. So the most recent ones at the top, that's the plus 10 Biden for Fox News. But Biden's been beating him going back literally months at this point. If you go to the next one, you're gonna see that the same thing is true of Bernie Sanders. So the most recent one is a plus six. Aside from one Russ Mousen poll, weird that that's the outlier, from back in March to April, Sanders has always been beating Donald Trump.

So to assert that Fox News is corrupt and biased in simply confirming an ongoing pattern that we've all accepted at this point is insane, but it does have a purpose. It's partially that he looks at it, I think, from a corrupt point of view, but also he wants to exert pressure on them. Not necessarily to falsify a poll, but to just not report on polls that don't reflect well in him. They did that earlier this week. Fox News did a poll where they asked were his comments about the squad and sending them home,

were they racist? And this shocked me, but two thirds of the Fox News audience said, yeah, that's racist. And then they didn't report it on their shows. Tucker Carlson wasn't reporting on that or anything, because the pressure is there. Yeah, that's his propaganda arm. He tunes in every morning for the affirmations that generally come with watching his propaganda arms. We know that he has portfolios prepared daily that have clippings that are favorable to Trump.

I mean, his world, his insular world within the White House, is filled with that kind of thing. So when he tunes into his propaganda arm, he's expecting the kind of raw, raw propaganda that he's used to getting. So this was a little bit of a surprise, I mean, to say the least. And then as John says, he throws them a brushback pitch. And essentially, I'm going to call you guys out unless you fall in line. And John's also right about how unsophisticated it is. I mean, you could do an analysis of, wait, you polled likely voters, but it could have been

unlikely voters. I mean, anything to hang your hat on. Or, by the way, sometimes that is true, that the data set that they're looking at is not necessarily representative of the voters. But of course, Trump doesn't know any of that because he's a child. And so that leads to my last point. So Julie Banderas, one of the Fox News hosts, calmly tried to explain to him online the way polls work.

It's not a poll of Fox News hosts, it's a poll of the population. So we asked him a question, here's what the question was, here's what the results were. Julie, he doesn't care. And nor could he possibly understand that with this tiny, tiny piece size brain. And look at what he says to the point of being a child, the polls was unfair to me. Because everything is unfair to him because he's always the victim. He's always a child throwing a temper tantrum. Paul's unfair, math, unfair, everybody on fair.

I'm strong, by the way. But I love when Jank does his Trump impression. But the fact is, he knows he gets that out there, whatever crap he's serving up that day, like the poll's unfair to me. And there is a segment of his supporters who are going to run with that, and they take that I mean, and by the way, they said science was unfair to them, that 99% of the world's scientists were wrong about climate change, and it worked. Their idiot followers are like, that's true, science is unfair.

Yeah, and by the way, nothing, at least that I've said, and I assume what you guys said, should be taken as any sort of reason to believe that the polling at this point actually says much of anything about what's gonna happen late next year. We're just saying it is the polling right now. And so if you're going to take issue with it, take issue with it in at least a mildly sophisticated fashion. Which is what the guy on the end, I don't know who he is. I don't want to shit. Pete Heggseth, who was the head of Veterans Affairs.

Oh, is that who that is? Yes, yeah. I mean, he was saying that there. He had trouble coming up with the word fledgling earlier in that broadcast. I'm sorry we didn't show that clip. But he almost ran veterans affairs. Anyway, why don't we turn to pretty dark, unfortunate story? A group of three students decided that a memorial sign that had been set up a memorial sign that had been set

up for Emmett Till, a 14-year-old who was tragically killed by a couple of racists who got off for the murder, would be a great thing to just pose in front of and post on social media. And so this photo that you're seeing now, those are three students from the University of Mississippi, was initially posted on a private Instagram page. The photo was later removed after the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting in ProPublica began contacting fraternity members and friends, probably to ask why these college students are posing with a variety of different firearms in front of a sign that had been shot up itself.

That photo, by the way, received 274 likes before it was taken down. So very critical atmosphere it was posted to. And so they eventually actually were taken out of their fraternity. They're, I believe it's Kappa Alpha. There's still students at the actual campus. Spokesperson Rod Guajardo said, while the image is offensive, it did not present a violation of University Code of Conduct, it occurred off campus and was not part of a university affiliated event, which is true.

