The Young Turks - Don't Manchin It

Episode Date: February 24, 2021

The first migrant facility for children opens under Biden. A Republican Senator spouts actual conspiracy theories during a hearing on the Jan 6 riots. 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. What's up, everyone. Welcome to the Young Turks. I'm Anna Casparian. And joining us today is TYT contributor and also the DC Bureau Chief for The Intercept. Ryan Grimm, make sure you check out his book, We Got People. which is available at our Shop TYTYT store as well. Ryan, thank you so much for joining us today. Yeah, hey, Anna. Hey, everybody is amazing to be back here.

We got a great show ahead. We're going to start off with possibly some criticism toward Biden. And in my opinion, media, which certainly deserves some criticism over the way they've handled the particular story regarding migrant children and how they are now. being placed in a facility that Trump got a lot of heat for. But I'm not seeing similar coverage for Biden. We'll talk about that a little later. Also, we'll discuss the Senate hearing that took place today regarding the capital riots. Ron Johnson decided to repeat some insane conspiracy theories that had been published on the federal list back in January. So we'll

share that with you as well. Representative Acacio Cortez lashing out at Joe Manchin, for not the Neurotan story, but the possibility of basically him voting against another Biden nominee, actually someone who I think would be fantastic in the cabinet. And then later we'll discuss Tucker Carlson denying the fact that white supremacy exists and that white supremacy fueled what we experience in the Capitol. But Ryan, why don't we start off with this migrant facility story, which, you know, I'm not entirely sure what the right solution to this is. It's a lot more nuance than I think people realize. But with that said, I know what Biden's doing right now is not a good idea. So let's get to the details. So.

Right. The first migrant facility for children has opened its doors under Biden's administration. Now let me be clear, this is not the first migrant facility for children. This is actually the same facility that was used by the Trump administration in the summer of 2019. And that led to quite a bit of backlash, immigrant activists speaking out against Donald Trump and his administration for using this facility because it's essentially this giant 66 acre plot of land out of sight, out of mind for many people, that consists mostly of giant tents and some trailers. And if Trump got a lot a backlash for it. It is a little strange that the media's attention to this is a little different. But let me give you the details on what we know so far. The emergency facility is located

in Carrizo Springs, Texas. The emergency facility, it's a vestige of the Trump administration that was open for only a month in the summer of 2019. And now it's being reactivated to hold up to 700 children ages 13 to 17. Now it's worth taking a look inside this facility, which you know, reporters were able to do back in the summer of 2019 when Trump was in charge. So take a close look and we'll discuss why the Biden administration is reactivating this particular facility again. The reason for Cruzos Springs and the reason why we stood this up is again not to allow children to stay in Border Patrol stations any longer than they need to. Again, Border Patrol stations are designed for a quick processing.

They're not designed for care of children. NEMS, MES, METRES, METRES. The reason why we need the shelter today is because the capacity of our shelter system is running pretty full, given the recent surge of unaccompanied children. coming across the border. Separating children, especially young children, who have no say so oftentimes and come to this country from their families

is not appropriate. We are better than that as a country. I hope we are. It accomplished nothing other than spend a lot of money and caused everybody to get mad at one another across this country. And it dumped on HHS because they weren't equipped nor prepared

to receive 2,500 children into their care. So there's a similar blame game going on right now, but one thing to know is that immediately after Biden was elected, there was an influx of unaccompanied minors coming into the country. And so the argument here is, well, with this coronavirus pandemic and the distancing guidelines that we're trying to follow, we really have no choice but to reactivate this facility. Government officials say the camp is needed because facilities for migrant children have had to cut capacity by nearly half because of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border has been inching

up with January reporting the highest total, more than 5,700 apprehensions for that month in recent years. So Ryan, I mean, as I read the details of this story, I mean, I understand the reasons that the Biden administration might be citing. But at the same time, I mean, Is there any way to avoid this? Is there any way to avoid apprehending these kids and putting him in these facilities, which, you know, you watch that video, keep in mind, they tried to make that facility look good in that video. But as you can tell, you know, you got that security guard with all of the surveillance footage behind him. I mean, it's really not this free and open, wonderful place for these kids to be.

And it's not a licensed facility either because it's considered a temporary facility, even though on average, On average, kids spend about 102 days there. Right. And the way to avoid it is a way that it isn't even something that's conceivable in our political conversation. I mean, you'd have to go back and you'd have to say, look, the United States government has spent the last 70 years violently stopping Central American countries from setting up stable social democracies. is that any time there was a people-powered movement in any of those countries that moved remotely toward challenging the power of the oligarchs in those countries, the U.S.-backed oligarchs in that's country, we would fund death squads, we would massacre the population there, and we would prop up right-wing dictatorships up to the present day. You know, this is not exactly a policy that we've, that we've moved away from. You know, the U.S. was linked to the coup in Bolivia recently.

It was linked to the coup in Honduras in 2009. This is not distant, this is not distant history that we're talking about. And so if that's the history, then the answer is, well, okay, then the U.S. needs to offer people sanctuary from the problems that the U.S. has created. Like I said, that's not something that is remotely getting talked about in the American political system. And so it was predicted that if Trump lost, you would have a spike in border crossings, and particularly unaccompanied minors. And you're starting to see that. The problem that the U.S. system has is that it doesn't just simply unite those children with their family here in the U.S. because it has all of these draconian barriers thrown up because, you know, there's a decent chance that the person that they're trying to unite with is themselves undocumented.

And so that creates all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles. If they just treated themselves as kind of a humanitarian outposts, it said, here is a child that we have found in the desert who needs to find their family. And you say to the child, you know, who is your family who can help take care of you? The child will tell you. Here is a child. Here's who it is, here's what their number is, here's what their address is. And a benevolent government would say, okay, let us connect you with them. And you link and you reunite those families. That just basic Samaritan practice is such a radical concept that it's not something that either party is going to even contemplate. And so then the question becomes, okay, well, what kind of prison can we build for them? What kind of cage can we build for them?

And that's essentially what it is. I mean, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. You'll see literally like these glowing reports. And it's pretty disgusting because I see the same media pundits who had very brutal feedback for the Trump administration over the use of these types of facilities, now using the same kind of language that we heard from Laura Ingram when she was trying to refer to these facilities as fun summer camps. They're not fun summer camps. They're being detained. Luckily, this particular facility is not run by a for-profit prison, but it is not a licensed facility.

Since it's considered a temporary facility, it doesn't have to be licensed. And I think that that's incredibly problematic considering that we have children, children being kept there. But I love that you talked about the actual issue that's led to the symptoms that we're experiencing. now, right? Because look, there's certainly been a number of cases with the United States meddling in the, in other countries, destabilizing other countries, leading to crises in other countries, which of course leads to migrants looking for safety here. And then, of course, we have these draconian laws and, you know, bureaucratic hurdles, which prevent connecting these kids with their family members here in the United States. But, you know, when you look

at the Biden administration, he's certainly no better. One of the first things that he said in regard to foreign policy after he got elected was that he was unwilling to recognize the actual leader of Venezuela. And he mentioned Juan Guaido. He recognizes Juan Guido as the leader of Venezuela. The people of Venezuela don't consider him the leader. Like, what are you doing? You can't just pick and choose who leads any particular country. So it's just a continuation of a pattern that we've seen in regard to foreign policy with the United States. And then, yeah, you might not know the answer to this question. So I apologize for just bringing it up on you.

But I am curious, would Biden be able to unilaterally do something about this? Like, if he wanted to, could he bypass Congress and just do away with the hurdles in order to connect these kids with their family members in the United States? So I mean, what he could do fairly quickly would be to issue a memo saying that it's the policy of the United States that unaccompanied minors across the border will be united with family members in the United States as quickly as possible. And that that that policy, that effort is not remotely connected to any attempts to identify or deport. those family members. So you absolutely could do that. Like he could do that and you could take that 102 days and you could take it down to two days. And I think everybody would agree, if you find a child in a desert and they have to spend

a day in a facility before they get reunited with their family, great, that that's an actual decent use of government to benefit families. But beyond that, you know, but beyond that, You can't go anywhere near that. And I think anybody who wants to really understand this could Google an old Alexander Coburn article is like a satirical article, I think from like the 1980s that's in Harper's magazine. You can still find it online. And it's this satirical argument between a conservative and a liberal in the 1840s over

slavery. And the conservative is arguing, you know, why slavery is such a good thing. It's better for everybody involved. and the liberal is complaining about the conditions that the slaves are living under. And that they need better regulation, that they need to be fed better, they need to be treated better. And at the very end, an abolitionist comes in and says, well, we actually believe that one human being should not own another human being. And then they say, well, that's all the time we have for today. So thank you very much for showing up. And so that's the kind of debate that

that we're having now is like, you know, should the conditions that children are being caged in be better or should they or should they be awful? And sure, they should be better, but it's still putting children in cages. Yeah, you're exactly. Yeah, that's exactly right. And by the way, these temporary facilities, it's just, it makes, none of it makes sense. It's cruel, it's costly. You know, the argument that we hear from some of the more hardliners regarding immigration is that, well, you know, we have such limited resources and we can't just let anyone into the country. But for some reason, we seem to have absolutely no problem detaining both children and adult migrants for months and months at a time. This particular facility charges, I can't even believe how much this is, $775 a day per child, a temporary fee. facility costs that. And then the writs, like the writs that Cruz was going to take his family

to, that he did, that he did take his family to for his entire family. The Ritz in Cancun was going to be $309 a night for his whole family. I mean, how are you going to pass up that deal though, Ryan? Maybe we're being a little too hard on Ted Cruz, you know. Right. For twice that there was a facility right in his state that he that he could have gone to or that could have taken his children to at least. It's just, it's so depressing and so devastating. And look, for me and for anyone who's actually honest in the media, it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democrat who's utilizing these facilities or continuing these pretty awful immigration policies. If Biden is willing

to reopen a facility that Trump got a lot of backlash for, well, then Biden deserves the backlash as well. And I don't know why it is that liberals are so afraid to do the right thing when it comes to immigration. Who are they afraid of? Are they afraid of their own constituents coming after them? I mean, what does Biden have to lose by making the decision to connect these people, these children to their family members in the U.S. as quickly as possible? Like what is the, what's the loss politically? Do you think there is one? It's an interesting question.

And so, and part of it is a dated understanding of politics and goes back to, you know, to the 2000s when you saw this kind of anti-immigrant backlash. I think that today's kind of white suburban voter is much more sympathetic to immigration across the board than they were 10, 15 years ago. And so you could get away with that. A lot of working class black voters, like, have legitimately seen wages push down. Like, you know, you see these studies and they're real. And even if they're not real, there is a, there is certainly a perception among a lot of working class black voters that there is, and working class white voters, absolutely, but Democrats have kind of given up on them, that there is some sort of competition between immigration and wages. And so that is in the back of the mind of some of these

politicians as they're thinking about these issues. And when they're they're very worried about kind of the images at the border of like thousands of people coming across. And, you know, that's why Trump was so eager to elevate the, the, these different caravans that are like coming through Guatemala or Honduras or Mexico to try to try to scare people. It doesn't work as well as it used to, but it does, it does trigger in people this idea that there's somebody at the gates that's going to, that's going to uproot what, you know, that's going to uproot what, what they, what they have known and loved about their daily life. And so politicians don't like change. And, you know, and immigration represents change. So it,

It's really complicated for Democrats in that sense. And they haven't, you know, they haven't ever kind of fully leaned into it. They know, they, they, and I think people were a little bit confused about Democrats during the Trump era thinking like, oh, this is a pro immigrant. This is a left wing party because of how energetically and profusely they were attacking Trump over these policies. But no, they were they were hostile to Trump. And so you remove Trump, you remove Trump from that equation, and all of a sudden it, they revert back to some of their more, more nativist tendencies that they have. Yeah, it's incredible. You know, at the same time, Joe Biden has proposed immigration reform, which would indicate that there'd be a pathway if this passes.

And of course, I don't have much hope that it will, but he's proposing an eight year pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are undocumented in the United States right now. I feel like he put that proposal out simultaneously. It was, you know, as he's reopening this facility, you know, as he's kind of continuing on with some of the deportations that he promised to kind of scale back on, and then he comes out with this proposal, again, I don't think it's going to go anywhere, especially with some of the other pretty big economic proposals that are currently being debated in Congress right now. But this is an important story. So we'll definitely keep an eye on it for you

guys and fill you in as we learn more details. For now though, we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, New York Tannen is not the only person who's having a difficult time getting confirmed for Biden's cabinet. We have an update on Deb Holland, who was tapped by Biden to be the head of the Interior Department. So we'll just So we'll give you the details on what's happening with Holland and more. Stick around. We'll be right back. 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 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. Hey, guys, welcome to our first social break of the day. As you guys know, we've been doing more and more of these polls. And they're actually pretty fascinating just to learn where you guys fall on some of the issues

that we're debating and talking about. So one of the polls that we did recently was should New York states Democrats strip Cuomo of his emergency pandemic powers, there wasn't really much debate among you guys. 85.75% of you think that yes, Cuomo should be stripped of his emergency pandemic powers. Only a little more than 14% of you say no, no, let's just keep things the way that they are. So fascinating stuff, and you guys can always participate in our polls by going to t.yt.com slash polls. I don't know, Brett, like they need to update the doc because I have the Cuomo poll in front of me right now. So unless the doc's updated, I'm not going to be able to know what the results of that poll is. All right, I'm going to move on to comments. So

All right, so there's Neurotandin. Should Neurotan be confirmed? Only 8% of you say yes. And everyone else says no. So let's bring this back on Thursday when Jank is on the show. So we can discuss it together. All right, I'm going to read some of your comments. Effectos writes in and says, I can't, I can already hear Jen Saki's defense of the migrant facility, quote, but it's historic as it's now being run by a woman. I don't know if it's being run by a woman, but I would not be shocked of that kind of framing is used because it's already been used quite a bit. A very stable dragon writes in and says a prison is a prison, call it a facility forever. But if those in it can't leave, then they're prisoners, exactly. Someone who likes Bernie

Sanders also writes in and says, we can't be reflexively opposed to facilities like this just because they remind us of things that the Trump administration did. They're talking about kids coming across the border without adults. We can't send them back and we can't can't send them loose here, but they have family members here. Like, that's the whole point, right? Their parents aren't going to send them unaccompanied to the United States, knowing that they have no family members or anyone that they can, you know, be taken in with. Oftentimes they come in and there are sponsors here. The problem is there is a huge bureaucratic mess when it comes to connecting these children with their family members here in the states, keeping them in a facility

where they're forced to be, they're not really free there, I think is a huge problem. But I do respect your opinion. Thanks for sharing it. Skipover writes in and says, aren't we supposed to be trying to reunite these kids with their folks? Or is it that kids are coming across alone? The government is not separating them anymore, are we? No, I don't think we are separating the children for their families. That was something that, yeah, go ahead, right? Yeah, that's a key distinction, one that a lot of liberals would want to make. And I think, and it's an absolutely fair one. They're not, these are not children that were separated by deliberate policy from their parents. They came across the border. That's why they call them unaccompanied minors.

They came across alone. Yep, yep. All right, we got to get back to the show. But thank you for sharing your opinions, guys. I love it. We'll do more of these comments in the next social break. See you on the show. I'm going to be able to be. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian and Ryan Grimm with you. Now let's talk about some of the other confirmation hearings regarding Biden's cabinet picks. It's not just near a Tandon who's dealing with some problems. Unfortunately, someone who I'm actually very much in favor of could be running into some issues as well.

So Republicans are truly proving to be a pain in the ass when it comes to confirming Deb Holland, who was chosen by Joe Biden to lead the Interior Department. She's actually a wonderful pick, especially for this particular post, but they find her views against the use of fossil fuels extreme. They've used that wording. And now there are worries that even Senator Joe Manchin, someone who's been bought off by the fossil fuel company, companies could also stand in the way of her confirmation. So political reported that Holland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo, has been a sharp critic of fossil fuel development, a stance that has made her nomination among the more contentious of Biden's picks. And she may

also face tough questioning from the Democratic Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Joe Manchin, who is the most pro-fossil-Democrat. Gee, I wonder why. And let me be clear, Politico didn't get into details about this, but Joe Manchin has taken in a lot of money from fossil fuel companies. And that's what this story should be about. And I'll give you the specific details on that in just a minute. But the senators who are kind of giving her a tough time right now include Senator Cynthia Loomis, who is from Wyoming, blasted Holland's extreme views while Senators Danes and Barrasso called her radical. And Danes even suggested he would attempt to block her nomination altogether. And they cited her opposition to the Keystone XL

and Dakota access oil pipelines for why they find her to be an extremist. And as for Joe Manchin, here's what we learned through an NBC reporter who tweeted this. Senator Joe Manchin is undecided on Deb Holland's nomination for Interior Secretary. His spokeswoman Sam Runyon tells L.A. Caldwell, D.C., I don't know exactly who that is. Mansion and Holland have met to discuss her nomination via Zoom, but Mansion is said to have remaining questions. And, you know, if you're wondering what those remaining questions are or what could be fueling those remaining questions, it could have to do with this. Let's go to the last three graphics here. Mansion's primary campaign has already begun fundraising and clocked in with roughly $638,000 through the end of

of September, much of that cash came from PACs affiliated with oil and natural gas companies, including Valero Energy Corporation, natural fuel gas company, and DTE Energy, which have long supported Mansions' political career. I'm not done yet, there's more. Since 2010, the American Gas Association's PAC has donated $15,000 to Mansion, according to the FECC. In the same time frame, ExxonMobil's corporate PAC contributed $12,500 and the American Petroleum Institute contributed $10,000. Some of you might be thinking, well, that's not really that much money. But remember, it's not that, it doesn't take that much money to buy off these politicians. But there are some bigger figures here. For instance, PACs and individuals affiliated with First

Energy Corporation are together one of Mansions' biggest contributors and have given the senator $147,950 since 2009. The American Chemistry Council, whose members include companies like Shell and Exxon, spent $200,000 to support Mansion in his 2018 campaign. So, Ryan, I feel like no article I've read about this really got into the details about why Mansion would stand in the way of Holland getting confirmed for this post. But make no mistake about it, it's about the fossil fuel money, there's nothing else really standing in her way of getting confirmed here. But, you know, what do you make of this? And do you think that her nomination can be squashed the way that Neera Tandons has been? I mean, if it was squash, it would be squashed in a

slightly different way. You know, it wouldn't be, you know, because of, you know, who Nira had become online and references to her persona. It would be much more ideological and, you know, purely an assault by the fossil fuel industry on somebody that they perceive as an opponent. But yeah, the irony is that Deb Hylon is, yes, she's like in the mainstream of the, of the kind of Democratic Party at this point when it comes to to fossil fuels. Yes, she's against Keystone XL, she's against Dakota Access, so is so is the Biden administration. You know, this is where the party has moved. You know, people have kind of foisted on her this, this radical politics that comes from being, you know, the first Native American woman elected

to Congress and next to Cherise Davids. You know, she won her primary before Sheree Davis. Sheree Davids, you know, became a new dem. And so, you know, doesn't remotely compete for kind of the online energy. But Deb Halan throughout a lot of her political career was, was considered, you know, pretty much a mainstream Democrat in her home state. And so that really is going to make it a lot more complicated for a mansion to oppose her because then it raises the question of, well, what's going on here? Like she's only representing the mainline democratic national politics as we understand them at this point. So what is it about her that you're coming after? Now, one thing I think a lot of people should remember and might save them a lot of heartburn over the next several months is that,

When Manchin says that he's undecided, it means that he might blow everything up, but it also might just mean that he has some particular concessions that he's trying to extract from whatever situation that he's injecting himself into. And so what is it that he wants from the Interior Department? What does West Virginia want from the Interior Department? Generally it's probably coal-related stuff. And so, you know, while he's saying that he's undecided, He's definitely in regular communication with Halan about what particular issues he has in particular parts of West Virginia that he once resolved. And I think reporters and we'll monitor this, if she does get confirmed, we'll watch. Okay, what does West Virginia get out of the Interior

Department over the next few months? But that's what that's what politicians do. When they are And when they're able to position themselves as the key swing vote, then in order to cast their vote for somebody, they will say that they're undecided for weeks, they'll extract some big concession, and then they'll quietly vote yes, and then they'll quietly receive their concession. But then when it comes to reelection time, they'll remind all our voters, look what I did for you in this particular area with the Interior Department. It's just incredible. And you know, there are Republican senators right now who are furious over the fact that, you know,

Holland had tweeted something about how Republicans don't seem to believe in science. So the issue over tweets came up in her confirmation as well. But what always amazes me is how sensitive, not just Republican lawmakers, I mean, I think the Neurotandin tweets story really crystallized it for me and confirmed what I had already suspected that you have these lawmakers who are in these incredible positions of power, especially when you're talking about the U.S. Senate. And they're not worried about Neurotandin's conflicts of interest. As someone who was the head of the Center for American Progress and took in money from all sorts of clients that we find objectionable, they don't have a problem with that.

That's totally fine. But you hurt my feelings. Like Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't even matter. Why? I mean, I would prefer for the rejection or the, you know, the objection to be over ideological differences as opposed to my feelings were hurt. I don't like what you're tweeting. Who cares what they're tweeting unless what they're tweeting is, you know, a whole host

of conspiratorial claims, which by the way, some of these senators literally repeat conspiratorial claims during hearings. And we're gonna get to that story later, you know, with one Republican senator. But I mean, what do you make of all that? And does this set the tone moving forward when it comes to conduct online? Well, it's an interesting question. It's like, what are the ideological differences between a mansion and a near a tandem? Nira does, you know, fancy herself to be a member of the progressive wing of the party.

You know, she thinks that all the other progressives are wrong about everything that they do. And so, and she thinks that the Democratic Party needs to, you know, suffer conservatives like Mansion in order to maintain its majority. Over the years, though, what distinction actually is there then between somebody? Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now.

I get a free Tilly Dog. Not included. The Naked God. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Who, like Mansion, you know, supports, you know, a particular set of ideas and somebody like Tandon, who says, well, we have to support this particular set of ideas or else, you know, we won't be able to be in government.

I mean, functionally, functionally none. And so you see this amazing irony. of somebody who went to war with the progressive wing of the party in order to defend people like Joe Manchin and quite specifically Joe Manchin, and then to have her nomination upended by the person that she was defending and the person that she was going to war on his behalf. And then you have all of these other like ridiculous arguments thrown in. But like Susan Collins said, she was upset that Nira had deleted tweets. So like on the one hand, she gets nailed for the tweets. And then Susan Collins nails

her for deleting the tweets because she says that that is a violation of the transparency that everybody needs to uphold. And like you said, it's all a giant spectacle to distract from the fact that this is a game that each player is using for his or her, you know, own, own purposes. Like for Mansion, he had to hit back at the Biden administration A for voting for the, he's going to vote for the COVID relief package. So he feels like he needs to then, you know, do something mean to Democrats to show he's still, you know, independent of Democrats.

And Kamala Harris coming to West Virginia and appearing on the radio station, he could have said, hey, you're welcome to my state. But he didn't. He said, I wasn't told about this. He made a big public fuss about it. And so once he's made a public fuss about it, then he has to hit back by the rules of this machismo politics that they all play by. And so now he's looking around, okay, well, how can I how can I settle all of these different scores? And here comes Nira. And Nira presents this person. perfect opportunity because both Joe Biden and Joe Manchin and everybody in politics, even like in the middle of while they're like sacking the capital, are talking about the need for unity and for page, you know, chanting USA, you know, while they're, while they're like smashing the capital to pieces. Everybody rhetorically believes in, in this, in this spiritual notion. And so what they can say is like, look, you know, all of these tweets, they're just so, They're just so mean and, you know, we, we can't cotton this. This is not what we stand for.

And there we thought. This is so perfect. It's just so perfect. It really is. I mean, no, I can't stand Joe Manchin for a number of different reasons. But who would have thought that Joe Manchin would kind of be the hero in this very small, not even a small story? I mean, what you just mentioned about the COVID relief bill, I think you're right. I think he's going to end up voting in favor of the COVID relief bill.

I think that there's been a sufficient amount of pressure on him to do so. But he really wants to differentiate himself from others in the Democratic Party. And one way to do that while pushing this branding exercise of like, I do want unity is to reject near a tandon. So if we get a rejection of near a tandon and a yes vote on the coronavirus relief bill, great, fantastic. Fantastic political calculation. I'm all in. Finally, Joe Mansion does something right. Right. And for the left, for the left, it works out as long as Nero's replacement, you know, is in her lane or to her left. And, you know, the person that they're talking about, Gene Sperling for Office of Management and Budget, yes, he's like a Clinton wing person over the years, but he has very much drifted in a more progressive direction economically over the years. And so if Gene Sperling winds up as the OMB chief, rather than Bruce Reed, who was the original

alternative to Neera Tandon, then it really is a win-win. All right, well, let's cross our fingers. All right, well, let's move on to a late breaking story today that I absolutely love. So right now, the Senate is having hearings in regard to the riots that took place in the capital, and Republican Senator Ron Johnson decided that it was a perfect opportunity. to repeat the insane conspiracy theories that had been published on the Federalist in January. So this is an official Senate hearing on a very serious matter. And here you have Ron Johnson pulling up excerpts from a piece that was written by J. Michael Waller on the Federalist's website on January 14th.

It's full of contradictions, full of conspiracies, and here are some of the conspiracies that were repeated by Johnson during this hearing. Watch. Although the crowd represented a broad cross-section of Americans, mostly working class by their appearance and manner of speech, some people stood out. A very few didn't share the jovial friendly, earnest demeanor of the great majority. Some obviously didn't fit in. And he describes four different types of people, playing closed militants, agents provocateurs, fake Trump protesters, and then disciplined, uniform column of attackers. I think these are the people that probably We plan this. No, understand what he's doing there.

He is pushing the conspiracy theory that the violence that broke out, the individuals who breached the Capitol and then proceeded to vandalize and threaten the lives of lawmakers, they weren't actually Trump supporters, they were actually agent provocateurs who used the Trump rally that preceded the riot as cover to carry out their acts of violence. violence. I mean, it is absolute lunacy in the Senate. And he's proud of it. He's just repeating what was printed or published in the Federalist. We have the conspiracy theorists in Congress, guys. This isn't just about Newsmax or O-A-N. They're in Congress. There's more from that piece that I'll give you the details of. But Ryan, I wanted to give you a chance to jump in.

Yeah, Ron Johnson is a fascinating character. And you know, the most reactionary figures in American history have always been these, I don't want to call them small business owners because it's an insult to small business owners. But it's these business people who are kind of handed what they have and have money just flowing in and then have enough time on the side to be agreed. grieved by a bunch of different assaults from whether it's their family or whether it's from the government, and then to read up on different conspiracy theories, and then to continue to spiral further and further to the right. And you've been seeing this pattern from the like 1930s, like attempts to, you know, coup FDR up until today.

And Ron Johnson is just an absolute prototypical, like perfect character. of this genre. You know, he in the 1970s, when he got married, his father-in-law is a plastics magnate in Wisconsin and his father-in-law set up a brand new company and gave it to Ron Johnson and to his son, the two of them to run, and then made his giant plastics company the sole buyer of products from Ron Johnson's company. So from the 1970s until today, Ron Johnson has been, you know, has been running a company that had a guaranteed buyer, like a single payer, so to speak. You know, he absolutely, you know, could not fail. When he ran for Senate, he gave himself a loan

of $9 million out of his own checking account. Right after he won, his company paid, him $10 million. And when he was asked by the press, how did you come up with that $10 million figure? He said, well, I agreed to it. I came up with it. And he was pressed. There were all kinds of ethics questions because a private company cannot fund a senator's campaign. And if you have this kind of weird marriage of like a $9 million personal loan that is instantly paid out by the company after the election of $10 million. So not only did he break even, he made a million dollars by becoming a senator. And so he's had two terms now to continue to marinate in this reactionary soup that he's been raised in.

And I don't know what it is about this kind of arrangement that people have, but it creates kind of an insecurity and an anger and a bitterness. this, like, because he knows, like, he's not, because he didn't earn it. He can fool everybody else, but we, we know, like, anybody who Googles it knows, yeah, you've spent the last 50 years just moving things from here over to your father-in-law and taking money out of the middle and getting rich. And so, you know, you're selling a piece of your soul every time you do that. And so people fill their souls then sometimes with this, with this bile, with this, this, these ideas, these bizarre, like, uber libertarian ideas. And so it's no surprise that the most extreme

Randian nut job in the Senate is a guy who's just been living off the welfare of his father-in-law for the last 40s. 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 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. express VPN. 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. Years and probably had his company, if it, you know, by all appearances, pay for his, pay for his Senate run. And we've always had these people, but now there's, There's a lot more energy because there's so much more anger out there in the population. So that's how you can have somebody like him up on the dais just reading federalist conspiracies into the congressional record.

It is incredible. And Randian is the right word to use. I mean, these are the kinds of people who think they tell themselves all these pretty little lies about how they're just magical men and they're better than everyone else and they just have these incredible abilities and that's the reason why they're wealthy. But behind the scenes, they know. They know your daddy. You're not even your real daddy. Your father-in-law had to set something up for you. Like, it's so sad and pathetic. And apparently this is something that Senator Amy Klobuchar had expected because she said this. I knew Ron Johnson was going to be a problem. I'm not one bit surprised that he has again engaged in conspiracy theory. That's what he does. And by the way, that very same piece that he read excerpts from, I mean, It argues that the situation in the capital became violent because the capital police overreacted to the crowd. The capital police that was outmanned, the capital police, which one of them was killed that day by these rioters, but no, it was the capital police that overreacted and that's what led to all the violence that broke out. I mean, there's a reason why there's a sizable portion.

of Republican voters who are under the impression that the Capitol rioters were not actually Trump supporters. They were Antifa, which is weird because you would think that, you know, Antifa rioters wouldn't be wearing garb that Trump sells for his campaign or, you know, the Camp Auschwitz hoodie, which there's something about that hoodie that is seared in my memory and I can never forget about it. Because this man, we'll talk about him a little later, just felt comfortable enough to celebrate Auschwitz on his hoodie. But no, I'm sure, I'm sure that guy there is, you know, part of BLM. I'm sure that he's not a Trump supporter. I'm sure that he's not some right winger who showed up to the Capitol in an attempt to

overthrow the government because he didn't like the outcome of the election. I mean, these people, hundreds of them are now facing federal charges. And by the way, in almost every defense that I've read so far, they're blaming Donald Trump for inciting what occurred that day. We did it because Trump told us to. Right. And you know, and all of this is a function of the of the paranoia that's just so rampant on the right on the right wing today. You know, my, you know, my best friend growing up was there that day as one of the people. He didn't go into the into the capital. But, you know, that night he was texting me saying that there's a whole bunch of Antifa and a bunch of provocateurs in the crowd.

You know, this was, this was something that that day, the people who were, you know, storming the Capitol or surrounding the Capitol were telling each other. And it's, it's because it's kind of baked in to these Facebook and also, you know, sub-Facebook chats that they're all engaged in and sharing information in that, just, they're just so, they're just so ready to believe things that, that can't possibly be true. Because, you know, who was it that organized that, you know, as soon as you start to interrogate, it falls apart, who was it that organized the January 6th rally? Wasn't Antifa? Yeah, it was that Ali Alexander guy who's a huge Trump supporter and has been given like

multiple interviews about. I mean, the evidence is there. But we live in this political climate where people will tell themselves any and all lies necessary to believe what they want to believe, to just reinforce their preconceived notions and make themselves out to be the good guys. And when you live in this post-truth world, how do you ever move toward unity? I mean, it's just, it's a really frustrating situation. And unfortunately, they have U.S. senators like Ron Johnson empowering their lunacy. We got to take a break. But when we come back, we're not done with this story quite yet because Tucker Carlson is also empowering their lunacy.

We'll give you some of his claims and debunk them when we return. Oh, and so. Hey guys. I just wanted to give you a quick note about one of our partners, PureVPN. You should be using a VPN whenever you're online. It's a good way to protect yourself from hackers. It's also a great way to bypass any type of, you know, blocks that you might have when it comes to certain content, depending on which country you're watching the content from. That's one of the reasons why I use a VPN. Anyway, you can get a nice discount just because you're a TYT viewer. by going to purevpn.com slash TYT. You get a seven-day trial for just 99 cents.

Again, check that out by going to t-y-t.com slash purevpn. I'm going to scroll all the way over to our one. We just got one super chat comment. You guys should keep them coming in. All right. Peter Hamby writes in and says, opening migrant facilities while Texas is still dealing with power outages and energy companies bilking victims with four or five digit bills for utilities

people can't use, a disaster is guaranteed. Absolutely. In fact, one of the stories that didn't make it in the rundown today was the experience that inmates are facing right now or had been facing during the winter storm in Texas, just absolutely horrendous treatment, inhumane conditions. The conditions were inhumane already, but the power outages caused by the utility companies just made the situation far worse. We have insane sanity dragon. I like it, I like it, writing in saying we don't have the best country, we have the best theatrical presentation of democracy in the world, it's about time to make it real. Can't argue with that. Also, thank you to our new YouTube members, Fernando Cholometes, Leon Jay J. Jossi or Gossi, Jay Gossi, okay, and Brenda Dudley,

Thank you so much for being members. We really, really appreciate your support. And if you're watching us on YouTube, membership is an option for you as well. It's an easy way to help support our content. And you also get exclusive content for being a member as well. Mickey C writes in from our member section and says that Johnson did even worse than that. He claimed the mob was peaceful until cops used tear gas, that they were already angry at the rally, marched illegally, yelled hang Mike Penn. brought guns, Molotov cocktails, pipe bombs, bats, riot gear, and a gallows. Doesn't mean they weren't, doesn't mean they were violent. The conspiracy theorists are in Congress. Like, it's just, things have gotten so bad. Oh, my gosh. All right. Well, let me read from our Twitch section as well.

M.BZ, three months tier one. Thank you. Sarah Grace, six months prime. Laws, my mind, two months prime. Thanks for keeping it real. always, squirrel 1964, two months tier one, Sora say shin, four months prime, with the comment, thanks for always bringing a sane perspective. Thank you. That makes me feel good. Sometimes I feel insane with all the stories we cover, but I appreciate your support. For now, though,

we got to get back to the show. I'll see you guys there. I mean, you know, I'm going to Oh, Oh. Oh. Oh. Hey everyone, welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian and Ryan Grimm with you.

Everyone please check out Ryan's work over at The Intercept, where he serves as a DC bureau chief. And also read his book, We Got People. It helps you understand some of the decision making among democratic lawmakers, people like Nancy Pelosi. It's a really, really important book. And Ryan, every time I listen to the Intercept podcast now, deconstructed, you're hosting it. But I don't want to say that you're the host unless I know for sure. Are you the host? It's funny.

I am now the host. And Apple is such a just ridiculous monopoly that they just, you know, they'll get around to updating it when they get around to it. It was a podcast that was launched by Mehdi Hassan several years ago. You know, he has since moved on. He has his own show on Peacock now. So I've been hosting the podcast since August or so. But Apple, you know, they're, they run podcasts and they run their monopoly. And so they'll, they'll change the name of the host when they feel like it.

So yeah, I'm filling in, I'm filling in for Medi until then. Well, it's a great podcast. Lots of important conversations there. I really liked your conversation with Jayapal recently. You know, I think a lot of people have a lot of people don't know about how Congress works. There are all sorts of weird rules. And, you know, I think the process is important to understand that conversation was a great one. So everyone checked that out as well. So let's move on to some of the commentary coming from people like Tucker Carlson regarding the California. Capitol riots. And this is important because the Senate is having its hearings on this. So let's give you the details. Tucker Carlson has decided to ignore the overwhelming evidence indicating that white supremacist stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Was everyone involved a white supremacist? I don't know that for sure, but we certainly do know that the crowd consisted of quite a few white supremacists just based on what they were willing to say, what they were willing to wear and the violence they were willing to engage in. And so there were

racial slurs used toward black cops that were there. We have all this evidence to show you. But before we get to all of that, why don't we hear from Tucker Carlson, who is upset with the attorney general nominee Merrick Garland because he promised to supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol. Take a look. I supervise the prosecution of the perpetrators of the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government. If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6th,

a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government. That was Merrick Garland today. This confirmation hearings to be Joe Biden's next attorney general. Merrick Garland has a lot of reasonable friends who say he is a smart and moderate person. But that was not a moderate statement. He was dishonest, completely dishonest. Dishonest enough, you should be worried about it.

There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on January 6th. That's a lie. And contrary to what you've been hearing, there's also no evidence that this was a quote, armed insurrection. There's a lot of evidence that it was an armed insurrection, including the confiscation of weapons and pipe bombs that were found outside of the RNC and the DNC. There's other other evidence, though, but before I get to that, Ryan, I mean, is it even worth debunking his claims?

I mean, it's just, it's beyond frustrating and it's, I don't know what to do anymore. I mean, he's going to keep repeating these lies over and over again. Does it even make sense to debunk them? It was kind of a dishonest reading of what Garland said. He said, and you know, if Garland had said the storming of the Capitol by white supremacists, then you could have a conversation of whether or not calling everyone who stormed the Capitol a white supremacist is overly broad and is misunderstanding the nature of the conflict that happened. happened on January 6th. That's not what Garland said. Tucker played what Garland said.

Garland said white supremacists and others. Like he very consciously and specifically and explicitly added and others as a he an overly generous gesture toward the grievances of many of the people who stormed that capital. And so Carlson's response then is to pretend that he didn't say that and to just and to zero in on that. And then what if you notice what Tucker did is he pretends in a way that Garland also made some other claims that Tucker is now going to debunk. But but he but he doesn't he doesn't actually say that Garland made those claims because these are claims that he's just pulling pulling out of other other people who who have made them and then he goes on to argue with them. So, you know, he does this, he does this,

you know, I'm speaking truth to you, I'm being playing with you. But even with what he, what he presents to the viewers, somebody who was discerning would be like, wait a minute, well, that's not that's not what Garland said. Garland said white supremacists and others stormed the capital. And like you said, there's plenty of evidence that, you know, I think about this as an editor, You know, very, very specifically, can you prove the precise words that were said, white supremacists? Were there plural white supremacists? Yes, we know that there were from the statements of the people who stormed the capital. We can say with certainty that at least plural, white supremacists stormed the capital and others.

Many people could reasonably go quite a long distance beyond that, but that's not even what Garland did. I mean, let's, and I apologize to anyone who's disturbed by this image because it's disturbing to me. It's one of the reasons why I think about it all the time, but the image of the guy wearing the Auschwitz hoodie. Camp Auschwitz, and I think it says under that work, work will set you free. Sorry, my vision is not great and I don't wear my glasses when I should be, but yeah, exactly. I mean, it's just absolutely disgusting. Right, that's the phrase that's that was, that is over the entrance to Auschwitz. Work will set you free, right?

It's this famous saying of there. So there's one, you know, for the statement to be true, you define one more. And it's not, it's not going to be, it's not going to be hard and that's, and that's before you get into any of the other arguments that people would make. about, you know, the proud boys and everything that the proud boys stand for, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So it's like Tucker Carlson, I guess, doesn't have enough to cling on to. I mean, he knows, he knows. He has an interest in denying what's easy to prove. And I'm going to go to one more video here because this is Officer Dunn, Officer Harry Dunn, who's with the Capitol Police. He's a 13-year veteran with the Capitol Police, and he was there that day as the riots were taking place, and he shared his experience with ABC News.

Just take a listen to what he had to say about what he experienced. This is when Officer Dunn encountered a couple in the crowd who began hurling the most vile of racial slurs at him, a black officer. And his girlfriend, she had on a pink MAGA shirt. You say, hey, this voted for Joe Biden, guys. Hey, everybody, this voted for Joe Biden. They said, you So the crowd joined

Everybody. Everybody joined in with him. Real talk. When it registered you what had been said, you're a law enforcement officer. You're in the capital, defending the capital. And somehow race seeped into that too. Everybody wants to say that

It was about politics and everything, but it was a large number of people in that crowd that were racist. And during the Capitol, I'm sorry, the Senate hearings that are taking place in regard to the riots in the Capitol. Amy Klobuchar asked Capitol officials if white supremacists were present during the riots. And yeah, 100% yes was the answer. So again, there's overwhelming evidence. Tucker Carlson is, first of all, white supremacist himself based on the statements that he's made on his own show in the past regarding immigrants, regarding people of color, regarding Black Lives Matter.

I mean, he's just the most horrendous statements. But he's also pandering to an audience that he has, you know, has. really brought on to himself as someone who pushes these disgusting white supremacist ideas. He serves as an apologist for some of the violence that we've seen around the country perpetrated by white supremacists, including the violence that took place in the Capitol. And it's just, it's not a news network. What he does is not news, what he does isn't even analytical, you know, political commentary. What he does is he panders to the worst elements of our country, the worst elements of society,

and he continues to justify the types of violent actions that we see across the country toward people of color. And it's just disgusting and deplorable. We got to take a break. Sorry, did you want to say one more thing, Ryan, before we go? No, that's all right, that's all right. It would be too long. All right, well, let's take a break. When we come back for the second hour of the show today, We'll discuss a little bit about how the three Supreme Court justices that Trump was able to successfully confirm. They dealt him two massive blows recently. I can't wait to give you the details of that story and more when we return.

Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple. dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you soon