But if you decide to pose with guns at front of this sign, knowing the story of what happened to Emmett Till, which we can get into more of the details for, I think we could all agree that that is absolutely horrendous. So I do want to get into those details. So he was 14 years old when he was tortured and murdered. His so-called crime was looking at and whistling at a white woman. Now, we found out, of course, that he didn't even do that. First of all, if he had done that, that would not have been a crime, and obviously, right?

But he didn't even do it. So, but they killed him, they murdered him for that. And what's interesting is that back then, the clan had broad popular support in the South, and that's why it's important not to normalize these things like, oh, just shooting up at Emmett Till sign, ha ha, no, that's not ha, and by the way, why is that even? funny to you, the murder of a 14 year old boy and his torture? Why is that something that you want to shoot up and attack? I'll get more into that in a second. But even the clan bothered to put hoods on back then. And these guys didn't put hoods on. They took a picture

and put it on Instagram. So it was vicious back then. But these days, they're not even hiding it. It's, it's, so in only that way, it is worse, that they're like, yeah, of course, we're proud to hate this 14 year old boy who was murdered unjustly, and we hate him for the, because he, of the color of his skin. Wow, wow, to put that picture up without any hoods and to celebrate it and have 274 people go, way to go, guys. So now back to Emmett Till for a second, imagine your 14 year old.

dies in a circumstance not as horrific, no torture, no bad intent, a car accident. And you go put up flowers on the side of the road where they die, your 14-year-old son. And people come by every once in an hour, kick the flowers or spit on the flowers or shoot at them. And then they take pictures mocking the flowers of your poor son who died. What kind of monsters would do that? But in this case, it's worse. The 14-year-old was tortured and killed for no reason. This sign has been shot up three different times.

They're going to put up the fourth version of the sign. People constantly are going to attack the sign. What kind of monsters do that? And they're all around us. One thing that we talked about, we covered this story on the damage report this morning. And one thing that Brooke and I were talking about before the show that was so shocking was You think about the story, and you've probably heard about it, maybe in school, maybe since, and you think, well, that was a different, that was such a long time ago.

It's a different country. But if he was alive today, he'd be 78. He'd be like a year older than Biden. Like, not that old. It's not that far away. It's not that long ago. And what that story tells me is that that environment that in, in really, reinforces that and permits that, that environment, that hate, that evil, that darkness,

that's still very much alive. And you can say, well, of course it's alive. I mean, there we saw it. No, no, no. But I mean, it's being fostered in ways that were always underground before. And as Jenk points out, I think rightly, with clanhoods off, it's now being fostered in other ways. Hate and that darkness, that evil hate is cool somehow to some segment.

And it's a large enough segment to be concerned with, a large segment of America. Vandals threw the first sign in the river. The second sign was shot 317 times. And the third sign was shot 10 times before they took that picture. We don't know who shot it, whether it was them or someone before. And now they're going to do the fourth sign and they're going to try to make it more bullet resistant. It's like murdering him in absentia over and over and over again. to make a statement, we still want to kill a 14 year old boy.

If he was alive today, he would be younger than my dad. It wasn't that long ago, and we're still doing it. If you still think you're not sure if there's racism in this country, go check out that sign, if you can find it. Okay, we got to go. So, John, thank you. Everybody, check out the damage report. If you're a member, you could watch it live.

TYT.com slash join. Everybody, make sure you're checking out the Edge with Mark Thompson, Mark's podcast. You can get that anywhere. Also check out a show in San Francisco if you live there. On KGO 810 radio up there, yeah. I was on recently. It's a great, great show. Thanks.

And I haven't been invited for some reason. Oh, okay. You're doing the damage report when I'm on, I think. Oh, okay. Sure. This guy loves me. I've never heard of a pre-take before. It's been very unfair to me, John says.

Okay, now that we've lightened the mood of... Mark Thompson used to be a proud warrior. What happened? Okay. All right. When we come back, a story about Tulsi Gabbard presented by Anna Kasparian. 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. slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon